Older pilots and basic med

Greg Bockelman

Greg Bockelman

Touchdown! Greaser!
PoA Supporter
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
11,186
Location
Lone Jack, MO
Display Name
Display name:
Greg Bockelman
Wandering around Oshkosh yesterday I ran into a couple of guys I know that mentioned they were REQUIRED to get a third class every year. IOW, no basic med. Is this true?

If it IS true, at what age does that requirement kick in?
 
Not an FAA policy, but an insurance “thing”. I see pilots every day, couple weeks ago saw an 80 yo CFII, was instructing in her Warrior under BM. She and her younger husband bought a V35 and insurance company said if she wants to fly it she needs an ANNUAL C3. i see lots of older pilots flying higher performance aircraft under Part 91, the insurance companies are requiring annual C2’s. 74 year old PP just moved up to a Honda Jet, his insurance company requires a Class 1 (every 6 months obviously).

That’s the concern about the FAA expanding BM to bigger and faster aircraft, insurance companies are going to have their own rules so if you‘re 70 something and want to fly your P Baron, you’re gonna need a C2 or C1, not a C3, def not BM.
 
DFH65 said:
Great idea, force people to fly without insurance.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what is happening. AOPA has been on top of this and it's about to get fixed!

*OK* - No they aren't, and no it's not ... :(
 
It would be nice if people would start naming and shaming these insurance companies.
 
yes, this is slowly happening. Insurance companies are dictating what they want. FAA allows you to fly - but that doesnt necessarily mean the insurance companies will adhere or allow it for them. Its a risk mitigation strategy for all intents and purposes. They (not all, but many) are moving in this direction - particularly with certain categories of planes. Obviously the Cessna 172 will probably be last, but if you have a pressurized plane - its almost guaranteed to need a C3 or better. And its rapidly going to complex (retractable gear) also needing that for some. And many older pilots, insurance companies just dont want to be in the retractable business and after a certain age - they will no longer insure you.
 
Mooneymayhem said:
It would be nice if people would start naming and shaming these insurance companies.
Click to expand...
Why are we shaming companies for doing what they are supposed to do ? As in risk mitigation.

On top of that - there are so few insurance companies out there as it is - and dropping like flies - shaming them will not increase that number. So you want to make this market even less competitive and more selective in who, what and how they insure pilots/planes ? Not so sure this is a good idea. . . .
 
Anthem said:
Why are we shaming companies for doing what they are supposed to do ? As in risk mitigation.

On top of that - there are so few insurance companies out there as it is - and dropping like flies - shaming them will not increase that number. So you want to make this market even less competitive and more selective in who, what and how they insure pilots/planes ? Not so sure this is a good idea. . .
Click to expand...

Anthem said:
Why are we shaming companies for doing what they are supposed to do ? As in risk mitigation.

On top of that - there are so few insurance companies out there as it is - and dropping like flies - shaming them will not increase that number. So you want to make this market even less competitive and more selective in who, what and how they insure pilots/planes ? Not so sure this is a good idea. . . .
Click to expand...
I used the term "name and shame" simply as an expression to identify the companies that adopt these policies. I believe a business or company is free to do business with anyone and how they choose BUT as a business owner, if enough prospective clients tell me, "I would've used you for Service A but you don't offer Services B and C" I'd probably start paying attention.
 
Mooneymayhem said:
I used the term "name and shame" simply as an expression to identify the companies that adopt these policies. I believe a business or company is free to do business with anyone and how they choose BUT as a business owner, if enough prospective clients tell me, "I would've used you for Service A but you don't offer Services B and C" I'd probably start paying attention.
Click to expand...
And Im telling you- there is a whopping 11 companies that write aviation insurance right now. And many of them wont write in this category, or that category. its unbelievably tight as it is - ask anyone. So trust me when I say that trying to shame an insurance company for doing whats right for them - isnt going to help the marketplace. . . People will know really rapidly when the broker comes back and says - this underwriter does not accept BM. They are all familiar with it - and know who will or wont.
 
Anthem said:
And Im telling you- there is a whopping 11 companies that write aviation insurance right now. And many of them wont write in this category, or that category. its unbelievably tight as it is - ask anyone. So trust me when I say that trying to shame an insurance company for doing whats right for them - isnt going to help the marketplace. . . People will know really rapidly when the broker comes back and says - this underwriter does not accept BM. They are all familiar with it - and know who will or wont.
Click to expand...
What part of "I used the term name and shame simply as an expression" did you not understand?
 
"doing whats right for them" - how about doing what is right for the customer?

of course, those companies that require a third class medical should offer lower rates, right?
 
Bob Noel said:
"doing whats right for them" - how about doing what is right for the customer?

of course, those companies that require a third class medical should offer lower rates, right?
Click to expand...
I mean, yes, exactly. Insurance is a pretty hard business to try to screw the customer over in, because it's a pure risk and margin business, so it's incredibly easy for somebody else to "jump in" to the market space if you're trying to screw over a customer base.

If the medical requirement for older pilots in fancier airplanes is unwarranted, get a few investors together, offer to insure those people, insure them, and profit. If there are no investors, that's because they think you'll lose money on that population of pilots.
 
mcmanigle said:
I mean, yes, exactly. Insurance is a pretty hard business to try to screw the customer over in, because it's a pure risk and margin business, so it's incredibly easy for somebody else to "jump in" to the market space if you're trying to screw over a customer base.

If the medical requirement for older pilots in fancier airplanes is unwarranted, get a few investors together, offer to insure those people, insure them, and profit. If there are no investors, that's because they think you'll lose money on that population of pilots.
Click to expand...
This^^^

I hear the "we should start our own insurance company" line often...good luck! If there was money to be made with normal risk, companies would offer insurance for these old guys....problem is, nobody wants to tell grandpa he shouldn't be flying anymore, and even if most of advanced age are a normal risk, the some ruin the stats for the most.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
....they were REQUIRED to get a third class every year.
Click to expand...


I can understand the insurance companies wanting to manage their risk. That's the nature of their business. What I don't understand is their apparent ignorance of the evidence showing Basic Med has about the same chance of medical incapacitation as Class 3.

Why not just require Basic Med every year? Why does it have to be Class 3?
 
Yep. It’s a basic lack of actuary knowledge. Everyone thinks it’s like from a black hole. They can keep paying out because they have massive profits somewhere. But literally it’s a large numbers actuary exercise. And the tolerances are quite small - so the ongoing concern has to balance the books year by year and handle the differences and changes in losses over the long term (like handing statistical anomalies).

But for whatever reason - people think that insurance companies are just a massive black hole that they can keep paying out. Like some entity is printing money back there. Lol.
 
Half Fast said:
I can understand the insurance companies wanting to manage their risk. That's the nature of their business. What I don't understand is their apparent ignorance of the evidence showing Basic Med has about the same chance of medical incapacitation as Class 3.

Why not just require Basic Med every year? Why does it have to be Class 3?
Click to expand...
Honestly think about it. If you were an insurance company - which one is going to generate less risk for you ? However flawed you think the FAA medical process is - it’s going to eliminate a lot of the “issue” pilots. Even if the numbers currently don’t substantiate that - it could literally be because the FAA has blocked a lot of issues from even getting to basic med. if I was the insurance carrier I would do the same - especially if the rest of the industry is also.
 
These are the same genius insurance companies that charge you MORE if you keep a tail dragger on grass than on pavement. Ask me how I know.
 
Anthem said:
Honestly think about it. If you were an insurance company - which one is going to generate less risk for you ? However flawed you think the FAA medical process is - it’s going to eliminate a lot of the “issue” pilots. Even if the numbers currently don’t substantiate that - it could literally be because the FAA has blocked a lot of issues from even getting to basic med. if I was the insurance carrier I would do the same - especially if the rest of the industry is also.
Click to expand...


Nope. Ain't buyin' it.

The FAA boasts that something over 99% of medical applications are eventually approved, many after great expense and inconvenience. The FAA's own study shows that Basic is just as safe as Class 3, yet Basic attracts those who would have a tough time getting a Class 3.

Regarding
it could literally be because the FAA has blocked a lot of issues from even getting to basic med.
Click to expand...

Okay, let's assume that's true. (I don't believe it, but let's assume.) So what? Why shouldn't the insurance company be happy with Basic, knowing that the FAA has "blocked a lot of the issues?"

Bottom line - there are something like 80,000 pilots using Basic Med, and their record is as good as the Class 3 group. That's a statistically significant number of pilots by any reasoning. It makes zero sense to me that, if the insurance companies are happy with an annual Class 3, they shouldn't be equally happy with an annual Basic Med.
 
Half Fast said:
Bottom line - there are something like 80,000 pilots using Basic Med, and their record is as good as the Class 3 group. That's a statistically significant number of pilots by any reasoning. It makes zero sense to me that, if the insurance companies are happy with an annual Class 3, they shouldn't be equally happy with an annual Basic Med.
Click to expand...
I ain't buying it either. Seems to me there was another thread here showing that in many cases the Basic Med exam was more thorough than some of the C3's ...
 
Half Fast said:
I can understand the insurance companies wanting to manage their risk. That's the nature of their business. What I don't understand is their apparent ignorance of the evidence showing Basic Med has about the same chance of medical incapacitation as Class 3.

Why not just require Basic Med every year? Why does it have to be Class 3?
Click to expand...
I suspect it’s not “medical incapacitation” but general “pilot error” for lack of a better phrase. IDK the statistics for “damages paid” with pilot error events, but I assume it’s a lot more than for the occasional pilot incapacitation. TBH, I think “medical” causes for aircraft accidents are pretty insignificant compared to poor judgement, sloppy maintenance, weak flying skills, bad luck, weather and alcohol / drugs (which I admit you could lump drug and alcohol under “medical”). The last couple “incapacitation” events that I’ve heard of were not being flown under Part 91 anyway.

it may be that insurance companies aren’t totally convinced BM = FAA Medical. But they don’t want the bad publicity of being anti-BM and figure allowing BM with their insured, even if it did increase their risk, is just the “cost of doing business.” Or maybe they are, but their research shows medical factors causing accidents leading to payouts is / is not significant, and as long as your flying a simple airplane, with a few passengers, it’s all good. Step up to bigger, faster, turbine, retract, pressurized, multi then it’s “not so fast” maybe we want a little more say so in your medical condition.


Most of the pilots flying the higher end stuff can afford the insurance, they buy insurance to protect their assets (and loved ones), just like the rest of us.

eta - TLDR the majority of serious accidents I’ve seen in my area for the last 30 years had almost zero to do with medical factors and everything to do with poor judgement, poor skills, weather (can be judgement related), poor maintenance (again judgement related) or really bad luck. Most of those pilots had a valid Medical in their pocket.
 
Last edited:
Half Fast said:
I can understand the insurance companies wanting to manage their risk. That's the nature of their business. What I don't understand is their apparent ignorance of the evidence showing Basic Med has about the same chance of medical incapacitation as Class 3.

Why not just require Basic Med every year? Why does it have to be Class 3?
Click to expand...
Because that's not true. Congress never appropriated the money to create the proper analysis of the 5 year BAsic Med Data. All the "pro" forces say absence of data is the same thing. Not So.

When the big money guys bets on your performance, who are they going to bet on? Some 75 year old, or some 55 year old.

YGBKM.
 
aopa.org

FAA report validates BasicMed safety

An FAA report submitted to Congress (as required) on March 10 reviewed three years of general aviation data and concluded that the BasicMed program is safe.
aopa.org

The study team assembled to fulfill the FAA obligation to report the results of BasicMed implementation to Congress included representatives from the FAA’s Flight Standards Service, the Office of Aerospace Medicine, and the Office of Accident Investigation and Prevention. Their review found no differences in safety when comparing private pilots flying with BasicMed medical qualification to private pilots who obtain third class medical certificates.
Click to expand...

 
Daleandee said:
aopa.org

FAA report validates BasicMed safety

An FAA report submitted to Congress (as required) on March 10 reviewed three years of general aviation data and concluded that the BasicMed program is safe.
aopa.org



Click to expand...
Yeah but the had no formal reporting system for no Part 67 events. Sure looks good. But no underpinnings. Another unfunded mandate by our legislature. AOPA' report glosses over that....as if they're an "uninterested party".
 
bbchien said:
Yeah but the had no formal reporting system for no Part 67 events. Sure looks good. But no underpinnings. Another unfunded mandate by our legislature. AOPA' report glosses over that....as if they're an "uninterested party".
Click to expand...

As of April 2020, the BRAWG found that approximately 46,000 airmen were registered to obtain Basic Med qualifications. Of the 46,000 airmen, more than 18,000 airmen whose medical certificates had expired for six months or longer utilized Basic Med to satisfy medical requirements. Further, the FAA study found no difference in accident risk between flights conducted by pilots operating under Basic Med and flights conducted by pilots holding third-class medical certificates.
Click to expand...

 
DFH65 said:
These are the same genius insurance companies that charge you MORE if you keep a tail dragger on grass than on pavement. Ask me how I know.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Some outright locating on grass strips. And it’s inherently safer to be on pavement than dealing with the unknowns on grass strips.

As for questioning insurance actuarial practices - they are in this with all the data. So they are going to make more sensical financial decisions that mitigate their risk. If it wasn’t an issue and BM was “just as safe” and age wasn’t a factor - guess what - they all would underwrite that business.
 
Anthem said:
Absolutely. Some outright locating on grass strips. And it’s inherently safer to be on pavement than dealing with the unknowns on grass strips.

As for questioning insurance actuarial practices - they are in this with all the data. So they are going to make more sensical financial decisions that mitigate their risk. If it wasn’t an issue and BM was “just as safe” and age wasn’t a factor - guess what - they all would underwrite that business.
Click to expand...
Anthem said:
Absolutely. Some outright locating on grass strips. And it’s inherently safer to be on pavement than dealing with the unknowns on grass strips.

As for questioning insurance actuarial practices - they are in this with all the data. So they are going to make more sensical financial decisions that mitigate their risk. If it wasn’t an issue and BM was “just as safe” and age wasn’t a factor - guess what - they all would underwrite that business.
Click to expand...

As a former senior executive with one of the world's largest GA insurors, let me tell you how surprised you would be how little hard actuarial data is used in pricing risk. BOGSAT rules the day. Why? The numbers are just too small, considering there are only 200+k or so registered aircraft in the US., a significant portion never fly, and the overwhelming remainder are single engine fixed gear, most of which owners of whatever age will have no problem getting coverage with a Basic Med.

I can remember when we first moved into insuring homebuilts, the underwriters were convinced the ground would be littered with them, and priced accordingly. Didn't happen.

And they are using the same strategy with complex/hp singles and BM.
 
I am a little surprised that they don't define a "flight review" specifically for their purpose and require it from "approved"
CFIs on a frequent basis. TT last 12 months seems so ridiculously inadequate as a measure of competence.
 
bbchien said:
Because that's not true. Congress never appropriated the money to create the proper analysis of the 5 year BAsic Med Data. All the "pro" forces say absence of data is the same thing. Not So.

When the big money guys bets on your performance, who are they going to bet on? Some 75 year old, or some 55 year old.

YGBKM.
Click to expand...
The 75 year old with an instrument rating and 2500 hours accident-free in the hp/complex aircraft he's owned for 25 years with Basic Med, or the 55 year old vfr only pilot with 150 hours total time newly transitioned to his hp/complex with a class 3?

I'd go with door #1.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
The 75 year old with an instrument rating and 2500 hours accident-free in the hp/complex aircraft he's owned for 25 years with Basic Med, or the 55 year old vfr only pilot with 150 hours total time newly transitioned to his hp/complex with a class 3?

I'd go with door #1.
Click to expand...
You can twist things however you want but cmon - let’s at least keep something the same so that you are comparing similar things. If we twisted your examples

75 year old with instrument rating and 2500 hours. 55 year old instrument and 2500 hours.
Which one is insurance going to take ? Door #2

75 year old vfr only pilot with 150 hours and newly transitioning to HP/complex.
55 year old vfr only with 150 hours and newly transitioning to HP/complex.
Which one is insurance going to take ? Again door #2. Outside that insurance is shying away from HP/complex without instrument these days

Your examples - applied equally.

Now let’s reverse it
75 year old vfr only pilot with 150 hours and newly transitioning to HP/complex.
55 year old with instrument and 2500 hours
Which one is insurance going to take ? Again door #2.

But this digresses from the original topic of basic med or not and is more about aging pilots.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
The 75 year old with an instrument rating and 2500 hours accident-free in the hp/complex aircraft he's owned for 25 years with Basic Med, or the 55 year old vfr only pilot with 150 hours total time newly transitioned to his hp/complex with a class 3?

I'd go with door #1.
Click to expand...
Not your money and not your call, Chip.
As with the impossibility of getting homeowners' + flood + fire + hurricaine insurance in FL and in Cal.....the gusy with the big Money are "making the call".

You can always go bare.....just like the guys who say they are FORCED" to get 3rd class medicals. They can always go bare.
 
Half Fast said:
What I don't understand is their apparent ignorance of the evidence showing Basic Med has about the same chance of medical incapacitation as Class 3.
Click to expand...
It's not just medical incapacitation. Our local AME was still flying (and had a class 2 medical) into his nineties. He finally hung up his wings after a couple of taxiing accidents (no injuries) in his Bonanza after a long accident free flying career. Not listed as medical incapacitation, but age was certainly a factor. He kept his office in the back of his hanger for another year or so, died a couple of years later.
 
Half Fast said:
I can understand the insurance companies wanting to manage their risk. That's the nature of their business. What I don't understand is their apparent ignorance of the evidence showing Basic Med has about the same chance of medical incapacitation as Class 3.

Why not just require Basic Med every year? Why does it have to be Class 3?
Click to expand...
Because a Class 3 has to originate from an FAA designated AME vs a chiropractor.
 
bbchien said:
Not your money and not your call, Chip.
As with the impossibility of getting homeowners' + flood + fire + hurricaine insurance in FL and in Cal.....the gusy with the big Money are "making the call".

You can always go bare.....just like the guys who say they are FORCED" to get 3rd class medicals. They can always go bare.
Click to expand...

But that's not what they do, Bruce.

Perfectly healthy and competent pilots say "Insurance says I can't fly my own plane anymore without risking my family finances? Screw this." Then throw in the towel and leave aviation and buy a boat.
Not a good outcome for anyone involved in the industry, not even your guys with the big money.

Kind of ironic the FAA hands out the Wright Bros. Master Pilot Award for 50 years safe aviation just about the time the insurance companies want to cancel you for being unsafe.
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
Not your money and not your call, Chip.
As with the impossibility of getting homeowners' + flood + fire + hurricaine insurance in FL and in Cal.....the gusy with the big Money are "making the call".

You can always go bare.....just like the guys who say they are FORCED" to get 3rd class medicals. They can always go bare.
Click to expand...

your are comparing apples and colors.

Experiencing a hurricane in FL is not a risk, it's a certainty.

Experiencing fire and floord and earthquake in CA isn't a risk, it's a certainty.

ok, sure, a certainty is technically just a risk with a 100% probability of occuring.
 
Half Fast said:
I can understand the insurance companies wanting to manage their risk. That's the nature of their business. What I don't understand is their apparent ignorance of the evidence showing Basic Med has about the same chance of medical incapacitation as Class 3.

Why not just require Basic Med every year? Why does it have to be Class 3?
Click to expand...
Maybe for the same reason my AME, who lives for aviation and pilots, stopped doing Basic Med exams. In his words, everyone coming to him for Basic Med had an issue with getting a 3rd Class.

Sure, there are some folks who do it just because they hate the FAA, but even around here, the advice to go on Basic Med is often given to people from whom obtaining a 3rd Class would be difficult or impossible. That could be for reasons that we consider arbitrary or capricious, but how's an insurance company going to distinguish between the pilot who just hates the FAA from the pilot who hunts down a DOT clinic where the doc doesn't know or care what conditions the FAA considers disqualifying?

We've even had discussions here about how conditions that disqualify you from a 3rd Class don't necessarily disqualify you from Basic Med. The insurance companies know that too. You're going to say it doesn't matter because those conditions don't make you any less safe to operate. But you (and the insurance company) don't know that for every such condition, nor do you know which condition(s) every Basic Med holder has.

Insurance is risk transfer in exchange for a premium. The insurer gets to set the terms on which it will accept the risk. The insured gets to decide if those terms are better than self insuring. Pilots who complain that a lack of insurance is keeping them on the ground are really saying they're unwilling or unable to meet the insurance company's terms AND are unwilling or unable to self insure on better terms.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top