Warning: Insurance renewal and medical type

Classes 1 and two are assuredly not the equivalent of class 3, they are by nature different examinations, and involve the exercise of the priveledges for hire.
What's the difference between class 2 & 3 examinations? I've had both and the only thing I'm aware of is that I'm 1 & 2 near vision is tested. Other than an EKG, what's the difference in a class 1 exam?

The primary difference between the classes is how often they're conducted.
 
What's the difference between class 2 & 3 examinations? I've had both and the only thing I'm aware of is that I'm 1 & 2 near vision is tested. Other than an EKG, what's the difference in a class 1 exam?

The primary difference between the classes is how often they're conducted.
You just said it. EKG and near vision, as well as frequency. Therefore, they are not the equivalent of class 3 or Basic Med.

That's not to make a qualitative judgement without numbers, but they are different on their face.

The Class 3 and Basic Med are the same by virtue of checklist of what is being examined. The difference is the examiner, both of whom are required to be state licensed physicians, one is a designated representative of the FAA.
 
You just said it. EKG and near vision, as well as frequency. Therefore, they are not the equivalent of class 3 or Basic Med.

That's not to make a qualitative judgement without numbers, but they are different on their face.

The Class 3 and Basic Med are the same by virtue of checklist of what is being examined. The difference is the examiner, both of whom are required to be state licensed physicians, one is a designated representative of the FAA.

They arent. The difference in class 2 vs 3 is that 2 requires correctable 20/20. Class 3 only needs to be correctable 20/40. You keep saying class 3 and BM is equivalent. it isnt. Even Dr Chien has said it is not equivalent. And you cant fly the same planes with BM vs class 3. BM is much less strict - not only in terms of ease, but also in terms of renewability, and adherence. It is not equivalent as much as you want it to be. Congress made it, but the FAA really wants nothing to do with this. This wasnt drafted by them, approved by them, or accepted by them.

Look, I get it that you want so hard for them to be equivalent. But they arent. You're limited in where you can fly, what you can fly, and how you can fly it. How is that equivalent ? then you make an argument about whats "appropriate" for basicMed - but even that doesnt hold water. And if they were equivalent - then insurance and others wouldnt discriminate between the two.
 
They arent. The difference in class 2 vs 3 is that 2 requires correctable 20/20. Class 3 only needs to be correctable 20/40. You keep saying class 3 and BM is equivalent. it isnt. Even Dr Chien has said it is not equivalent. And you cant fly the same planes with BM vs class 3. BM is much less strict - not only in terms of ease, but also in terms of renewability, and adherence. It is not equivalent as much as you want it to be. Congress made it, but the FAA really wants nothing to do with this. This wasnt drafted by them, approved by them, or accepted by them.

Look, I get it that you want so hard for them to be equivalent. But they arent. You're limited in where you can fly, what you can fly, and how you can fly it. How is that equivalent ? then you make an argument about whats "appropriate" for basicMed - but even that doesnt hold water. And if they were equivalent - then insurance and others wouldnt discriminate between the two.

This is quoted directly from policy language from a previous post.

"The pilot flying the aircraft must maintain a valid pilot certificate (including the appropriate ratings) and valid medical certificate as required by the Federal Aviation Administration or its approved equivalent."

Insurance company language. Equivalent.

So how is it an equivalent isn't an equivalent, if the aircraft is operated within the confines of the certificate? Need I draw a Venn diagram?

You think just because an insurance company discriminates 8n the face of contradicting data, it's a valid judgement. I strongly disagree.

I'll just leave it at that.
 
So how is it an equivalent isn't an equivalent, if the aircraft is operated within the confines of the certificate? Need I draw a Venn diagram?

You think just because an insurance company discriminates 8n the face of contradicting data, it's a valid judgement. I strongly disagree.
fwiw - I asked my broker specifically what this means and further, if I am insured to fly the aircraft under BasicMed.

Based on the wording of this [ASEL] policy, it would be surprising if BasicMed were not covered.

On my other [AMEL] policy [different carrier], the wording seems pretty specific to require a medical certificate and hence not likely BasicMed. But just for fyi, I asked my broker on that one also.

Right now I have no plans to fly under BasicMed however I had planned to pickup BasicMed at my next regular annual with my general Doc (assuming they agree) if I could do it easy with no fuss. I could then use it as a backup in case my medical expires (for whatever reason) before I have my AME appt to renew. So, it will be good info to hear directly from my broker what they say.
 
This is quoted directly from policy language from a previous post.

"The pilot flying the aircraft must maintain a valid pilot certificate (including the appropriate ratings) and valid medical certificate as required by the Federal Aviation Administration or its approved equivalent."

Insurance company language. Equivalent.

So how is it an equivalent isn't an equivalent, if the aircraft is operated within the confines of the certificate? Need I draw a Venn diagram?

You think just because an insurance company discriminates 8n the face of contradicting data, it's a valid judgement. I strongly disagree.

I'll just leave it at that.


It isnt. Your making a broad assumption that you think by intentionally not saying BasicMed - that it means BasicMed. Because if that was the case - they would have just come out and said BasicMed. . . You are conflating the two because thats what you want.

And you conveniently left out what someone else basically said as well - that it probably applies to the outliers like the military "equivalent", not just not mentioning basicMed. . .

And I have a clause from London in the past that the verbiage goes something like "prior to solo in XXXX, XXXX must have obtained a 3rd class or better medical with an Aviation Medical Examiner". . .

Trust me when I say they rejected BasicMed and threatened to cancel the policy. So 3rd class medical and BasicMed are not equivalent.

And just so you know, the FAA does not consider Basicmed to be a medical certificate. The exact legislature wording is that "BasicMed permits certain pilots, flying certain aircraft, to conduct certain operations, without holding a current medical certificate." Thats not equivalent.

Its also not valid except for the USA, Bahamas and Mexico - No canada, no rest of the Caribbean, or other parts of central america.
 
Last edited:
On my other [AMEL] policy [different carrier], the wording seems pretty specific to require a medical certificate and hence not likely BasicMed. But just for fyi, I asked my broker on that one also.

But using Chips's faulty logic - even if it doesnt say equivalent - if it says Class 3, if they are equivalent, and you have BasicMed then you are covered. Which just isnt the case. And good luck with that when they specifically say they require an actual medical certificate. Dont want to be in that boat when its sinking.
 
Show me numbers that prove that the Basic Med aviators present a statistically higher risk by virtue of their medical certification than those who hold a CL3.
The statistic that needs to be shown to make a change is that Basic Med aviators DON‘T present a statistically higher risk. And much like many statistics in aviation, they probably don’t exist to the satisfaction of the underwriters simply because it’s a small enough population that it’s not worth the cost to do the study.
 
This is quoted directly from policy language from a previous post.

"The pilot flying the aircraft must maintain a valid pilot certificate (including the appropriate ratings) and valid medical certificate as required by the Federal Aviation Administration or its approved equivalent."

Insurance company language. Equivalent.
no… “approved equivalent.” Not your definition of equivalent, my definition, or anyone else’s here…only the equivalents that have been specifically approved by the insurance company.
 
Some data would be nice. Anybody out there got their claim denied on the basis of flying under BM? For an alleged 66,000+ strong cohort as of 2021, you'd think someone would have got stiffed by one of the 4 major underwriters of this sclerotic little hobby by now.
 
fwiw - My broker responded really fast. He agreed that my ASEL policy [the wording of which I provided previous in this thread] does cover BasicMed while my AMEL policy does not cover BasicMed. Further, he said that BasicMed is being accepted by almost all the companies now. He also said that due to increased losses by pilots flying under BasicMed that he would expect there to be changes in the future as regards insurance coverage of BasicMed.
 
Again, the issue isn't basic med, or even the underwriter's decision to insure or not insure after a certain age. The issue is what observable and verifiable change occurs at age 70 that makes an individual class 3 holder less of a risk than the same holder of a basic med cert at age 69 to the point of withdrawing the offer of coverage?

If it's a matter of requiring a pilot to see a doctor annually for a basic med recertify, then that is fair. My problem is with coercing the same guy back into the Federal system annually, where he would be less likely to seek treatment for a condition, is without real benefit.

I contend there is none, and if it is age alone that is discriminatory.

FWIW, a Class 3 is only valid outside the US and Canada in an N-registered aircraft. So is it the N registration that magically prevents incapacitation?
 
Again, the issue isn't basic med, or even the underwriter's decision to insure or not insure after a certain age. The issue is what observable and verifiable change occurs at age 70 that makes an individual class 3 holder less of a risk than the same holder of a basic med cert at age 69 to the point of withdrawing the offer of coverage?

If it's a matter of requiring a pilot to see a doctor annually for a basic med recertify, then that is fair. My problem is with coercing the same guy back into the Federal system annually, where he would be less likely to seek treatment for a condition, is without real benefit.

I contend there is none, and if it is age alone that is discriminatory.

FWIW, a Class 3 is only valid outside the US and Canada in an N-registered aircraft. So is it the N registration that magically prevents incapacitation?
Are you an attorney?
 
Again, the issue isn't basic med, or even the underwriter's decision to insure or not insure after a certain age. The issue is what observable and verifiable change occurs at age 70 that makes an individual class 3 holder less of a risk than the same holder of a basic med cert at age 69 to the point of withdrawing the offer of coverage?
Where did the age issue enter into it?
 
Could you elaborate on that a bit?
I would if I could. Unfortunately all I have is what he told me. Bear in mind that he is an aircraft insurance broker [and pilot] with many years of experience however he is neither an insurance company nor an underwriter. So take that for what it is.
 
I would if I could. Unfortunately all I have is what he told me. Bear in mind that he is an aircraft insurance broker [and pilot] with many years of experience however he is neither an insurance company nor an underwriter. So take that for what it is.


First I've heard of "increased losses by pilots flying under BasicMed." I'd sure love to see some data on that.
 
First I've heard of "increased losses by pilots flying under BasicMed." I'd sure love to see some data on that.
I’m guessing you’d have to be at least a shareholder to have access to that data, and probably not even then.
 
I’m guessing you’d have to be at least a shareholder to have access to that data, and probably not even then.

If it were so, you'd think the FAA's data would reflect it, but so far it doesn't seem that it does.
 
No, but they concern themselves with aviation mishaps, and every claim has a mishap for its beginning.
But the majority are not required to be reported. I have direct knowledge of probably a couple dozen aviation insurance claims over the last 35 years, 3 of which fell under required reporting criteria. Most of them involved phrases like, “I was taxiing from the hangar to the pumps,” “I was towing the airplane,” or “when I walked away from the airplane.”
 
Last edited:
Most of them involved the phrase, “I was taxiing from the hangar to the pumps,” “I was towing the airplane,” or “when I walked away from the airplane.”


So those would be ones that had no medical cause? Or does Basic Med vs 3rd Class matter when towing the airplane?
 
So those would be ones that had no medical cause? Or does Basic Med vs 3rd Class matter when towing the airplane?
The insurer can make whatever assumptions they want to about the cause, but they’d also be largely irrelevant.

More than likely they’re just saying ”BasicMed holders are costing us more money than they’re paying us,” and there’s nothing that requires a business to continue something that loses money.
 
I've had this discussion with e medical folks at AOPA regarding promoting and explaining the Basic Med program both to the medical and insurance industries. The response I got was they simply don't have the resources. It's kind of telling that it's difficult to find a Basic Med practitioner right in their own back yard in FDK.
Their annual budget is $50M, so they have the resources, but they spend it on the CEO's salary, their planes, and people trying to sell the members wine...
 
If they could get an audience, it would be a good and very doable idea for AOPA to sit down with the insurance companies and explain everything there is to know about BasicMed vs Class III. Go to each company and get all of the underwriters in a conference room for a day. Give them donuts in the morning, rubber chicken at lunch, and a bag full of AOPA swag. Off site workers could Zoom in and get swag in the mail. There’s no telling if it would help, because the underwriters might be certain that their half-axxed observations are more valid than the FAA’s data.

As for the medical profession, I don’t know what AOPA could do beyond what they’re already doing. Any interested doctor can go to aopa.org and learn all there is to know. Doctors aren’t the problem in the OP of this thread, but it’s said that there’s a shortage of them willing to do BasicMed exams.

Their annual budget is $50M, so they have the resources, but they spend it on the CEO's salary, their planes, and people trying to sell the members wine...
Is it really only $50M? No wonder it’s hard for them to effect much change. A small town hospital has a budget of two or three times that. And wine? Really? That was 13 years ago, short-lived, a baby of Rod Hightower, and actually not a bad fundraiser. The NRA has one still.
 
"The pilot flying the aircraft must maintain a valid pilot certificate (including the appropriate ratings) and valid medical certificate as required by the Federal Aviation Administration or its approved equivalent."
I fly under basicmed. I hold the "valid medical certificate as required by the FAA"... i.e. none, as the FAA requires no medical certificate for pilots using basicmed.

Or, "approved equivalent" means "conferring equivalent privileges". For operations allowed under basicmed, it is truly equivalent. If you crash in Canada where it's not equivalent, you're not covered.
First I've heard of "increased losses by pilots flying under BasicMed." I'd sure love to see some data on that.
Older pilots have a higher accident rate. Older pilots are more likely to use basicmed. Correlation is not causation, but it may be good enough for a lazy underwriter.
But the majority are not required to be reported. I have direct knowledge of probably a couple dozen aviation insurance claims over the last 35 years, 3 of which fell under required reporting criteria. Most of them involved phrases like, “I was taxiing from the hangar to the pumps,” “I was towing the airplane,” or “when I walked away from the airplane.”
Back to older pilots... I knew an older pilot (90+). He was OK in the air, but had two taxiing accidents before deciding to hang up his wings. I believe he was on basicmed, though he himself was an AME.
 
Older pilots have a higher accident rate. Older pilots are more likely to use basicmed. Correlation is not causation, but it may be good enough for a lazy underwriter.


If that’s really what’s going on, then insurance companies requiring older pilots to have a class 3 rather than Basic won’t fix anything.

If insurance companies are seeking to change results, not just calculate rates, then they must understand causation. Otherwise they’ll turn the wrong set of knobs.
 
Or, "approved equivalent" means "conferring equivalent privileges". For operations allowed under basicmed, it is truly equivalent. If you crash in Canada where it's not equivalent, you're not covered.
But “approved” means someone has to approve it as an equivalent. It’s generally taken to mean approved by the entity writing the document (the underwriter in this case) if the approving agency is not noted.
 
If insurance companies are seeking to change results, not just calculate rates, then they must understand causation. Otherwise they’ll turn the wrong set of knobs.
Depends which results they’re trying to change.
 
If that’s really what’s going on, then insurance companies requiring older pilots to have a class 3 rather than Basic won’t fix anything.

If insurance companies are seeking to change results, not just calculate rates, then they must understand causation. Otherwise they’ll turn the wrong set of knobs.

thats assuming that anyone under BasicMed can get class III - to maintain the same pool of older pilots. The reality is that a class III group of pilots will be a subset of the basicmed group (as in not every older pilot who has basicmed can clear a class III), and potentially removing a bit more risk for the underwriters.
 
I think it's funny to speculate that underwriters of aviation insurance know less about their business than SGOTI.


Well,......

Back in my college days I tutored several people in statistics who went on to become insurance company actuaries. Forgive me if I don't have as much faith as you do! :biggrin:
 
Well,......

Back in my college days I tutored several people in statistics who went on to become insurance company actuaries. Forgive me if I don't have as much faith as you do! :biggrin:
Worried you didn't do a good job? ;)
 
Some data would be nice. Anybody out there got their claim denied on the basis of flying under BM? For an alleged 66,000+ strong cohort as of 2021, you'd think someone would have got stiffed by one of the 4 major underwriters of this sclerotic little hobby by now.
Neighbor in his 80s geared up his Bonanza. Had basic med... insurance had changed to require 3rd class... he missed it, says broker didn't point it out. Coverage denied. He wrote a check...

Paul
 
Back
Top