What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Basic Med Implications for Safety Pilot Ops / Insurance

Noah

Well Known Member
My medical expires soon and I am thinking of going Basic Med. One gotcha I can see with this is the safety pilot issue for IFR currency:

(From AOPA https://basicmedicalcourse.aopa.org...542.937937915.1547503759-353061720.1537203230)
Q: Can I act as a safety pilot for flight in simulated instrument conditions under BasicMed if I do not hold a medical?
A: Under BasicMed rules, you may only act as a safety pilot in simulated instrument flight under FAR 91.109 if you are also acting as PIC. Remember, BasicMed only applies to the pilot acting as PIC. In this scenario, a safety pilot in simulated instrument flight who is not also acting as PIC is a "required crewmember" who is not covered by BasicMed and therefore, must possess an appropriate and valid medical certificate.

A friend (who owns a Glastar) and I swap safety pilot duties to stay instrument current. Lets say he goes Basic Med too. If he is required to be PIC when he is safety pilot and I am flying practice approaches under the hood in my RV, does he have to be on my insurance? Since he has never landed an RV, does this also mean he needs transition training? If so, Basic Med may not be the way to go :( :rolleyes:
 
"Acting as PIC" is the key here. Just because a pilot is acting as PIC they do not have to be the manipulator of the controls. Acting as PIC basically means they are the FAA legal, responsible party for the operation of the flight. For example, if there is a violation of an FAR, the pilot acting as PIC is the first person the Feds look at.

As far as insurance issues go, I'd defer to your insurance agent for a written answer. My guess is if there were to be an insurance claim, the person at the controls at the time would be insurance companies focus.

BWTHDIK?

George
 
The OP has correctly identified one of the major issues with basic med (the other being flights to Canada, Mexico). This is because (1) congress doesn?t know how to write laws, and (2) the FAA, suffering from the ?not invented here? disease, is determined to get its pound of flesh. Let?s be honest, it?s absurd that basic med is okay for carrying passengers by a PIC, but not okay for a non-PIC safety pilot.
As in many things, little is likely to happen unless there?s an accident. Then, the finger pointing will begin. If your friend?s Glasair runs out of gas, will you say that it was your fault, because as PIC you were responsible for the safe and legal operation of the airplane? What will your friend?s insurance company say about him letting a non-named insured make such decisions as PIC?
My personal, non-legal advice, is to protect your friend. Don?t try to claim you were PIC in his airplane (and vice versa). And if the FAA happens to come calling, feign ignorance, saying that their interpretation is so stupid it couldn?t possibly be correct.
Where is AOPA in all this?
 
I reached out to my insurance provider who in turn contacted my underwriter.

Sure enough, if I fly with a pilot who has Basic Med only, the underwriter wants the safety pilot (who would be acting as PIC) to be a NAMED PILOT on my policy. Thus they want:

Name
Date of birth
Certificates/ratings
Total logged hours
Hours in the last 12 months
Hours in a Vans RV-7A
Any other Vans time?
If so, how many hours and which models?
Any losses, violations, felonies, DUI?s or medical restrictions/waivers?

And since my safety pilot buddy has NO TIME IN AN RV, this would almost surely raise my rates.

Hmmmmmm.... Not as easy as I thought....
 
...if I fly with a pilot who has Basic Med only, the underwriter wants the safety pilot (who would be acting as PIC) to be a NAMED PILOT on my policy. Thus they want:...

What did they say about a safety pilot w/ a Class III medical? Did they confirm that they don't need them to be a named pilot, along with all that foofaraw?
 
It looks like the underwriters request protects them more than you.

How ironic that you are trying to improve your flying proficiency, which in turn should reduce the chances of a claim and yet they make it more difficult for you to become a safer pilot.

Maybe seeking forgiveness is better than permission.

Is your insurance thru EAA perhaps?

George
 
It looks like the underwriters request protects them more than you.

How ironic that you are trying to improve your flying proficiency, which in turn should reduce the chances of a claim and yet they make it more difficult for you to become a safer pilot.

Maybe seeking forgiveness is better than permission.

Is your insurance thru EAA perhaps?

George

George, I hear you and understand your frustration, but I'm not sure insurance companies are very forgiving. I'd rather be safe than sorry. Yes, they have really created a mess with this.
 
Safety pilot

So If you are in an accident while you are under the hood in VMC with a basic med safety pilot, It would be best to leave out that detail. In other words, "you were just taking a friend for a ride"
 
My personal, non-legal advice, is to protect your friend. Don’t try to claim you were PIC in his airplane (and vice versa). And if the FAA happens to come calling, feign ignorance, saying that their interpretation is so stupid it couldn’t possibly be correct.

I'm with Bob.

First, is there written opinion or direction from the FAA (not AOPA) on this specific subject?

Absent specific interpretation, FAR 91.109 seems to offer reasonable support for a Basic Med safety pilot. It says....

(c) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless -

(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least:

(i) A private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown...


There's nothing about the type of medical certification required of the safety pilot. It actually says possesses a private pilot certificate, which one can do without medical certification. In the event the safety pilot feels it necessary to take control, from the moment he says "My airplane" he is exercising the privileges of a private pilot certificate, for which Basic Med is appropriate.

Hey, it's a reasonable argument.
 
Last edited:
I'm with Bob.

First, is there written opinion or direction from the FAA (not AOPA) on this specific subject?

Absent specific interpretation, FAR 91.109 seems to offer reasonable support for a Basic Med safety pilot. It says....

(c) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless -

(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least:

(i) A private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown...


There's nothing about the type of medical certification required of the safety pilot. It actually says possesses a private pilot certificate, which one can do without medical certification. In the event the safety pilot feels it necessary to take control, from the moment he says "My airplane" he is exercising the privileges of a private pilot certificate, for which Basic Med is appropriate.

Hey, it's a reasonable argument.

Yes, I’ve seen an FAA memo (but don’t recall where) reminding pilots that the law congress passed only referred to PIC’s and so only these persons could use basic med. The issue is that somewhere else (forget the FAR number) the FARs say a medical is needed for ‘all required crew members’. The FAA has excluded all basic med holders from acting as a non-PIC required crew member. Being a safety pilot is the most obvious case, but not the only one.
Edit: I found it. FAR 61.3(c) requires ‘required crewmembers’ to hold an appropriate medical certificate. So safety pilots for pilots under the hood must hold a medical, and the faa has ruled that if the safety pilot is not the PIC, then he is not eligible to act under basic med.
 
Last edited:
You can still do it, sort of....

AOPA agrees with you, but they say the work-around is for the entire flight to be conducted under BasicMed with the safety pilot acting as PIC, because (now get this) the other pilot can log approaches and use them for currency even if s/he isn't the PIC (!).

https://pilot-protection-services.aopa.org/news/2017/september/01/basicmed-and-safety-pilots

Obviously sort of silly, but at least two people can still get the job done if one of them needs approaches and the other is BasicMed.


I found it. FAR 61.3(c) requires ?required crewmembers? to hold an appropriate medical certificate. So safety pilots for pilots under the hood must hold a medical, and the faa has ruled that if the safety pilot is not the PIC, then he is not eligible to act under basic med.
 
Yes, this is true. But don?t take lightly the legal burden of being PIC. If the pilot flying busts a reg and is caught, are you willing to take the fall? And if there is an accident or incident, if you tell the FAA you were PIC, the pilot?s insurance may deny coverage. Or, you do as I suggested: Do not accept being PIC in someone else?s airplane. Claim ignorance of such a stupid rule. And accept whatever punishment the faa may dish out. Better that than having insurance denied.
 
You guys realize you're discussing borderline insurance fraud on an open, public forum, right?
 
I'm confused now

So what you're saying is that BasicMed isn't really a "medical" in the eyes of the FAA?
 
Yes, this is true. But don’t take lightly the legal burden of being PIC. If the pilot flying busts a reg and is caught, are you willing to take the fall? And if there is an accident or incident, if you tell the FAA you were PIC, the pilot’s insurance may deny coverage. Or, you do as I suggested: Do not accept being PIC in someone else’s airplane. Claim ignorance of such a stupid rule. And accept whatever punishment the faa may dish out. Better that than having insurance denied.

+1

If you have a problem, there is no way out. Claim the co-pilot is PIC and the FAA is happy. However, if that co-pilot doesn't meet the open pilot provisions on your policy, the insurance company won't pay out. Flip it around and you are PIC, the FAA is not happy, which also give the insurance company a reason not to pay (didn't follow the FARs, which is usually lurking in the policy's fine print somewhere).
 
So what you're saying is that BasicMed isn't really a "medical" in the eyes of the FAA?

That is correct. However, the FARs now allow you to fly, as PIC, with basic med instead of a medical. It's possible this loophole/problem was overlooked by the FAA, but I think it's a "finger in the eye" of the regulators that pushed them to adopt basic med via a legislative bill. Unfortunately the regulators didn't think far enough into the issue to demand things like this, as well. Possibly the regulators assumed that Basic Med would be interchangeable with the Class III medical, but the FAA didn't implement it that way. Basic Med included everything in "letter" of the bill and not a thing that wasn't specifically outlined in the bill made it to the FAR's.

The FAA has been clear that Basic Med is used in leiu of a medical and one is not considered a replacement for the other.

Larry
 
Last edited:
That is correct. However, the FARs now allow you to fly, as PIC, with basic med instead of a medical. It's possible this loophole/problem was overlooked by the FAA, but I think it's a "finger in the eye" of the regulators that pushed them to adopt basic med via a legislative bill. Unfortunately the regulators didn't think far enough into the issue to demand things like this, as well. Possibly the regulators assumed that Basic Med would be interchangeable with the Class III medical, but the FAA didn't implement it that way. Basic Med included everything in "letter" of the bill and not a thing that wasn't specifically outlined in the bill made it to the FAR's.

The FAA has been clear that Basic Med is used in leiu of a medical and one is not considered a replacement for the other.

Larry


Considering I have a lapsed Class 3 at this time, this topic gives me something to think about as I have a friend who wants me to act as his safety pilot. Thanks guys. And Thanks for the explanation Larry.
 
AOPA agrees with you, but they say the work-around is for the entire flight to be conducted under BasicMed with the safety pilot acting as PIC, because (now get this) the other pilot can log approaches and use them for currency even if s/he isn't the PIC (!).

https://pilot-protection-services.aopa.org/news/2017/september/01/basicmed-and-safety-pilots

Obviously sort of silly, but at least two people can still get the job done if one of them needs approaches and the other is BasicMed.

Silly doesn't begin to describe it, but here's my question:

The AOPA article says

Importantly, note that whenever a BasicMed pilot acts as PIC, then the entirety of the flight from takeoff to full-stop landing must be conducted within the flight condition limitations of BasicMed.

Am I misreading this, or their grammar is poor, and that what is really being described here is when the pilot w/ BasicMed is PIC for the entire duration, the flight has to be conducted within the BasicMed limits? Because that's not what it says, nor what I think usually happens:

Pilot who needs currency does take-off and such until they get to a point to start training, then
Pilot dons hood while safety pilot assumes role
shoot a bunch of approaches and such, then on the way home
Pilot removes hood, takes over as "the" PIC and does landing

During that take-off/departure and approach/final landing phase, if the pilot has a Class III, why would BasicMed limits apply? There's no longer a pilot with a BasicMed cert as PIC, right?

Tell me they just wrote this poorly...
 
This is very frustrating. It is my understanding an instructor can give a BFR if he/she does not even have a valid medical, because he/she is not acting as PIC. Why wouldn?t the same be true when acting as a safety pilot? :confused:
 
So what you're saying is that BasicMed isn't really a "medical" in the eyes of the FAA?
It is not an ICAO standard medical. The FAA accepts BasicMed for specific flight operations within the US in lieu of an ICAO standard medical.

FWIW: no country is forced to follow any ICAO standards. They can choose to adopt, or not adopt standards as they see fit.

:cool:
 
This is very frustrating. It is my understanding an instructor can give a BFR if he/she does not even have a valid medical, because he/she is not acting as PIC. Why wouldn?t the same be true when acting as a safety pilot? :confused:

Isn't this whole thing just another variation on the decades-old debate about "can a pilot with the appropriate category and class ratings act as a safety pilot even if he/she is a) out of currency (of whatever kind), and/or b) out of medical"?

I recall these beer-soaked debates waaaaay back when I first got my license...the hypothetical safety pilot is 90 years old, hasn't flown in decades, and certainly doesn't have a current medical. Is it legal to fly under the hood with him as a safety pilot?

I don't remember what the ultimate ruling was :)
 
A safety pilot is a required crewmember for operations under VFR where the pilot flying is wearing a view limiting device. As such he needs at least a private license and a valid medical. If he is not acting as PIC the FAA is claiming basic med is not valid....
True, a cfi without a medical can give a Flight Review (nee BFR), but only if the pilot flying is willing and able to act as PIC. And the cfi cannot act as a required crewmember (safety pilot) without a medical.
 
Back
Top