Medical Certification of Certain Small Aircraft Pilots; physician's statement

[BobTurner]

Originally Posted by rleffler

The FAA FAQ states as long as the CFI isn't PIC the new medical is adequate, but if they are PIC it's considered compensation and requires a traditional medical.

I can't seem to get into the FAA web site right now. BUT, the AOPA web site says exactly the opposite! e.g., the new medical is adequate for cfi's, for all types of training, regardless of the "students" medical status.
I need to get a definitive answer here.

[BlndRvtr]

Bob (and other concerned CFIs) The BasicMed rule allows for student pilot training, getting paid for providing flight instruction, conducting IPCs, etc. Basically all CFI privileges in allowable aircraft.

CFIs receiving compensation for exercising CFI privileges are not per se FLYING for compensation or hire per previous FAA ruling.
Under Sec. V (B)(1) "The Covered Aircraft Is Carrying Not More Than 5 Passengers" Paragraphs 3 & 4. (middle of para. 4 addresses $$)
See: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2016-31602/p-109 and $$:https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2016-31602/p-111

George

[Mel]

Originally Posted by BlndRvtr

Bob (and other concerned CFIs) The BasicMed rule allows for student pilot training, getting paid, conducting IPCs, etc. Basically all CFI privileges in allowable aircraft.
See: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2016-31602/p-109
Under Sec. V (B)(1) "The Covered Aircraft Is Carrying Not More Than 5 Passengers" Paragraphs 3 & 4.
George

How about the last line in the rule? (Taken from the FAA website)
not fly for compensation or hire.

[BobTurner]

Originally Posted by Mel

How about the last line in the rule? (Taken from the FAA website)
not fly for compensation or hire.

Under a previous interpretation, the FAA ruled that cfi's are paid primarily to teach, not to fly. That ruling was the basis of allowing cfi's to exercise their cfi privileges with a third class medical (or even no medical, if the cfi was not the PIC nor a required crew member (like safety pilot when 'student' was under the hood). I just want to be sure the new med rules have not altered that interpretation.
Edit. George, thank you for the FAA reference. That is what I needed. It says cfi's may use the new rules.

[Mel]

Originally Posted by BobTurner

Under a previous interpretation, the FAA ruled that cfi's are paid primarily to teach, not to fly. That ruling was the basis of allowing cfi's to exercise their cfi privileges with a third class medical (or even no medical, if the cfi was not the PIC nor a required crew member (like safety pilot when 'student' was under the hood). I just want to be sure the new med rules have not altered that interpretation.

Gotcha, Thanks.

[lllewis45]

The tatoo or scar identification is so they might be able to identify your remains if you crash. I you were a verteran, you'd know that.

[RV7A Flyer]

Originally Posted by lllewis45

The tatoo or scar identification is so they might be able to identify your remains if you crash. I you were a verteran, you'd know that.

You don't have to be a veteran to "know" that...I just don't seem to recall my AME (any of them over the years) noting any of this. And really...in this day and age, when was the last time scars and tattoos were used to identify a deceased pilot? (Plus they don't tend to survive post-crash fire-consumed bodies...as morbid a thought as that is...).

[Tracer 10]

Originally Posted by RV7A Flyer

You don't have to be a veteran to "know" that...I just don't seem to recall my AME (any of them over the years) noting any of this. And really...in this day and age, when was the last time scars and tattoos were used to identify a deceased pilot? (Plus they don't tend to survive post-crash fire-consumed bodies...as morbid a thought as that is...).

It's not required on a civilian flight physical.
Although anyone who served in Military Aviation definitely had it noted in his/her medical records. It's just part of the process to preliminary identify remains; and faster than DNA analysis-which is final & conclusive.

[scsmith]

I just got my class-3 done two weeks ago. I mentioned to the AME that this might be my last one, and he said, 'don't be so sure'. I expressed the concern that physicians that are unfamiliar with flying GA aircraft might be reluctant to sign that statement, and he replied that he had heard that Kaiser and Providence, both large health-care providers in the west, had instructed their doctors not to participate in BasicMed. The AME went on to say that the likely sticking point would be if malpractice insurance underwriters exclude coverage for BasicMed exams.

If this happens, the whole scheme is going to collapse.

[snopercod]

I wonder if my recent colonoscopy photos will satisfy the "anus" requirement.