Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Welcome to our forums

BasicMed - FAA Private Pilot Medical abolished - not useful outside the US (merged)

I think someone said on here that it was not for IFR holders. Well not true according to AOPA. Common sense prevails.
Astonishing considering it is coming from Congress.

I wrote this:

Eugene Haller Michael Diehl • 18 minutes ago
Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.
You know Ive always contributed a little to the PAC just because I think they could use my support. Well after reading this Im going to call them and donate another $100. Im retired, but to fight back against govt bureaucracies that have run amok and stolen our liberties, its worth every penny.

Before someone jumps down my throat. Whose got a greater chance of killing someone other than themselves or their passengers, an auto driver or a pilot due to a heart attack?


There are probably 200 million auto drivers ( add another 5 million illegal drivers) compared to around 500 Thousand pilots. The Odds are in favor of an auto driver killing someone else due to incapacitation.

Where is the outrage that auto drivers dont need a medical every 2 years?

Thats how illogical our govt is. It took one of them (FAA) to pis* off someone who can really do something about it. Finally elected officials got a taste of what us common people have been enduring.

I can only say thanks to the members of Congress who support reason.

Great news now lets see it happen.

It was in response to a member complaining of AOPA is always asking for PAC or lobbing money. The US govt works on a legalized form of graft. Although once you legalize something it is no longer considered graft. You have to feed the monster to get what you want.


Can anybody guess why the 14000ft altitude limit?

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Airborne Again Im surprised that they did not pull your medical. I always thought once you had an episode your more prone to have it again, in your lifetime.

Maybe a Neuro or ENT might want to chime in.


It might be a concession to the Bureaus. Making it 18K would make more sense. But I can live with 14 K.


Anybody could get a failure of the “ocular stabilisation” due to e.g. an ear infection (bacterial or viral).

And you can induce it (nystagmus) in almost anybody by putting cold air into one of the two ear canals.

What the procedure would be if already holding an aviation medical, I have no idea. I had this years before I started flying and the CAA wanted a spin test before they would give me the initial Class 2. And that was after I spent thousands seeing specialists (including an MRI of the two nerves) and getting the all-clear, all years before. So I went for a spin with a mad instructor who did spins, total engine stoppages, etc at 2000ft, with pleasure flight passengers. I quite liked it

If I got this enroute I would engage the autopilot. In fact, enroute, the AP is engaged 99% of the time if going anywhere for real.

I wonder if 14k corresponds to the oxygen limit?

Also will this be available outside US airspace? I know that here in Europe any “based operator” will need EASA papers and medical anyway… but not having to pay for a US medical would save some money as well as increase the number of possible AMEs.

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Airborne Again Im surprised that they did not pull your medical.

I did not have an (aeronautical) medical license at the time. When I resumed flying I had to do the initial examination over again, the AME was well aware of this episode and didn’t consider it a problem.

I always thought once you had an episode your more prone to have it again, in your lifetime.

The doctor who treated me in the hospital said the opposite. This was a research hospital so I assume he would know what he was talking about.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

But who would he have asked for advice if he didn’t have an AME to hand?

The internet, quite simply

is basing an opinion on skewed statistics

Isn’t that standard practice in medicine? According to John Ioannidis, many medical studies in high profile papers get refuted before they turn a decade old…

LSZK, Switzerland

Airborne Again I would take exception to your doc at the teaching hospital. My experience has been different.

In addition, I found this study in the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health. Here is what the study found:

Otol Neurotol. 2012 Apr;33(3):437-43. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3182487f78.
Recurrence of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo.
Pérez P1, Franco V, Cuesta P, Aldama P, Alvarez MJ, Méndez JC.
Author information
To determine the recurrence rate of benign positional paroxysmal vertigo (BPPV) and the factors associated to such recurrences.
Prospective study.
Sixty-nine consecutive patients treated for first episode of BPPV.
63 months. Mean follow-up: 47 months.
The recurrence rate was 27%. Fifty percent of recurrences occurred in the first 6 months. Nineteen patients had 1 or more recurrence of BPPV; 10 had 1 recurrence, 7 patients had 2, and 2 patients had 3 recurrences. There was no significant difference in the recurrence rate according to sex, age, side, cause of BPPV, or instability after successful treatment. Multi-canal BPPV (log-rank, p = 0.024) and anterior canal BPPV (log-rank, p = 0.029) showed a significantly greater tendency to recur and to do so earlier. There was a significant difference in time to recurrence related to the number of maneuvers used to resolve the initial BPPV episode (log-rank, p = 0.023). Except for cases of BPPV secondary to labyrinthitis or neurolabyrinthitis, at least 70% of the recurrences affected a different side and/or different canal than the primary BPPV.
The recurrence rate of BPPV is 27%, and relapse largely occurs in the first 6 months. When BPPV recurrence is suspected, every canal on both sides must be investigated because it is the BPPV syndrome that recurs, rather than BPPV affecting a particular side or canal. Complex cases of BPPV have a greater risk of recurrence.

A good case for a ban on single pilot operations for maximum safety.


My impression was that Airborne Again’s episode was a while ago already and hasn’t recurred (?), so whether or not the diagnosis should have been / was BPPV, it seems likely the AME / hospital doctor made a good decision – at least on this occasion.

The internet, quite simply

I’m a medical doctor with a PhD and getting on for 5 years of practice now. I have at a guess 10-15,000 hours of doctoring under my belt. In airline terms this would make me quite a senior pilot, but in doctoring terms I’m still fairly junior and uncertain of my decisions quite a lot of the time. I spend a fair amount of time searching for Google Scholar then calling my seniors for advice anyway.

I’m sure there are questions that you might be able to find a straightforward answer for online, but generally speaking being able to call on someone with broad knowledge and experience helps you settle on a sensible answer for ambiguous cases, and often throws up issues as yet unconsidered.

You could argue that if Airborne Again had relied solely on the internet, he wouldn’t be flying now.

I found this study in the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health.

Thanks. I’ve read the full paper.

The recurrence rate of BPPV is 27%, and relapse largely occurs in the first 6 months.

This happened more than 10 years ago and the study found no relapses after more than 3 years. It’s possible that if I had a medical when this happened, I would have been grounded for some time. Also. my kind of BPPV was the one with least likelihood of recurrence according to the study.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top