FAA reports that BasicMed as safe as Third Class medical

[Jim Logajan]

AOPA article FAA REPORT VALIDATES BASICMED SAFETY.

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

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

So now we have BasicMed is as safe and the prior research that Sport Pilot is as safe with just a driver's license.

The only data the FAA has that medicals make any difference at all for private pilots is an indirect argument from the experience with the HIMS program.

Given that when medicals for private pilots were put in place they were simply emulating the military medicals in WWI, perhaps it is time to just go over to the driver's license medicals or none at all?

While some people with medical conditions that will dangerously impair flying ability may be willing to do so, that is likely very rare due to self-preservation instincts. On the flip side, having a medical requirement may actually cause people to defer care and cause dangerous operation. So the net effect of having medicals for private pilots could be negative in terms of safety, or more likely, simply no effect.

 

[Bob Noel]

"accident RISK" or "accident RATE"?

There is a difference...

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

"accident RISK" or "accident RATE"?

There is a difference...

I can imagine there is a difference in certain contexts. What difference are you referring to here Bob? And what do you think the FAA study was referring to?

 

[Jim Logajan]

I can imagine there is a difference in certain contexts. What difference are you referring to here Bob? And what do you think the FAA study was referring to?

This is the original study: https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/f...rtification_Certain_Small_Aircraft_Pilots.pdf

They do not explicitly define "accident risk" but in a footnote they link to an earlier study with that terminology:
https://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oamtechreports/2020s/media/202118.pdf

The older study sort of defines the term in a roundabout way with this paragraph (emphasis mine):

While the accident proportions metric requires few assumptions, it does not provide a useful measure of exposure to accident risk (i.e., the risk of an accident while engaged in flying an aircraft). This is because its measure of exposure is the simple count of pilots in each category (i.e., BasicMed or third- class medically certified), and this measure would use a pilot with no flying hours and a pilot with many flying hours identically in the accident proportion calculation. To be effective as an accurate measure of accident risk, this metric would require two assumptions: that every pilot in each category has been a member of that category for the same number of years and that all pilots fly the same number of hours per year. While the person-year accident rate metric eliminates one of those assumptions (it does not assume that every pilot in each category has been a member of that category for the same number of years), it does make the unwarranted assumption that all pilots fly the same number of hours per year. Table 1 shows that BasicMed pilots reported 20% more annual flight time than the third-class medically certified pilots. The accident rate per flight hour eliminates both assumptions. However, to calculate the number of flight hours for a pilot, the accident rate per flight hour relies on two other assumptions: that the previous six-month flight hours a pilot reports for the pilot’s medical exam is an accurate surrogate for actual hours flown the past six months and that the hours flown the past six months is representative of hours flown throughout the study period.

So I think that means they define "accident risk" as accident rate per flight hour.

 

[RandomDroneGuy]

In my opinion, a driver's license and a color-vision test (not all states require one) should be enough for all non-commercial flight in aircraft under 12,500 pounds. The BFR will catch those who simply aren't fit to fly, despite not yet being too blind or senile to find the DMV.

Medicals for commercial operations would need to be retained because when one pays the mortgage by flying, there could be more temptation to fly despite having a known condition that could be disabling.