bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
The HIMS recidivism rate is about 13% lifetime. So we keep watch....
....and to Tools, that 90 % isn’t transferable from the public at large. Pilots get randoms as you know......and the public does not...
....and to Tools, that 90 % isn’t transferable from the public at large. Pilots get randoms as you know......and the public does not...
NoHeat
Final Approach
A counter example, maybe:
Fatal crash of Trans-Colorado 2286. CFIT. Captain was affected by cocaine according to the NTSB.
(It was a trickier-than-average LOC approach into Durango CO. Pilot flying was first officer who was in over his head with this approach. The captain failed to assure safety.)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Colorado_Airlines_Flight_2286
Last edited:
bflynn
Final Approach
I never came close to making such a claim. I know of exactly two suicides by airplane, one alcohol related, one mental. But there are many where the pilot was impaired by alcohol and crashed.
Again, the FAA medical is a safety program. It does not exist for the pilot’s health.
Their rules. Play by them or don’t fly.
Tools
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2020
- Messages
- 2,044
- Display Name
Display name:
Tools
I’m familiar with that, I was referring to alcohol. But since you brought that up... all the cocaine AND METH addict pilots I know did the same 35 days as the guy who got a single DUI.
Go check out hims program.com, brags about how the program is tailored for the individual.
It also brags about the reason hims is so successful is because they scare pilots with the threat losing their license. Absurd. You can’t scare an addict. That’s a basic tenet. Maybe, just maybe the relapse rate is so low is because of the number of NON ADDICTS forced into the system. Very easy to scare them into not drinking. I’ve yet to see a semblance of a logical argument against this.
Go check out hims program.com, brags about how the program is tailored for the individual.
It also brags about the reason hims is so successful is because they scare pilots with the threat losing their license. Absurd. You can’t scare an addict. That’s a basic tenet. Maybe, just maybe the relapse rate is so low is because of the number of NON ADDICTS forced into the system. Very easy to scare them into not drinking. I’ve yet to see a semblance of a logical argument against this.
Tools
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2020
- Messages
- 2,044
- Display Name
Display name:
Tools
Oh, they “treat”... make no mistake.
But with everything else you get some say in your treatment. Not substance abuse, THEY pick the doctors that “treat”, and they ain’t specialists of any sort, except maybe in the arena of administratively navigating this mess. THEY pick the methods.
bflynn
Final Approach
The FAA is not making a diagnosis. Despite me repeating it multiple times, you're still looking at this as the FAA treating the pilot for a medical condition. They're not, they're identifying pilots they want to keep track of.
It's a safety program.
Tools
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2020
- Messages
- 2,044
- Display Name
Display name:
Tools
YES THEY ARE.
With your heart condition that may be a true statement. It’s not the case with substance abuse. That’s why your (admittedly logical) arguments simply don’t apply here. The whole Special Issuance generally makes sense, UNTIL you get to substance abuse. They simply don’t follow any reasonable medical guidance, they violate individual rights, which is fine for the betterment of society, but there ISNT an overriding danger here. Not to the point of REGULARLY violating individual rights. Not even close.
With your heart condition that may be a true statement. It’s not the case with substance abuse. That’s why your (admittedly logical) arguments simply don’t apply here. The whole Special Issuance generally makes sense, UNTIL you get to substance abuse. They simply don’t follow any reasonable medical guidance, they violate individual rights, which is fine for the betterment of society, but there ISNT an overriding danger here. Not to the point of REGULARLY violating individual rights. Not even close.
bflynn
Final Approach
You lost me with the words "reasonable", "rights" and "betterment".
1) reasonable is a judgement
2) there is no right to fly.
3) betterment of society is only a secondary goal. It's about safety.
The whole topic of substance abuse is conflated with politics and society views. If you ask people, they aren't updset that pilots are held to very strict standards of behavior around alcohol. Because of that, politicians are strongly in support of it.
Tilting at windmills here.
1) reasonable is a judgement
2) there is no right to fly.
3) betterment of society is only a secondary goal. It's about safety.
The whole topic of substance abuse is conflated with politics and society views. If you ask people, they aren't updset that pilots are held to very strict standards of behavior around alcohol. Because of that, politicians are strongly in support of it.
Tilting at windmills here.
Last edited:
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
You missed the Pilot's Bill of Rights 2009. FAS is empowered to make Standards.
Flying impaired we agree on. Never said otherwise. I very clearly distinguished previously between pilots flying impaired and those not.
If that's all you got, then I guess we agree that so long as pilots aren't flying impaired then the FAA is being puritanical? The rest of your list was long term harm that being an alcoholic does to themselves. Which should be none of the FAAs concern. They still allow pilots to be smokers, after all, even though it destroys their health. They don't police pilots that fly wing suits, even though eventually that hobby seems to bite just about everyone that does it long enough. They don't police pilots who are too sedentary, even though "sitting is the new smoking" from a health standpoint. They don't police pilots who don't use sunscreen, even though skin cancer kills people every day. My assertion is that their power should be limited to public safety, and not risks pilots take that don't effect public safety.
As I've said, I have no problem with the FAA going after pilots that have driven impaired. That's a demonstration not of alcoholism, but of a disregard for safety. I have a big problem with them going after a practicing alcoholic (perhaps like the OP, that had arranged an Uber when he knew he was going to tie one on) that takes public safety seriously. Whether a pilot killed someone drink driving and blowing a .07 versus a .16 is irrelevant. They still made a decision to risk public health and that's a way bigger issue than whether or not the pilot is getting tanked every night, or just had three beers for the first time in a year.
BladeSlap
Ejection Handle Pulled
No one missed that, it’s simply it’s now obvious that we need to work on changing the FAA, the FAA has terribly mismanaged the power the taxpayers ALLOWED them to have, remember working for or with the FAA is a privilege as well.
I don’t understand how a real doctor could think not following researched and proven modern medical standards and practices is somehow a good thing.
Bruce of all people knows what is necessary to change the FAA’s mind on such a matter. He is one of the docs who persuaded the FAA to allow use of certain SSRIs by pilots. Previously there was no way for a pilot to take an anti-depressant and maintain his medical.
The issues I have is there is no apparent independent oversight or review of the medical decisions made by OKC. I'd be more inclined to trust their evaluations as conforming to appropriate medical practices if there was an independent, public review of their policies by outside experts. They also at least appear to "play favorites" in their classification of who is an acceptable expert to be involved in testing and evaluation of medical applications.
For reference, other Federal agencies do seek outside independent consulting and opinions on their policies and procedures; this is hardly new ground. I have been involved with a couple of those groups in my professional practice.
bflynn
Final Approach
The doctors in OKC aren't practicing medicine. They not only do not have to use medical standards, they should not. Until you understand that, you cannot understand why your complaint makes so little sense.
bflynn
Final Approach
If you have evidence of that, you must report them to the GAO. "Playing favorites" is a violation of government ethics and is one of the few things that a government employee can be fired for. We cannot tolerate that behavior in any branch of government.
If you don't know it to be true, then why did you offer your observation?
bflynn
Final Approach
No. Pilots who have tolerance have shown they drink a lot. As was noted way above, the bad judgement is drinking excessively because once you do that, you lose the ability to make good decisions. A pilot who drinks excessively is at risk of flying impaired every time they drink.
We often read here that for psychological evaluations, you need to go to one of their "known experts". I'm curious how that list was made, how often it is reevaluated, and what criteria are used to be on that list.
bflynn
Final Approach
The process of becoming a designee in the medical system is covered in FAA Order 8000.95A. There's nothing nefarious there, it's just a regular old boring government program with processes and standards.
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/Order_8000.95A.pdf
BladeSlap
Ejection Handle Pulled
I understand that, and that’s unacceptable.
Or they need to quit all attempting to call it a “medical” as that’s falsely advertising the people involved are practicing any type of recognized medicine.
Keithlewis1900
Pre-Flight
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2020
- Messages
- 75
- Display Name
Display name:
Keithlewis1900
A secret classified list for HIMS psychiatrist. Nothing to see here folks
i under stand this is to prevent “shopping around”. But aren’t second and even third opinions encouraged in the realm of “real medicine”?
i under stand this is to prevent “shopping around”. But aren’t second and even third opinions encouraged in the realm of “real medicine”?
I'm starting to think you haven't spent much time on the medical threads on this board. This has nothing to do with the normal AME qualifications/process.
bflynn
Final Approach
nothing at all.
https://www.faa.gov/pilots/amelocator/media/HIMS INDEPENDENT MEDICAL SPONSORS.pdf
btw, I found this in about 15 seconds with a simple google search.
bflynn
Final Approach
you believe that it’s unacceptable that someone who doesn't practice medicine doesn’t use medical standards?
Tools
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2020
- Messages
- 2,044
- Display Name
Display name:
Tools
Not talking AMEs, HIMS shrinks...
Keithlewis1900
Pre-Flight
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2020
- Messages
- 75
- Display Name
Display name:
Keithlewis1900
I was referring to HIMS Psychiatrist not HIMS AME. You really should stop posting about this topic. You know nothing about it. Please quit spewing incorrect information, it doesn’t help anyone.
BladeSlap
Ejection Handle Pulled
Is it “recidivism” if the person was never a alcoholic to begin with?
How many of these airmen, like the poor guy who was stabbed or the woman sexually assaulted, were forced into hims, never having been diagnosed by a doctor, nor meeting the modern researched and proven medical standards for a alcohol diagnosis?
It would appear based on this discussion, the FAA points to their own made up rules, to defend their own made up rules.
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
There is discussion among lawmakers to do just that.
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
by FAA definitions with being able to walk at BAC 0.19 and his second event he was already an alcoholic. Tolerance has been a criteria adequate to define one as an alcoholic, since 2009.
it is recidivism as measured by pilots who were returned to duty but resumed drinking at any time in their career(s). Without HIMS (AA alone), the recidivism rate is close to 65%.
FAA is tough. But they keep guys who drink a LOT and don’t think much about it, outta the air....and if that happens to a person, he can make a comeback with prolonged verified sobriety, as a starter. They used to simply get fired. However, we have not had a single part 121/135 incident due to relapse owing to the level of surveillance HIMS gives.
Last edited:
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
This is the area of the “safety system”. Congress gave FAA the authority (2009) to use their own stds designed by best external expert advice”, to forward aviation safety. Thus the stds and definitions ARE tougher than office stds.
Maybe you can find the YouTube video of the senator declaiming against “who allowed Yitzak Jacoby” to fly. Our senators do not understand the difference between occurrence, and of risk. Until our legislators get some smarts, it’s gonna be the way it is. And that’s “the way it is”.
BladeSlap
Ejection Handle Pulled
Who had a .19?? I’m not sure what you’re talking about, the first airman had like a .13 which would be about right based on a 4hr outing for a normal healthy person with a drink every 30min, plus he had a Uber.
Are there any credible proper scientific modern medical studies that back up the FAAs stance?
Again the FAA just cites their own made up policy as proof.
BladeSlap
Ejection Handle Pulled
And the FAA abused this power, if they are not following modern medical standards they are off the reservation and are just a example of another government office that needs a major overhaul.
Are you saying the department of transportation with their sub 200k salary medical employees know better than the entirety of the modern medical society, published and acclaimed MDs and all the major medical studies??
No, it was .163 and that’s closer to every 10 minutes than it is to 30 minutes.
You really should come to Oshkosh some summer and hang around at the PoA party, SOS Bros, Scholler or any of the myriad of alcohol centered events. Or go to HSF and watch people get lit up until 3am.
It's a miracle none of them end up accidentally flying airplanes impaired.
If there is, no one here has ever been able to produce it.
Absent that, the FAA should be policing the cockpit. Not peoples personal lives.
Daleandee
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2020
- Messages
- 6,992
- Display Name
Display name:
Dale Andee
What's ridiculous is that no one has been able to articulate a safety risk to having a sober alcoholic at the stick, yet we're willing to let the FAA get involved with peoples personal choices in ways that would be unthinkable for things like smoking (heck, GA airplanes used to come with ashtrays, for crying out loud). What's ridiculous is condemning the OP, who took appropriate steps to assure safety for himself and the public, when Oshkosh is filthy with pilots getting tanked for a week out of every year.
It's not a justification of drinking. I've made that choice for myself to not drink (which I *also* don't have to justify to anyone). It's a condemnation of government overreach.
Keithlewis1900
Pre-Flight
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2020
- Messages
- 75
- Display Name
Display name:
Keithlewis1900
Great. You were spreading too much misinformation anyway.
bflynn
Final Approach
No, I think you just disagree. Go ahead, go drink all you want, I'm not stopping you.
But my opinion is that that you're heading yourself for a world of hurt.
bflynn
Final Approach
What I think is ridiculous is you quoting my post where I say I'm done and you continuing to argue.
BTW, the safety risk is a non-sober alcoholic, but you don't care.