Can I Still Become a Pilot If I Have Psychotic Depression?

uns4

uns4

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
2
Display Name
Display name:
thom
I am a high school senior and one of the career paths I am entertaining is becoming a pilot. My boyfriend however discouraged me from becoming one because he knows I have psychosis and that generally individuals with psychosis cannot become pilots. I am medicated and my medication works very well, I rarely experience any psychotic symptoms. Because my symptoms are so well managed would I be cleared to become a pilot? Thank you to all who reply.
 
Oh brother..... here we go again.
Assuming you are legit, are you talking private pilot in small airplanes, or a career as an airline pilot?
 
That probably won't work out so well with that diagnosis in your recent history. Might want to talk with an aviation medical examiner, also called an AME, maybe let them get some more information on your condition, the medications involved, but the diagnosis and the required medications are probably going to exclude you from a medical. Good luck with all.
 
Even if you cannot get a medical, you can still fly a plane. You just can’t solo. You can fly with a flight instructor or a certificated pilot.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
You will never be able to get an FAA medical.

Your psychosis may be under control, but the FAA's paranoia about mental issues is not.
Click to expand...

This. Your boyfriend is correct. A diagnosis of psychosis or psychotic depression even if controlled by meds is probably never going to be certifiable. I'm sorry, but as stingray don says you can still learn to fly for fun, but you would not be allowed to solo and you would not be able to fly for a career.

My understanding is you can fly a single seat ultralight with no certification.
 
"Individuals with psychotic depression experience the symptoms of a major depressive episode, along with one or more psychotic symptoms, including delusions and/or hallucinations.........Hallucinations can be auditory, visual, olfactory (smell), or haptic (touch), and are congruent with delusional material."

What could possibly go wrong? Ask your boyfriend if he would fly with you if you were a pilot.
 
There is always sport pilot. You are limited in weight and speed, but it only requires 20 hours of experience rather than 40. All you need is a drivers license
 
bflynn said:
There is always sport pilot. You are limited in weight and speed, but it only requires 20 hours of experience rather than 40. All you need is a drivers license
Click to expand...
IMO, this would be a strike against the sport pilot limitation. Although legal, it only takes one but job (not referring to the OP) to blow it for everyone.
 
Kritchlow said:
IMO, this would be a strike against the sport pilot limitation. Although legal, it only takes one but job (not referring to the OP) to blow it for everyone.
Click to expand...
What makes you think it would only take one? There have been far more than one bad outcome on the part of medically certificated pilots-in-command, yet medically certificated pilots are still allowed to fly.
 
Palmpilot said:
What makes you think it would only take one? There have been far more than one bad outcome on the part of medically certificated pilots-in-command, yet medically certificated pilots are still allowed to fly.
Click to expand...
You’re the too smart to ask that question. You know they are watching this closely and looking for an excuse. As time passes, maybe not so much.
 
Kritchlow said:
...You know they are watching this closely and looking for an excuse....
Click to expand...
Well actually, I don't know that.

Anyway, I'm just suggesting a counter argument that we're going to need to make if the above turns out to be true.
 
Palmpilot said:
Well actually, I don't know that.

Anyway, I'm just suggesting a counter argument that we're going to need to make if the above turns out to be true.
Click to expand...
One accident because of an unreported psychotic event that may have otherwise been reported on a class III.... I still think you know better.
 
How bad do you want it, and how much money/influence does your family have?

If the answer to both is "lots" sure

Otherwise no
 
Kritchlow said:
IMO, this would be a strike against the sport pilot limitation. Although legal, it only takes one but job (not referring to the OP) to blow it for everyone.
Click to expand...

Even with SP you are required to self-certify. If you fly with a condition known to be disqualifying, it could be argued that you're in violation, and if you had an accident this point would almost certainly be made.

Best thing I can recommend for the OP is to become a drone pilot. By the time she's ready for a career, there will probably be more jobs for drone pilots than for any other type of pilot anyway.
 
Half Fast said:
Even with SP you are required to self-certify. If you fly with a condition known to be disqualifying, it could be argued that you're in violation, and if you had an accident this point would almost certainly be made.

Best thing I can recommend for the OP is to become a drone pilot. By the time she's ready for a career, there will probably be more jobs for drone pilots than for any other type of pilot anyway.
Click to expand...
Good point. I was thinking the same as well.
 
Kritchlow said:
One accident because of an unreported psychotic event that may have otherwise been reported on a class III....
Click to expand...
That argument could be used to ground all medical certificate holders because a first class medical certificate holder deliberately crashed an airliner full of passengers into the side of a mountain.

I still think you know better.
Click to expand...
I don't know where you went to mind reading school, but I think you need to demand a refund of your tuition.
 
Palmpilot said:
That argument could be used to ground all medical certificate holders because a first class medical certificate holder deliberately crashed an airliner full of passengers into the side of a mountain.


I don't know where you went to mind reading school, but I think you need to demand a refund of your tuition.
Click to expand...
Huh? Your statement is nonsense.
Can’t I *think* something without being clairvoyant?
 
But I do believe you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.
The Feds approve no medical or basic med, it’s silly to believe they are not looking closely at the outcomes. Especially when the offending condition would be disqualifying on a class III.
 
Even Hot Air Balloon and Glider pilots have requirements when it comes to self certification. From the FAA website for medical examiners:

"To be issued Glider or Free Balloon Airman Certificates, applicants must certify that they do not know, or have reason to know, of any medical condition that would make them unable to operate a glider or free balloon in a safe manner. This certification is made at the local FAA FSDO."

I believe sky diving, hang gliding, BASE jumping and ultralights are still valid options for those with medical conditions. But then again, I haven't researched requirements for those sports.
BTW- I think the OP was fishing for an answer without wanting to reveal their identity. Understandable.
 
Kritchlow said:
But I do believe you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.
Click to expand...
No, I'm arguing because I think this is important: The idea that a single bad outcome would justify ending flight privileges for sport pilots as a group when it hasn't worked that way for medically certificated pilots is illogical, and the more it gets repeated, the more people will believe it without really thinking it through.

A valid analysis would require comparing the rate of occurrence between sport pilots and medically certificated pilots. The same applies to evaluating the BasicMed program.

The Feds approve no medical or basic med, it’s silly to believe they are not looking closely at the outcomes. Especially when the offending condition would be disqualifying on a class III.
Click to expand...
I don't think either of us knows to what extent the sport pilot program is under scrutiny, but it's been in existence for over a decade without knee-jerk thinking bringing it to an end. With regard to BasicMed, Congress did mandate an FAA evaluation of the safety impact after a specified period of time. What we don't know is whether logically flawed reasoning will be applied, or whether there will be a scientifically valid comparison. Assuming that it will be the former is defeatist, and the problem with defeatism is that all too often, if we think we're defeated, we are.
 
Palmpilot said:
No, I'm arguing because I think this is important: The idea that a single bad outcome would justify ending flight privileges for sport pilots as a group when it hasn't worked that way for medically certificated pilots is illogical, and the more it gets repeated, the more people will believe it without really thinking it through.

A valid analysis would require comparing the rate of occurrence between sport pilots and medically certificated pilots.


I don't think either of us knows to what extent the sport pilot program is under scrutiny, but it's been in existence for over a decade without knee-jerk thinking bringing it to an end. With regard to BasicMed, Congress did mandate an FAA evaluation of the safety impact after a specified period of time. What we don't know is whether logically flawed reasoning will be applied, or whether there will be a scientifically valid comparison. Assuming that it will be the former is defeatist, and the problem with defeatism is that all too often, if we think we're defeated, we are.
Click to expand...
I’m not only betting they are looking at Sport/Basic closely, but also all classes. The whole sleep apnea thing comes to mind.
 
Kritchlow said:
I’m not only betting they are looking at Sport/Basic closely, but also all classes. The whole sleep apnea thing comes to mind.
Click to expand...
Who's "they"? I'm sure that there are some people (especially politicians!) who aren't capable of thinking rationally about rates of incidence, but assuming that they will prevail is defeatist.
 
Palmpilot said:
Who's "they"? I'm sure that there are some people (especially politicians!) who aren't capable of thinking rationally about rates of incidence, but assuming that they will prevail is defeatist.
Click to expand...
Who’s they??? The Feds in general. I guess it starts with the FAA and winds up from there.
Again, I believe you knew that but are just being difficult.
 
Kritchlow said:
Who’s they??? The Feds in general. I guess it starts with the FAA and winds up from there.
Again, I believe you knew that but are just being difficult.
Click to expand...
What's up with the accusations?

I honestly do believe that there are Feds who understand the science and math that apply to accident rates. I'm not saying all of them.

If you think I'm lying about my motivations, that's your problem.
 
Palmpilot said:
What's up with the accusations?

I honestly do believe that there are Feds who understand the science and math that apply to accident rates. I'm not saying all of them.

If you think I'm lying about my motivations, that's your problem.
Click to expand...
No problem here. I just think on some points you are arguing for the sake of arguement.
I know you know who “they” are. That was silly.
We may disagree at times on the board, but I do know you are not stupid. Just because we may disagree at times does not make either of us stupid. Reasonable people can disagree.
 
A psychotic depression off meds would make the agency "get the creeps" about certifying you due to the consequences of recurrence.
A psychotic depression on one of the 4 SSRIs would be denied as psychosis is a "severity excluder" from the SSRI protocol. You cannot be certified post psychosis, even with "good control" after a psychosis because the agency cannot control whether you took you meds on the day of the accident.


So, the answer is "no".
 
Kritchlow said:
No problem here. I just think on some points you are arguing for the sake of arguement.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but this is not one of them. I've tried to explain why I consider this important, and I don't understand why you think that's consistent with arguing for the sake of argument

I know you know who “they” are.
Click to expand...

A reasonable inference, since I stated my opinion of who "they" are.

That was silly.
Click to expand...

That's no substitute for a reasoned argument.

We may disagree at times on the board, but I do know you are not stupid. Just because we may disagree at times does not make either of us stupid. Reasonable people can disagree.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
Last edited:
uns4 said:
I am a high school senior and one of the career paths I am entertaining is becoming a pilot. My boyfriend however discouraged me from becoming one because he knows I have psychosis and that generally individuals with psychosis cannot become pilots. I am medicated and my medication works very well, I rarely experience any psychotic symptoms. Because my symptoms are so well managed would I be cleared to become a pilot? Thank you to all who reply.
Click to expand...
You'll be fine. I know lots of women that got a pilots license.
 
Half Fast said:
Even with SP you are required to self-certify. If you fly with a condition known to be disqualifying, it could be argued that you're in violation, and if you had an accident this point would almost certainly be made.

Best thing I can recommend for the OP is to become a drone pilot. By the time she's ready for a career, there will probably be more jobs for drone pilots than for any other type of pilot anyway.
Click to expand...

And what percentage of pilots going the sport pilot route knowingly have disqualifying conditions that would be caught on an honest medical? I’d say it’s very high.

If I could no longer fly real airplanes, I don’t think I’d be all that interested in flying drones. For me, flying is about me being up in the air and the feelings that come with it. The plane is just the vehicle. Drone flying is just about the drone bring up there. Vastly different.
 
SkyDog58 said:
I don’t believe OP is a woman. You seemed to have drawn that conclusion based upon the reference to a boyfriend. However OP’s profile states male.
Click to expand...
My post is a joke. I was tongue-in-cheek implying that all women are psychotic.
 
Last edited:
while you guys are ranting, arguing and throwing mud at each other, have you noticed that the OP hasn't made a peep since the first post? Kinda like "she" tossed a grenade and left the scene..... LOL!
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top