Did not know about ADHD restrictions when I got my medical. What do I do?

Anthem said:
Still signigicantly less than the group always seems to claim. The issue is that the minority is very vocal about how things should be because they are being excluded until proven to be fit otherwise - using a standard that they arent comfortable or willing (personally or financially) to undertake.
Click to expand...
I think the minority is so vocal because in many instance short term fixes (i.e. meds) used for a short period of time now yield long term consequences and stigmas. I can't believe some of the outright mean and rude comments I've had directed at me just for questioning the science, comparing the FAA's approach to one malady vs. another, questioning existing practices and asking "are we doing it the best way for the individual or saying this was the case for subject A with such malady so it must be true with subject B with the same malady." I think it's more complex than that.

Someone will probably make fun of me again (looking at you RadialGal) or call my crazy for this comment...by all accounts Howard Hughes had no business being behind the yolk/stick of an aircraft as he had debilitating OCD. However, you could say he was one of the most accomplished aviators (in all metrics) for his time, and possibly of all time. Think of how much the aviation community and future generations of pilots/engineers/etc would have missed out on had an "FAA" like entity grounded Howard Hughes.

My point is there are likely more exceptions to the rule than people are acknowledging. Calling people squirrel **** nutty doesn't really help anything.
 
mryan75 said:
And this changes nothing about what I said. But thanks for the reply. This person WAS diagnosed. End of story.
Click to expand...
"myan75 is an extra terrestrial lifeform."

Someone wrote something down. That makes it true? I hold doctorate level degrees, have passed government mandated tests of competency in my field, and am afforded privileges that flow from this granted to me by government which are not afforded every individual or citizen. That makes my pronouncement inviolable?
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
Someone will probably make fun of me again (looking at you RadialGal) or call my crazy for this comment...by all accounts Howard Hughes had no business being behind the yolk/stick of an aircraft as he had debilitating OCD. However, you could say he was one of the most accomplished aviators (in all metrics) for his time, and possibly of all time. Think of how much the aviation community and future generations of pilots/engineers/etc would have missed out on had an "FAA" like entity grounded Howard Hughes.
Click to expand...
How many airplanes did Hughes crash?
 
MauleSkinner said:
How many airplanes did Hughes crash?
Click to expand...
You do realize he was a test pilot, right? One crash setting a world speed record and the other due to catastrophic, or close to, prop failure. He walked away from both.

Seriously? That’s your retort?
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
Then the argument, that I so often see on these threads, that you can't have sound judgment, or make good sound decisions when you have a history of mental health (be it ADD, anxiety, depression, bipolar, postpartum, etc.) and thus are unfit to fly, is totally debunked.
Click to expand...
Nope.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
I can't believe some of the outright mean and rude comments I've had directed at me just for questioning the science, comparing the FAA's approach to one malady vs. another, questioning existing practices and asking "are we doing it the best way for the individual or saying this was the case for subject A with such malady so it must be true with subject B with the same malady." I think it's more complex than that.
Click to expand...
It is more complex than that. Nobody should speak down to anyone with a mental health issue. But what you need to understand is that the system absolutely is not doing what is best for the individual, nor can it. It’s literally impossible. Checkrides are no different. You have to meet the standard, end of story. If you leave room for opinion, judgement and interpretation, it’s no longer a system.
 
SkyChaser said:
Also, doctors prescribing unnecessary medication has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with lack of ethics. Greed at the cost of others is not driven by capitalism but by a moral and ethical failing.
Click to expand...
10,000%! That’s not capitalism, that’s the opposite of capitalism. Capitalism has consequences!
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
You do realize he was a test pilot, right? One crash setting a world speed record and the other due to catastrophic, or close to, prop failure. He walked away from both.

Seriously? That’s your retort?
Click to expand...
That’s not a retort, it’s a question.

What was the cause of the speed record crash?

With regard to the XF-11, I’m also not sure that “Hughes was horrifically injured in the crash. In addition to the third-degree burns, he suffered a crushed chest with collapsed left lung, a crushed collar bone, and multiple cracked ribs. He was confined to a bed for months, and the constant pain and struggle caused him to become dependent on opiates.” would be considered “walking away from” an accident.

In addition to the two you noted, a quick search pulls up “Determined to show the stunt pilots working on the film what a hot-shot pilot he was, Hughes took off in one of the actual WWI airplanes, an airplane that would be a challenge for any new pilot. Ignoring advice from the experienced pilots, Hughes crashed and was pulled from the wreckage dazed and bleeding.” Another one he didn’t “walk away from,” and certainly not an indicator of someone who should be flying airplanes.

Then there was, ‘The S-43 proved to be unsuitable for around-the-world duty, but Hughes continued to modify it until crash-landing in Lake Mead, near Las Vegas, in 1943. "The [center of gravity] was just way too far forward."’ Only killed two people, so not a problem, I guess.

Definitely not someone I would put forward as a shining example of why someone should be allowed to fly.
 
mryan75 said:
But what you need to understand is that the system absolutely is not doing what is best for the individual, nor can it. It’s literally impossible. Checkrides are no different. You have to meet the standard, end of story. If you leave room for opinion, judgement and interpretation, it’s no longer a system.
Click to expand...
That makes zero sense. When you go to a Dr. and they tell you the only cure is to perform invasive surgery, you get a second opinion, right? We're talking about medicine in every instance here.

Your underlying assumption is that the system is correct. If that was the stance always taken then there would be absolutely no progress in anything.
 
mryan75 said:
10,000%! That’s not capitalism, that’s the opposite of capitalism. Capitalism has consequences!
Click to expand...
You can't have more than 100%, but that's beside the point. At the heart of capitalism is profit for the capitalist, and this can lead to profit at any means, i.e. greed and immoral practices. I'm a capitalist, but when people are motivated to push drugs for bonuses, that's the downside of capitalism. We digress, sorry.
 
SkyChaser said:
Every single flight has risks and every single flight involves deciding enough of the risks can be mitigated to justify the flight. Physical limitations are known risks that can be defined and mitigating measures can be taken. For sleep apnea, that is treating said sleep apnea satisfactorily. For one arm operations, that is changing positions of controls. Mental issues are an entirely different can of worms and touch a lot more of the important bits of flight than physical limitations...and are next to impossible to fully comprehend the impact of and thus, impossible to truly mitigate. It would be extremely bad decision-making to allow such a flight risk into the air.

I still hold that FAA hiring practices have nothing to do with the discussion. We are talking FAA as it exists, not as it will exist once it hires a bunch of incompetent and mentally-challenged individuals.

Also, doctors prescribing unnecessary medication has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with lack of ethics. Greed at the cost of others is not driven by capitalism but by a moral and ethical failing.
Click to expand...
Disagree.
 
MauleSkinner said:
That’s not a retort, it’s a question.

What was the cause of the speed record crash?

With regard to the XF-11, I’m also not sure that “Hughes was horrifically injured in the crash. In addition to the third-degree burns, he suffered a crushed chest with collapsed left lung, a crushed collar bone, and multiple cracked ribs. He was confined to a bed for months, and the constant pain and struggle caused him to become dependent on opiates.” would be considered “walking away from” an accident.

In addition to the two you noted, a quick search pulls up “Determined to show the stunt pilots working on the film what a hot-shot pilot he was, Hughes took off in one of the actual WWI airplanes, an airplane that would be a challenge for any new pilot. Ignoring advice from the experienced pilots, Hughes crashed and was pulled from the wreckage dazed and bleeding.” Another one he didn’t “walk away from,” and certainly not an indicator of someone who should be flying airplanes.

Then there was, ‘The S-43 proved to be unsuitable for around-the-world duty, but Hughes continued to modify it until crash-landing in Lake Mead, near Las Vegas, in 1943. "The [center of gravity] was just way too far forward."’ Only killed two people, so not a problem, I guess.

Definitely not someone I would put forward as a shining example of why someone should be allowed to fly.
Click to expand...
To quote Skychaser. "Every single flight has risks and every single flight involves deciding enough of the risks can be mitigated to justify the flight."

To clarify, I meant he survived those accidents.

I'd guess you'd call all those pilots that died trying to break the sound barrier, or testing the limits of aircraft design that died in crashes as "...not someone I would put forward as a shining example of why someone should be allowed to fly." Man, they were reckless!
 
mryan75 said:
In logical fallacies?
Click to expand...
That's the best you can do? If you're not even going to try to have a conversation, I don't see why I should, either. Keep preaching to an amen choir.

Unless my ET example inadvertently hit a nerve? :rofl:
 
DJTorrente said:
That's the best you can do? If you're not even going to try to have a conversation, I don't see why I should, either. Keep preaching to an amen choir.

Unless my ET example inadvertently hit a nerve? :rofl:
Click to expand...
I was going to say, I think it went right over the head.
 
mryan75 said:
Nope.
Click to expand...
I see how this works.

mryan75: "the most brilliant human being I know (and it’s not even close) has a severe psychiatric condition. Major, major case of bipolar disorder. You wouldn’t even know it talking to him. He is in good medical care. He’s an attorney."

Nope. Sounds unqualified and mentally unsound. He's been diagnosed.
 
Last edited:
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
To quote Skychaser. "Every single flight has risks and every single flight involves deciding enough of the risks can be mitigated to justify the flight."

To clarify, I meant he survived those accidents.

I'd guess you'd call all those pilots that died trying to break the sound barrier, or testing the limits of aircraft design that died in crashes as "...not someone I would put forward as a shining example of why someone should be allowed to fly." Man, they were reckless!
Click to expand...
Sounds to me like the pilot in discussion had very bad judgment and should not have been flying, if you go by my metric you quoted. If he crashed that many times and took that many unmitigated and unnecessary risks, he sounds like he has nearly singularly bad judgment. There is a difference between being reckless for a purpose (test pilots) and being reckless because you have bad judgment and/or a mental illness/disorder. Introducing known bad judgment into the equation is a stupid thing to do, especially from the FAA's point of view.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
To quote Skychaser. "Every single flight has risks and every single flight involves deciding enough of the risks can be mitigated to justify the flight."

To clarify, I meant he survived those accidents.

I'd guess you'd call all those pilots that died trying to break the sound barrier, or testing the limits of aircraft design that died in crashes as "...not someone I would put forward as a shining example of why someone should be allowed to fly." Man, they were reckless!
Click to expand...
If you can’t tell the difference between a legitimate test pilot and someone on an ego trip, I guess there’s no more conversation to be had.
 
MauleSkinner said:
If you can’t tell the difference between a legitimate test pilot and someone on an ego trip, I guess there’s no more conversation to be had.
Click to expand...
One becomes a test pilot because of their confidence in their aviating ability, or put another way, ego. Have you ever read anything about the Gemini and Apollo astronauts? Outside of Neil Armstrong, there were some incredibly strong personalities/egos. If some people didn't have the mindset, or ego, to say "that won't happen to me, I'm a better pilot...," we would still be flying subsonic.

There is such thing as calculated risk.

Maybe because I have experience in the experimental world, I view things differently. You're always a bit of a test pilot in that world.
 
SkyChaser said:
Sounds to me like the pilot in discussion had very bad judgment and should not have been flying, if you go by my metric you quoted. If he crashed that many times and took that many unmitigated and unnecessary risks, he sounds like he has nearly singularly bad judgment. There is a difference between being reckless for a purpose (test pilots) and being reckless because you have bad judgment and/or a mental illness/disorder. Introducing known bad judgment into the equation is a stupid thing to do, especially from the FAA's point of view.
Click to expand...
Are we still talking about Howard Hughes? I'm so happy he was up in the air, he contributed so much to aviation, putting his own life and resources at risk into that passion. So was he a test pilot or a reckless, mentally deranged individual? Perhaps both? In any event, you and I both are benefitting from his eccentricities.

So easy to Monday morning QB. So many scoffers.

"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams"
 
Kenny Phillips said:
She flies the plane, took a SODA flight, so yeah, no arms.
Condition stable, unlikely to change.
Click to expand...
I'm super thrilled for her, I mean that sincerely! My point is there is zero room for errors in that circumstance. If any of the flight systems/controls that are already exceptions to normal/typical flight go wrong, she's in a very bad place compared to someone with the both, or even 1 arm. So the FAA is allowing her to fly in spite of a very clear medical condition, because she has proven otherwise.

The heart of this thread is people, whether actually diagnosed or not, are finding themselves in the ADD/ADHD trap of the FAA and the process for these folks seems to be a much larger hurdle vs. someone, like Jessica for instance, to be able to enjoy the skyways; even if under sports pilot privileges.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
So the FAA is allowing her to fly in spite of a very clear medical condition, because she has proven otherwise.
Click to expand...
and the FAA will allow someone with ADHD diagnosis in the past as well - using their path that shows that said person can operate without the use of amphetamine based drugs. So if you prove this to the FAA (their tests however much you disagree with them) - then they usually issue.
 
Anthem said:
and the FAA will allow someone with ADHD diagnosis in the past as well - using their path that shows that said person can operate without the use of amphetamine based drugs. So if you prove this to the FAA (their tests however much you disagree with them) - then they usually issue.
Click to expand...
Yes, they may eventually issue under SI. It's the process and timeline I disagree with. The FAA has created a system that rewards dishonesty and punishes honesty. Studies already show ~ 50% of pilot applicants aren't being 100% honest in their mental or physical health.

Would you rather have a pilot in the air that's acknowledging they have an issue, disclosing it and addressing it, or someone that is hiding it, bottling it up, not seeking help, and then ends up flying the aircraft into a mountain? The latter has no problem lying and being deceitful to get what they want, and thus shows a trend of unethical and dangerous behavior...yet those people are in the fast track to be flying your and my family around unencumbered. Great system.
 
I'll make no argument about that. The FAA has never been able to live up to its own abysmal standards on processing time and has retreated from the "issue but confirm" strategies it used in the past to circumvent its failures. As At one point COGSCREEN AE so overmandated that it really had me wondering. They seem to have eased up on that a bit. The fast track retreats to almost what they had a decade ago where they recognized the childhood misdiagnosis issue and would accept those who made it through college unmedicated as possibly not having any significant ADHD.
However, the standards are what they are. If you had ADHD, you weren't going to "grow out of it" or "get better," and there is a significant deficit when it comes to flying.
 
flyingron said:
I'll make no argument about that. The FAA has never been able to live up to its own abysmal standards on processing time and has retreated from the "issue but confirm" strategies it used in the past to circumvent its failures. As At one point COGSCREEN AE so overmandated that it really had me wondering. They seem to have eased up on that a bit. The fast track retreats to almost what they had a decade ago where they recognized the childhood misdiagnosis issue and would accept those who made it through college unmedicated as possibly not having any significant ADHD.
However, the standards are what they are. If you had ADHD, you weren't going to "grow out of it" or "get better," and there is a significant deficit when it comes to flying.
Click to expand...
I'm not dealing with ADD/ADHD and the FAA, I've got my own items to address, just an advocate of making the system better.

I appreciate your constructive demeanor. I can't say the same for most on this forum.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
At the heart of capitalism is profit for the capitalist, and this can lead to profit at any means, i.e. greed and immoral practices. I'm a capitalist, but when people are motivated to push drugs for bonuses, that's the downside of capitalism.
Click to expand...
You clearly don't understand either capitalism or my statement.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
When you go to a Dr. and they tell you the only cure is to perform invasive surgery, you get a second opinion, right?
Click to expand...
See this is where I begin to wonder, because this question has no connection at all to anything we've talked about. So, um, yes, but what's your point?
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
Your underlying assumption is that the system is correct.
Click to expand...
Based on what? Please support that statement in any way. That statement has absolutely no basis in fact. None.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
The FAA has created a system that rewards dishonesty and punishes honesty.
Click to expand...
Absolute nonsense. If you consider felony charges a reward.
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
Would you rather have a pilot in the air that's acknowledging they have an issue, disclosing it and addressing it, or someone that is hiding it, bottling it up, not seeking help, and then ends up flying the aircraft into a mountain?
Click to expand...
The former, clearly. And literally nothing stops anyone from doing that. If YOU choose to break the law and YOU choose to lie, that speaks to you, not the system.
 
Howard Hughes also saved his pee, cut his hair and nails once a year and died weighing 90 lbs with multiple needle tips broken off in his arm.........just sayin'
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
I see how this works.

mryan75: "the most brilliant human being I know (and it’s not even close) has a severe psychiatric condition. Major, major case of bipolar disorder. You wouldn’t even know it talking to him. He is in good medical care. He’s an attorney."

Nope. Sounds unqualified and mentally unsound. He's been diagnosed.
Click to expand...
You have been dishonest and have tried to use distraction, deceit and logical falicies over and over to "win" your argument. Let's review what I actually wrote, with my emphasis added to point out your complete and utter dishonesty:
mryan75 said:
This has nothing to do with the subject at hand, however the most brilliant human being I know (and it’s not even close) has a severe psychiatric condition. Major, major case of bipolar disorder. You wouldn’t even know it talking to him. He is in good medical care. He’s an attorney, and I would have zero issue whatsoever with the FAA hiring him for a position in his area of expertise. When the FAA starts hiring people with severe psychiatric conditions for flying positions, be sure and let us know.
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top