FAA finally gets path 1 back on track

A similar fast past option to the ADHD. If you've been off meds for two years and you can answer no to all the various questions like no other mental problems, no suicidal ideation, etc...
It can be applied for current deferred cases.

Interesting. What all changed from their last change? Not super familiar with it but last change a lot of people said it wasn’t that great of a change.
 
While the official "Path 1" says if you're off meds for 60 days without symptoms it's issuable, the FAA has walked back that idea for the past few years and sent people into HIMS hell.
 
While the official "Path 1" says if you're off meds for 60 days without symptoms it's issuable, the FAA has walked back that idea for the past few years and sent people into HIMS hell.
People voluntarily opted to go to HIMS - the FAA sent no one.
 
Last edited:
While the official "Path 1" says if you're off meds for 60 days without symptoms it's issuable, the FAA has walked back that idea for the past few years and sent people into HIMS hell.
No. It. Sez, “do not use for recurrent disease”. Folks with disease that has recurrred can’t use that path…..
 
No. It. Sez, “do not use for recurrent disease”. Folks with disease that has recurrred can’t use that path…..
In all sincerity, what does “recurrent disease” mean in the world of the FAA or medical community? Does that mean you got off meds, but then needed to get back on them, or some time qualifier, or other?

Thanks!
 
While the official "Path 1" says if you're off meds for 60 days without symptoms it's issuable, the FAA has walked back that idea for the past few years and sent people into HIMS hell.
So is this a new and different path vs the recent “non complicated…” path?
 
If by “voluntary” you mean the FAA absolutely won’t consider your case without going to a HIMS AME as required by the FAA, I guess it’s “voluntary.”
I mean someone thinks they qualify for a medical certificate if they provide more medical evidence and have opted to try to do so. It happens everyday.
 
I mean someone thinks they qualify for a medical certificate if they provide more medical evidence and have opted to try to do so. It happens everyday.
That’s the process. Why wouldn’t you engage a HIMS AME when the FAA sends you a letter saying they will consider regular issuance or SI if you work that process?

Either they need to just say no and not give false hope, or really heed the recommendations of the HIMS AME and required evaluation specialists.
 
In all sincerity, what does “recurrent disease” mean in the world of the FAA or medical community? Does that mean you got off meds, but then needed to get back on them, or some time qualifier, or other?

Thanks!

Effectively, yes. More than one episode requiring treatment ever in your life.
 
Effectively, yes. More than one episode requiring treatment ever in your life.
To drill down further, I got on Zoloft for work related anxiety in 2020, I’ve been on it since then and never off. If I do go off of it and show I’m “stable” and no longer needing it, is that “recurrent.”
 
That’s the process. Why wouldn’t you engage a HIMS AME when the FAA sends you a letter saying they will consider regular issuance or SI if you work that process?

Either they need to just say no and not give false hope, or really heed the recommendations of the HIMS AME and required evaluation specialists.
People are told everyday they have a medical condition and shouldn’t do an activity. The people providing the false hope is the crowd that demands the standards be removed to allow these people to try anyway.

Even with a medical in hand, that doesn’t mean they will get through flight training. There are people with no history of mental issues who are not mentally fit to be pilots and told this isn’t your activity by non-medical professions.
 
People are told everyday they have a medical condition and shouldn’t do an activity. The people providing the false hope is the crowd that demands the standards be removed to allow these people to try anyway.

Even with a medical in hand, that doesn’t mean they will get through flight training. There are people with no history of mental issues who are not mentally fit to be pilots and told this isn’t your activity by non-medical professions.
I disagree. There are plenty of exceptions to that statement. Maybe you are just a person that gives up easily or takes any word of "authority" as gospel.

Think of all the stories of "you only have X months to live" or "he will never walk or talk again" that have proven to be absolutely false.

Medicine isn't an exact science, and like everything that isn't exact, it's fallible and prone to error or bias.

If you are correct in this point of view, all these "Medical" forum threads are pointless and anyone who receives a deferral should give up an not waste their time, right?
 
I disagree. There are plenty of exceptions to that statement.…
The FAA cares not about your health. The FAA, by law, must certify your medical history conforms to the Code of Federal Regulations sufficiently enough to certify your medical history meets the letter of the law.

Perversely, never seeing a medical provider is easier to certify than someone who routinely sees a PCM and currently takes some medications to control various aspects of their health, whether on or off label.

It’s why we say get healthy first, then see if the record can be certified.
 
The FAA cares not about your health. The FAA, by law, must certify your medical history conforms to the Code of Federal Regulations sufficiently enough to certify your medical history meets the letter of the law.

Perversely, never seeing a medical provider is easier to certify than someone who routinely sees a PCM and currently takes some medications to control various aspects of their health, whether on or off label.

It’s why we say get healthy first, then see if the record can be certified.
I disagree with the statement in part. The FAA vehemently cares about the health of those who accurately report their health status. It's easy, but not morally right, to completely hide or lie about any non-obvious physical (or cognitive) issues and get your medical cert. I had an instructor tell me "I don't tell my AME ****." Obviously, I didn't feel that was the right approach, yet these are pilots training other pilots and are so "blessed" by the infallible FAA.

The system punishes those who are open and honest about any potential concerns the FAA might bring up.

Someone earlier said "Even with a medical in hand, that doesn’t mean they will get through flight training. There are people with no history of mental issues who are not mentally fit to be pilots and told this isn’t your activity by non-medical professions."

On the flip side, there are pilots, like myself, with 400 hours TT with complex, HP and TW endorsement that were halfway through their IFR training who then find themselves, per the FAA, not fit enough to fly when the historical data, and upon any feedback from any of my CFI's, would argue otherwise. By the way, I quit training with the CFI that suggested lying about my health, so don't bother with that argument.

There are valid arguments on both sides. I think there would be less complaining if the process didn't take 1/3rd of a decade, in some instances, to come to a resolution and if there was more transparency in the process.

I'd honestly pay an expedited/"concierge" fee of up to $20K if it meant actually getting to talk to someone of consequence at the FAA vs. being a PI number in a pile of backlogged applications.
 
I disagree with the statement in part. The FAA vehemently cares about the health of those who accurately report their health status. It's easy, but not morally right, to completely hide or lie about any non-obvious physical (or cognitive) issues and get your medical cert. I had an instructor tell me "I don't tell my AME ****." Obviously, I didn't feel that was the right approach, yet these are pilots training other pilots and are so "blessed" by the infallible FAA.

The system punishes those who are open and honest about any potential concerns the FAA might bring up.

Someone earlier said "Even with a medical in hand, that doesn’t mean they will get through flight training. There are people with no history of mental issues who are not mentally fit to be pilots and told this isn’t your activity by non-medical professions."

On the flip side, there are pilots, like myself, with 400 hours TT with complex, HP and TW endorsement that were halfway through their IFR training who then find themselves, per the FAA, not fit enough to fly when the historical data, and upon any feedback from any of my CFI's, would argue otherwise. By the way, I quit training with the CFI that suggested lying about my health, so don't bother with that argument.

There are valid arguments on both sides. I think there would be less complaining if the process didn't take 1/3rd of a decade, in some instances, to come to a resolution and if there was more transparency in the process.

I'd honestly pay an expedited/"concierge" fee of up to $20K if it meant actually getting to talk to someone of consequence at the FAA vs. being a PI number in a pile of backlogged applications.
Keep in mind that, like every other aspect of aviation, paperwork is the only thing they can look at until after something occurs to attract attention. An annual inspection properly documented makes the airplane legal, not whether the inspection was actually done.

The FAA doesn’t have the resources to look at every airplane and every pilot directly, so they have a processes in place to farm them out. Those processes are created by humans, so they are, by design and definition, imperfect. But as imperfect as they are, those are the processes we’re bound by, and people falsifying isn’t the fault of the FAA.
 
Keep in mind that, like every other aspect of aviation, paperwork is the only thing they can look at until after something occurs to attract attention. An annual inspection properly documented makes the airplane legal, not whether the inspection was actually done.

The FAA doesn’t have the resources to look at every airplane and every pilot directly, so they have a processes in place to farm them out. Those processes are created by humans, so they are, by design and definition, imperfect. But as imperfect as they are, those are the processes we’re bound by, and people falsifying isn’t the fault of the FAA.
I agree with every point made. However, I don't see the wisdom in needing 1-3 people in D.C. to re-review the evaluations and opinions of those specialists the FAA already approved and to whom the processes were already "farmed out."

It seems that the AME/HIMS AME should be able to review all the documents, specialists evaluation comments and recommendations, and issue the medical cert, either standard issuance or special issuance, themselves vs. needing to then send to D.C. where it's sat on for 6-12 months.

I don't know how a bureaucrat in D.C. or OK would be better suited to evaluate the same info the AME does and add the fact that the FAA medical staff has never met, spoken with, interacted, etc. with the applicant. It's a non-sensical and inefficient process.
 
I agree with every point made. However, I don't see the wisdom in needing 1-3 people in D.C. to re-review the evaluations and opinions of those specialists the FAA already approved and to whom the processes were already "farmed out."

It seems that the AME/HIMS AME should be able to review all the documents, specialists evaluation comments and recommendations, and issue the medical cert, either standard issuance or special issuance, themselves vs. needing to then send to D.C. where it's sat on for 6-12 months.

I don't know how a bureaucrat in D.C. or OK would be better suited to evaluate the same info the AME does and add the fact that the FAA medical staff has never met, spoken with, interacted, etc. with the applicant. It's a non-sensical and inefficient process.
Are there pilot functions where the paperwork ISN’T reviewed after the designee approves it? This isn’t unique to the medical process.
 
The FAA ‘re-review the evaluations and opinions of those specialists the FAA already approved and to whom the processes were already "farmed out"’ for everything else related to pilots, so they’re not doing anything beyond normal here.
 
The FAA ‘re-review the evaluations and opinions of those specialists the FAA already approved and to whom the processes were already "farmed out"’ for everything else related to pilots, so they’re not doing anything beyond normal here.
The above is a very oddly constructed sentence, so I'm still not sure what you're saying other than demonstrating that they are operating as is normal for the FAA. I.e. SNAFU.
 
The above is a very oddly constructed sentence, so I'm still not sure what you're saying other than demonstrating that they are operating as is normal for the FAA. I.e. SNAFU.
I’m saying this is SN. If you consider it to be AFU, what are you doing to change that? Complaining about it here as much as you have been isn’t going to change anything.
 
I’m saying this is SN. If you consider it to be AFU, what are you doing to change that? Complaining about it here as much as you have been isn’t going to change anything.
Good question. I'm donating to AOPA, writing my representative/congressmen, meeting with pilots flying for airlines that have gone through the same process, but that have union help/more governmental influence to show the brokenness of the system, and bringing attention to people like yourself in forums like this. There's a reason there is a subject thread dedicated to medical items/issues.

It seems the difference between me and you (maybe I'm off?), and some others of like mind as you on this forum, is you take the viewpoint "This is not my problem, it is what it is, so I don't really care. Quit complaining and just deal with it." I, on the other hand, want to make the system better for myself and everyone else who's currently, or might be, caught in this non-sensical and inefficient system.

As I've stated multiple times, I fully understand the need to make sure pilots are fit before flying - although in reality that's 100% dependent on the pilot to disclose everything initially and throughout their entire flying career/hobby. We all know that's not happening.

The issue I have is in the manner this process is conducted. It's only a matter of time before you, or someone you know will be affected by this process. I trust you will be as objective in those situations.
 
It seems the difference between me and you (maybe I'm off?), and some others of like mind as you on this forum, is you take the viewpoint "This is not my problem, it is what it is, so I don't really care. Quit complaining and just deal with it." I,
Some of us don’t have the time or resources to chase every cause we think is important…we have to pick. That’s not the same thing.
 
While the official "Path 1" says if you're off meds for 60 days without symptoms it's issuable, the FAA has walked back that idea for the past few years and sent people into HIMS hell.
Not issuable at time of exam. Issuable after deferral. Unless you can apply situational depression or uncomplicated anxiety/depression pathways. Then the AME may issue, but most of the policies are somewhat challenging for non-HIMS AME's to navigate and will likely lead to deferral in most cases.
 
So is this a new and different path vs the recent “non complicated…” path?
This new modification/addition to the policy is specifically for the airman/airman applicant that is currently deferred for a mental health condition. They've also removed the term 'uncomplicated' depression.

Check out:

 
To drill down further, I got on Zoloft for work related anxiety in 2020, I’ve been on it since then and never off. If I do go off of it and show I’m “stable” and no longer needing it, is that “recurrent.”
Sounds like you've been on longer than 6 months, therefore 'situational depression' does not apply to you.

Also you will be in the category of use of medications less than 2 years ago so the new policy discussed above also won't apply to you.

So you have two options:

1. Get off the med and waiting 60 days for the evaluations/steps needed to pursue possible regular issuance.
2. Stay on the med and when stable on same dose/med x 6 months, going thru the evals and steps for special issuance.
 
I disagree. There are plenty of exceptions to that statement. Maybe you are just a person that gives up easily or takes any word of "authority" as gospel.

Think of all the stories of "you only have X months to live" or "he will never walk or talk again" that have proven to be absolutely false.

Medicine isn't an exact science, and like everything that isn't exact, it's fallible and prone to error or bias.

If you are correct in this point of view, all these "Medical" forum threads are pointless and anyone who receives a deferral should give up an not waste their time, right?
In fact, the data shows a large majority of people with depression/anxiety/use of antidepressants and go thru the steps required by the FAA will ultimately get issued a certificate.
 
Back
Top