Horizon Employee Who Stole A Bombardier Q400 - Another Side Of The Story

[SkyDog58]

Not sure. All of the criminal stuff in Florida was dropped due to various technicalities. It took a number of years for the FAA to yank his certificate as they appealed through all the layers...probably a good five years..can't remember.

A year after this incident - my dad flew his A9 Callair back down to Florida. He had to swing by the FSDO to get an authorization to pull banners there with it...and they were actively working to take his certificates over the drunken thing the year before...but they still had to issue the authorization. He ended up pulling banners with the Callair for the same company that owned the Cub in that incident. The owner, being a drinking man himself, was understanding and had no hard feelings.

All happened because of a girl...a bet...and tequila. Didn't help that the airport was across the street from the bar...Also didn't help that the girl called the cops as soon as she realized that he was actually going to do what they bet on.

The FAA should have had no problem getting an emergency revocation for that stupid stunt. I can't believe it took 5 years. Something not right in that part of the story.

Also, the FAA does not have to issue any authorization or waiver. They can deny.

 

[Anymouse]

Interesting story.

Also didn't help that the girl called the cops as soon as she realized that he was actually going to do what they bet on.

I'm sure they would have found out without the phone call.

 

[SkyDog58]

No you could not be more wrong. I guarantee their are many pilots who fly professionally who can’t get the help they want because as soon as they do their career is over! The issue is if you do seek help for a mental condition and take medication for such a condition the FAA can/will go after your medical for such a thing. It’s abusive, criminal and should be changed. Imagine if such a stance was taken when someone had a physical issue?!? Often times mental issues can be helped a great deal through simple medications or therapy but the FAA would rather punish you for these actions rather than encourage them.

The FAA’s entire position on medical related issues is so archaic and antiquated that it’s appals me they fail to revisit many issues. BasicMed was a great step forward and shows progression in the right direction.

Actually I am not wrong but you are free to believe whatever nonsense you choose to.

 

[jspilot]

Actually I am not wrong but you are free to believe whatever nonsense you choose to.

So do you want to put out there that the FAA does not go after pilots who seek mental health related care or take mental health related medications and that this somehow does not directly interfere with a persons ability to seek treatment for a disease without fear of reprecution? I’m curious why you feel the need to defend the FAA on this issue when it is in every pilots best interest as well as the greater good to have people who can get help for whatever issue they have without fear of loosing their job/hobby/passion!

 

[cowman]

It's the same way with firearms licenses and some jobs. If you seek help for something like depression then you may be putting things like a firearm owner's license (we have that in IL...), a CDL, or your job at risk. I think part of it is the stigma that "oh well this is an ongoing thing and you're not going to cure it," so consequently if you have a rough patch in your life and you seek help for it, organizations like the FAA, DOT, ATF, etc don't view it as "oh good they are being proactive and managing this," they view it as "this person is damaged goods." We ought to change that.

Our child hasn't even been born yet and I've had a conversation about this with my wife. Unless something extreme is going on I will not take my kid to any kind of therapist where they could get a life altering diagnosis on record. If he ever even has issues I don't want someone entering a diagnosis with lifelong consequences for something that may be temporary or that he can learn to manage without medication.

I wouldn't go myself for the same reason.

Therein lies a huge issue. You want this stuff to be absolutely confidential such that people have no reason to avoid going in. Yet at the same time we want to be able to identify the ones who are off their rocker and deny them access to things that could get themselves or others hurt.

 

[Dave Theisen]

You'd think the guy was trying to top my dad...not sure he did..since my dad lived and all...
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1989-02-28/news/8901110758_1_metro-dade-pilot-plane

So, did he loop it or roll it above the police helicopter? The reporter obviously doesn’t realize they are two different things.

 

[Anthony G]

Germinwings plane that was awful pilot sucide

 

[azure]

No you could not be more wrong. I guarantee their are many pilots who fly professionally who can’t get the help they want because as soon as they do their career is over! The issue is if you do seek help for a mental condition and take medication for such a condition the FAA can/will go after your medical for such a thing. It’s abusive, criminal and should be changed. Imagine if such a stance was taken when someone had a physical issue?!? Often times mental issues can be helped a great deal through simple medications or therapy but the FAA would rather punish you for these actions rather than encourage them.

The FAA’s entire position on medical related issues is so archaic and antiquated that it’s appals me they fail to revisit many issues. BasicMed was a great step forward and shows progression in the right direction.

Not sure why you say he is wrong. Actually i think you are both right. As you say, the current state of affairs (especially for revenue pilots for whom BasicMed is not an option) is truly crazy and a strong disincentive to getting help when needed. Of course, it's not limited to mental health issues; there are literally dozens of conditions that require extremely expen$ive SIs on an annual basis and pilots who think they have them are likely be staying out of the doctors' office for fear of getting the diagnosis.

But just because the situation SHOULD be changed doesn't mean that it WILL. Or rather, that it will change in the direction of increased tolerance for pilots using mental health providers. More likely, there will be ever increased scrutiny of medical records to catch pilots, especially revenue pilots, who are trying to fly under the radar. I have no evidence to back that up, it's strictly speculation, but it is consistent with the way the FAA views their role, which is to protect the public and NOT to help pilots keep their jobs.

 

[Matthew]

Germinwings plane that was awful pilot sucide

Egypt Air 990 was another one.

I didn't count those, I'm not sure they are FAA related.

 

[Salty]

Our child hasn't even been born yet and I've had a conversation about this with my wife. Unless something extreme is going on I will not take my kid to any kind of therapist where they could get a life altering diagnosis on record. If he ever even has issues I don't want someone entering a diagnosis with lifelong consequences for something that may be temporary or that he can learn to manage without medication.

I wouldn't go myself for the same reason.

Therein lies a huge issue. You want this stuff to be absolutely confidential such that people have no reason to avoid going in. Yet at the same time we want to be able to identify the ones who are off their rocker and deny them access to things that could get themselves or others hurt.

True freedom comes at a cost. It means you sometimes have to give freedom to others that you don't necessarily want to have it. Innocent until proven guilty. It's a fundamental principle to our country.

I can agree that someone with a history of mental illness shouldn't be flying for carriage. But this is America. They have the right to fly a personal aircraft, as well as own a gun, etc - until they do something that proves they can't handle the responsibility of that freedom - IE: commit a crime or reckless endangerment, etc.

I find the idea of taking rights for "pre-crime" reprehensible.

 

[cowman]

True freedom comes at a cost. It means you sometimes have to give freedom to others that you don't necessarily want to have it. Innocent until proven guilty. It's a fundamental principle to our country.

I can agree that someone with a history of mental illness shouldn't be flying for carriage. But this is America. They have the right to fly a personal aircraft, as well as own a gun, etc - until they do something that proves they can't handle the responsibility of that freedom - IE: commit a crime or reckless endangerment, etc.

I find the idea of taking rights for "pre-crime" reprehensible.

In spirit, I really do agree with you on all those points. Actually if the public at large was more supportive of this kind of attitude I'd be fine with it. The problem is you have all these incidents- some of the school shootings are really good examples where it seemed absolutely everyone who had contact with a person knew something was wrong with them and they were a danger. Everyone knew and nobody could do anything within the bounds of the law and existing structures. I think people are understandable outraged about that kind of thing.

The solutions are not easy, the reactionaries seem to think they are but as you said this is America and we're supposed to have rights. Innocent until proven otherwise... and so you get something like mental illness which is very complicated and nuanced not to mention hard to pin down accurately, then you try to handle all that through a long complicated law/set of rules written by committee and there's no winning. Either the rules/law have no real teeth and are useless or you end up unjustly taking away liberty from someone who is completely competent and no danger to anyone. Most likely both problems happen.

You and I might be able to shrug and say that's just the price of having freedom- sometimes people do bad things and sometimes that results in tragedy. There will always be people who don't- who will take the side of "well you don't need to ______" so why do we let people do it? Sometimes we have to put some kind of regulation down- even if it's just a token thing to keep doing what we want.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

So do you want to put out there that the FAA does not go after pilots who seek mental health related care or take mental health related medications and that this somehow does not directly interfere with a persons ability to seek treatment for a disease without fear of reprecution? I’m curious why you feel the need to defend the FAA on this issue when it is in every pilots best interest as well as the greater good to have people who can get help for whatever issue they have without fear of loosing their job/hobby/passion!

Well I'm not defending the FAA but Skydog is right. A case like that will never see the light of day. The FAA has said, both officially and not so officially they absolutely want all pilots that feel they need the assistance of a mental health professional to seek out and get that assistance. I understand your perspective on it, but from a legal standpoint, there isn't really a leg to stand on here.

That's not to say that I think the FAA shouldn't loosen their stance on certain conditions and commonly prescribed mental health medications. I think they absolutely should. But if you're waiting for a SCOTUS case as the vehicle to make that happen, well you're going to have very long wait.

 

[Lindberg]

No you could not be more wrong. I guarantee their are many pilots who fly professionally who can’t get the help they want because as soon as they do their career is over! The issue is if you do seek help for a mental condition and take medication for such a condition the FAA can/will go after your medical for such a thing. It’s abusive, criminal and should be changed. Imagine if such a stance was taken when someone had a physical issue?!? Often times mental issues can be helped a great deal through simple medications or therapy but the FAA would rather punish you for these actions rather than encourage them.

The FAA’s entire position on medical related issues is so archaic and antiquated that it’s appals me they fail to revisit many issues. BasicMed was a great step forward and shows progression in the right direction.

Therapy isn't even reportable on your medical unless there's a diagnosis of a mental illness. So if you're just "going through some stuff" and don't go talk to someone because SGOTI scared you about the FAA, that's between you and SGOTI. OTOH, if you have a mental condition that requires medication, I can't think of a good argument why you should be flying a metal tube with 200 passengers in back.

 

[jspilot]

Not sure why you say he is wrong. Actually i think you are both right. As you say, the current state of affairs (especially for revenue pilots for whom BasicMed is not an option) is truly crazy and a strong disincentive to getting help when needed. Of course, it's not limited to mental health issues; there are literally dozens of conditions that require extremely expen$ive SIs on an annual basis and pilots who think they have them are likely be staying out of the doctors' office for fear of getting the diagnosis.

But just because the situation SHOULD be changed doesn't mean that it WILL. Or rather, that it will change in the direction of increased tolerance for pilots using mental health providers. More likely, there will be ever increased scrutiny of medical records to catch pilots, especially revenue pilots, who are trying to fly under the radar. I have no evidence to back that up, it's strictly speculation, but it is consistent with the way the FAA views their role, which is to protect the public and NOT to help pilots keep their jobs.

I totally agree with you. Here’s my spin, if the FAA wants to protect the flying public,how do they justify making pilots who are flying who may develop some mental condition later on in their life have to choose between seeking help and possibly loosing their medical?!? There are lots of conditions between so called normal and suicidal that are very possible for someone to have who is perfectly capable of flying a plane with but may just need some help with( anxiety, insomnia, addiction... just to name a few.) So if the FAA stands between a pilot who needs help with any of the conditions similar in severity to the few I listed above, and the help that pilot needs, in my thought process, the FAA is actually making the flying public less safe!!! I don’t want to be on a plane with a guy who is suffering from addiction sitting in the pilots seat and can’t get help for his or her condition. I have absolutely no issue flying in a plane with someone who is actively seeking help for mental health related conditions who may be taking prescription medication for their problem. In short, the FAA seems to believe that they’d rather have a pilot suffer in silence from many of these conditions, resort to self medication, or actively avoid/hide treatment for mental health related issues rather than try and fix/help the issue. Another way to look at that is, the FAA would rather the pilot fall deeper into struggle to the point of actually maybe committing harm to himself or the plane he flies rather than seek help. I’m not sure how this makes the flying public any safer!

 

[FloridaPilot]

 

[dell30rb]

No you could not be more wrong. I guarantee their are many pilots who fly professionally who can’t get the help they want because as soon as they do their career is over! The issue is if you do seek help for a mental condition and take medication for such a condition the FAA can/will go after your medical for such a thing. It’s abusive, criminal and should be changed. Imagine if such a stance was taken when someone had a physical issue?!? Often times mental issues can be helped a great deal through simple medications or therapy but the FAA would rather punish you for these actions rather than encourage them.

The FAA’s entire position on medical related issues is so archaic and antiquated that it’s appals me they fail to revisit many issues. BasicMed was a great step forward and shows progression in the right direction.

IIRC the FAA will allow pilots diagnosed with depression and taking Common SSRI medications to fly with a first class medical, and this has been allowed for some time now. There are a few stipulations, but they seem completely reasonable.

 

[jspilot]

IIRC the FAA will allow pilots diagnosed with depression and taking Common SSRI medications to fly with a first class medical, and this has been allowed for some time now. There are a few stipulations, but they seem completely reasonable.

Good to know! I’m glad they allow this as it seems to make the most sense!

I still believe their stance regarding mental health is very antiquated and should be updated. It should not require significant monetary investment to allow flying with such a thing.

 

[Lindberg]

I don’t want to be on a plane with a guy who is suffering from addiction sitting in the pilots seat and can’t get help for his or her condition. I have absolutely no issue flying in a plane with someone who is actively seeking help for mental health related conditions who may be taking prescription medication for their problem.

And what about when he forgets or decides not to take his medication? Are you ok flying with him that day? And how will you know? I guess the FAA could have someone go to his house and count his pills everyday, but that might be considered intrusive. I for one am not OK sitting in a metal tube knowing that whether or not the pilot took his pills that morning might be the determining factor in my and my family's safety. Sorry, not sorry.

 

[kayoh190]

I for one am not OK sitting in a metal tube knowing that whether or not the pilot took his pills that morning might be the determining factor in my and my family's safety. Sorry, not sorry.

I don't want to fly with a guy like that either, but that's what makes the issue so tough. The alternative is this same guy not getting any help *at all*. So you're still sitting in the back of an airliner with someone up front struggling with mental health issues - they're just not being addressed because he's too scared to get help.

 

[Hank S]

I don't want to fly with a guy like that either, but that's what makes the issue so tough. The alternative is this same guy not getting any help *at all*. So you're still sitting in the back of an airliner with someone up front struggling with mental health issues - they're just not being addressed because he's too scared to get help.

How is it any different, if his mental issues are untreated because he's not going to the doctor vs. untreated because he doesn't take his prescription medicine? I just don't see the difference . . . .

 

[hindsight2020]

Wait until pilotless HAL has a hissy fit and decides to disregard the ILS and RNAV signals and just wing it (pun very much intended). Will the FAA give HAL an SI for blue screen of death syndrome?

 

[kayoh190]

How is it any different, if his mental issues are untreated because he's not going to the doctor vs. untreated because he doesn't take his prescription medicine? I just don't see the difference . . . .

It's not any different - I'm just saying that it's not an easy answer. There's obviously a huge difference between someone that's in pain and someone that's actually dangerous, but I've flown with numerous people that would love to talk to someone about something that's going on in their life, but are too scared to do so because of the binary way that the FAA handles it. My company has an internal program for exactly this situation, and hopefully people are availing themselves of this option.

 

[aggie06]

It's not any different - I'm just saying that it's not an easy answer. There's obviously a huge difference between someone that's in pain and someone that's actually dangerous, but I've flown with numerous people that would love to talk to someone about something that's going on in their life, but are too scared to do so because of the binary way that the FAA handles it. My company has an internal program for exactly this situation, and hopefully people are availing themselves of this option.

I think the other difference with meds like these are that they are not like a pain killer. You don't take one and suddenly become happy and then get unhappy as it wears off later in the day. You introduce the medicine into your system by consistently taking it day after day. If you forget to take it one day, you don't all of a sudden become a suicidal depressed pilot. This idea of a depressed person being a better or worse pilot than another is lunacy. The two are simply not connected.

Even some guy who has been happy every day of his life could walk to the flight deck that day and react poorly to some external stimulus. Conversely, the thought that someone diagnosed with depression is automatically suicidal and can't handle flying is asinine. That is the problem with our society. It is a leftover from the mentality Ted mentioned - that any sort of "mental health" issue is a permanent, unsolvable problem with the person.

If you're one who says you wouldn't let your family fly with a guy diagnosed clinically depressed and forgets to take his medicine, consider the following. Would you automatically ground a guy whose wife served him with divorce papers that morning? What if his child passed away over the weekend? What about a guy who hit every red light on the way to the airport and didn't get his coffee that morning? If one of those things happened to you, would you voluntarily give up the keys to your car and use cabs? You're putting more other people in danger on the way to the airport than you do just by flying.

 

[Rushie]

I think the other difference with meds like these are that they are not like a pain killer. You don't take one and suddenly become happy and then get unhappy as it wears off later in the day. You introduce the medicine into your system by consistently taking it day after day. If you forget to take it one day, you don't all of a sudden become a suicidal depressed pilot. This idea of a depressed person being a better or worse pilot than another is lunacy. The two are simply not connected.

Even some guy who has been happy every day of his life could walk to the flight deck that day and react poorly to some external stimulus. Conversely, the thought that someone diagnosed with depression is automatically suicidal and can't handle flying is asinine. That is the problem with our society. It is a leftover from the mentality Ted mentioned - that any sort of "mental health" issue is a permanent, unsolvable problem with the person.

If you're one who says you wouldn't let your family fly with a guy diagnosed clinically depressed and forgets to take his medicine, consider the following. Would you automatically ground a guy whose wife served him with divorce papers that morning? What if his child passed away over the weekend? What about a guy who hit every red light on the way to the airport and didn't get his coffee that morning? If one of those things happened to you, would you voluntarily give up the keys to your car and use cabs? You're putting more other people in danger on the way to the airport than you do just by flying.

You are absolutely right with the minor nit that if a pilot on ADs forgets to take it one morning, no he won't suddenly become suicidal but he may experience severe "discontinuation syndrome" depending on which AD he is on (what its half life is. I haven't looked at the SSRI pathway drugs to know right off hand if any of them have a short half life. I think Prozac has a longer one where skipping one dose won't be a problem.) But onset of this syndrome will simply degrade his performance.

In fact, this kind of erosion of performance is the real problem with depression. There are very, very few people who commit suicide by taking a plane full of people along with them. The overwhelming majority of suicides don't want to hurt anyone but themselves. Despite the sensationalism of the Germanwings guy, that's not the main problem with a depressed pilot. The problem is that depression goes hand in hand with poor sleep, poor concentration, and compromised executive function.

But your point is exactly on target: Many things cause these problems, including simply getting older. But depression has the stigma attached. Are we going to try to eliminate any and all sources of under-performance and never have anyone at the controls that is less than 100% perfection? Can't be done.

But I think the real problem is the massive numbers of people being given these drugs in the first place. How much time and resources are being spent on people who never should have been given a pill at all? And for those who are actually depressed, the SSRI protocol was a great step in the right direction and BasicMed is another.

 

[James331]

There is nothing the FAA could or can do about it.

There is no such thing as “saftey” or “fair”

And shiet happens.

This wasn’t the first time this type of thing happened and it won’t be the last, I just hope government workers won’t try to use this to grandstand on to get even more power and justify increasing their budgets in trade for more money taken out of our hard earned paychecks, or handing over more of our hard fought freedoms and liberties.

Also might I add aside from the person who wanted to off them self, not a single person was hurt in ether of these, so over all aside from it looking dramatic not that different than driving a car off a bridge really.

 

[Lindberg]

It's not any different - I'm just saying that it's not an easy answer. There's obviously a huge difference between someone that's in pain and someone that's actually dangerous, but I've flown with numerous people that would love to talk to someone about something that's going on in their life, but are too scared to do so because of the binary way that the FAA handles it. My company has an internal program for exactly this situation, and hopefully people are availing themselves of this option.

But it isn't binary, and regular talk therapy isn't even reportable to the FAA.

If you're one who says you wouldn't let your family fly with a guy diagnosed clinically depressed and forgets to take his medicine, consider the following. Would you automatically ground a guy whose wife served him with divorce papers that morning? What if his child passed away over the weekend?

I would not want to fly with either of them. I would expect any sane and rational pilot to ground himself in either of those situations. And I would expect any commercial carriers to have policies on such things.

 

[TK211X]

This reminds me of that one guy who loaded his plane with barrels of fuel and flew it into like Λ government tax building or something. These more recent events remind me we are in no short supply of morons who can’t handle themselves.

 

[jspilot]

And what about when he forgets or decides not to take his medication? Are you ok flying with him that day? And how will you know? I guess the FAA could have someone go to his house and count his pills everyday, but that might be considered intrusive. I for one am not OK sitting in a metal tube knowing that whether or not the pilot took his pills that morning might be the determining factor in my and my family's safety. Sorry, not sorry.

As others have said this premise falls apart because not taking medication or seeking help only means the pilot has no chance of improving and is suffering in silence. That’s not safer— it’s far more dangerous.

Also, by this line of thinking, anyone is capable of passing away at any time so I guess the safest thing to do is have computers fly the planes... oh wait, they could stop working too so let’s just ground every aircraft in America because they could crash. While we are at it— how does it make any sense that in America we allow people on any level of medication for metal health to drive a car, likely passing 1,000’s of people on the way to the airport, but that same person would be deemed to “dangerous” to fly a plane filled with not even 1/10th the amount of people they drove passed once they got to the plane?!?! That logic is beyond my comprehension.

The truth is, Americans have been brained washed to be fearful of practically everything by the 24 hour news media who needs to fill time. We’ve been encouraged to sacarafice our rights and freedoms in the name of safety and because the government largely feels like they know how to regulate everything better than the people actually in or dealing with the situation.

I’ve taught American History as my actual job now for 12 years. Look at what the founding fathers argued about when they created this government. Those aregyements are so on point it is amazing! Many argued once you start creating a government that is too large, you lose the very reason for having the government. It’s been argued who actually said this by historians but I believe one of the best quotes ever in American history is “A government that governs least,governs best.” Consider that statement in the context of this discussion and I think you’ll see how off base we’ve gotten as a nation on practically every issue. In this context, the FAA has so little trust in the everyday pilot who may want to seek help that they load up the books with regulations designed to protect ya from that pilot. The reality is, most people who suffer from more common mental health issues are aware they are suffering, are rational people who have not lost their minds, and who should be trusted to make the right decision! Almost all of us want to be trusted to make the right decision—if only the government had that same trust in us!

 

[Tarheelpilot]

I think there is an elephant in the room.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I for one am not OK sitting in a metal tube knowing that whether or not the pilot took his pills that morning might be the determining factor in my and my family's safety.

The real question here is whether the tests and policies of the FAA are capable of predicting who is at risk of endangering passengers. We may all have a feeling about it, such as that expressed in this quote, but what are the numbers really?

Do the procedures used in aeromedical evaluation have any predictive value of flight safety? I’d love to see the studies referenced.

If there is no demonstrable predictive value, then a lot of money and time is being spent on something that doesn’t clearly help which could probably be better spent on other things, if one is really concerned with saving lives and minimizing danger.