Medical with 3 issues - went to soon.

J

jsummit

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Dec 2, 2021
Messages
1
Display Name
Display name:
jsummit
Hi Everyone,

I have a question about 3rd class medical. I think I made a huge mistake and may have no chance now to get one.

I am a 52 year old male in the technology industry for the past 21 years who wants to get a PPL for recreational purposes.

I went to AME and disclosed all my issues without researching what it could entail. Which is I have a prescription for both minor depression and minor social anxiety. These I have taken for over 10 years and I could stop taking if needed. I also had cataract surgery in both eyes which I now have mono style vision (I was more worried about this then the other 2). I also attended an out-patient program this past year to quit drinking. Which I talked with my Doctor on my own with no legal issues forcing me to attend.

I am waiting to hear back from FAA. Will it get denied or do I have any chance?

Any help?



Thanks,
 
Seems as if you failed to research your endeavour correctly.

Without knowing more details than what you posted, I think your choices are, a lengthy and expensive road to a 3rd class, or no chance at all. Kinda depends on some things we don't know (which medication?).

Good luck.
 
jsummit said:
I went to AME and disclosed all my issues without researching what it could entail. Which is I have a prescription for both minor depression and minor social anxiety. These I have taken for over 10 years and I could stop taking if needed. I also had cataract surgery in both eyes which I now have mono style vision (I was more worried about this then the other 2). I also attended an out-patient program this past year to quit drinking. Which I talked with my Doctor on my own with no legal issues forcing me to attend.

I am waiting to hear back from FAA. Will it get denied or do I have any chance?
Click to expand...

I would bet my retirement that you're going to get a denial letter. You may also receive the "provide a personal statement concerning your past, present, and future use of alcohol" letter.

Monovision, not a big deal. Depression and anxiety requiring pharmaceutical intervention, could be a big deal. Recent alcohol dependence/abuse requiring out patient treatment, big deal (having completed treatment helps you). The combination of depression, anxiety, and alcohol abuse/dependence, really big deal.

As Rgbeard has stated, at a minimum you'll be looking at a very expensive ($10k minimum) and long (years) process to get certified. Depending on your history certification might not be possible. If there is a chance at certification you're going to be working with a HIMS AME. You have to decide if it's worth it.

If it's worth it, here's what you can do right now. Your conditions and the treatment you've received have so many variables that you need a professional to review your records and provide an opinion. Start gathering all of your medical records. You want the records to be as complete and detailed as possible. This includes treatment notes from any psychological professionals you've seen. Next, engage the services of a HIMS AME on a consultative basis. They'll need your records and a copy of the application you have in flight. From there they can give you an expert opinion as to whether certification is possible.

If the AME thinks there's a shot, be prepared to begin alcohol monitoring in the form of random urine/blood tests or portable breathalyzer.
 
jsummit said:
These I have taken for over 10 years and I could stop taking if needed.
Click to expand...
I see posts like this regularly, and they always make me wonder why the poster is taking medications he doesn’t think he needs. If you believe you're taking psychoactive drugs you don't need, why not stop, irrespective of the FAA?
 
Last edited:
Perhaps lying is a hard word, overly optimistic is probably more in line with reality.

Anyhow he can dissuade himself of the "too soon" issue. This was going to be a big issue even if he had waited a year.
 
flyingron said:
Anyhow he can dissuade himself of the "too soon" issue. This was going to be a big issue even if he had waited a year.
Click to expand...


Yes, but if he had done some research instead of rushing in he might have chosen the Sport Pilot option. Too late now.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
This is why we need LSA reform.
Click to expand...

So depressed pilots who use alcohol can still fly? The denials are not arbitrary.

For the OP, it's not out of the question, but it has become much harder and much, much more expensive. There might be a path to flying, but you're probably looking at $5-10k of testing before you can get there. To be fair, other than sport, the expensive route was probably already your path, you just didn't know it.

If not flying...boating is another fun sport that costs a lot of money.
 
bflynn said:
So depressed pilots who use alcohol can still fly? The denials are not arbitrary.

For the OP, it's not out of the question, but it has become much harder and much, much more expensive. There might be a path to flying, but you're probably looking at $5-10k of testing before you can get there. To be fair, other than sport, the expensive route was probably already your path, you just didn't know it.

If not flying...boating is another fun sport that costs a lot of money.
Click to expand...

if you read my posts of LSA reform you will understand this was sarcasm.
 
At this point I’m have tempted to get a federal explosive license and a commercial drivers license as a means of further highlighting the absurdity of the medical process. Along with getting my congressman involved to see if there is anything they can do to help.

Human beings are complex, there are exceptions to every rule. Many of these diagnoses exist on a spectrum, and while chronic can be managed with treatment. A significant portion of people making these posts are not asking to fly commercial.

With regards to risk management, 40% of the country refuses to get a jab for something that’s killed 800,000, with the equivalent of a 9/11 in deaths every 3 days.
How many LSA’s have gone down due to a medical issue which would’ve meant a denial if it require a medical? I’d guess less than a dozen in the last 10 years.

And even when a med is required, I’d bet a significant amount of airmen know someone who’s lied to get a cert. Would you rather have OP flying untreated because he knows he’s going to get a denial?
Or is it better if the FAA actually massively expands HIMS and those who have struggles can get treatment.

In my personal case I don’t care if the FAA required me to have every passenger I fly, sign a waiver notarized with a detailed list of my diagnostic history every 6 months. Just don’t give people like me a blanket no.

@bflynn
 
bbchien said:
I actually have a guy that we cleaned up, rehabbed, monitored, in recovery, on a permissible SSRI who can now fill all the boxes. It took him 5.5 years but he is about to be issued by D.C.
Click to expand...
That is excellent news sir! Job well done, and congratulations to the new airman :D
 
ProjectInfinity1 said:
@bflynn
Click to expand...

curious - why did you tag me?

Factually, the FAA has a evaluation system and when SSRIs and/or alcohol are involved, the process to get into the
left seat is arduous and expensive. Because of this, there are very, very few incidents of suicide by plane or flying while impaired, far lower than in the general population.

From your posting history, I cannot see what characterizes “people like you”, but if you have a personal axe to grind with the FAA medical system, there are only three paths I can recommend:
1) get with their program. When it comes to flying, you play by their rules or you don’t play. You can scream at the wind for not blowing the way you want or you can adjust your heading and handle it.
2) lobby Congress to force the FAA to change their medical. I don’t know how much support you can gather, but I suspect this is much more effort and cost than #1.
3) adopt a new hobby. If you have a medical issue and really want to fly anyway, find your path through the FAA system and out stubborn them. There is a path for almost everyone, but you have to want it bad.

Little or none of this is my personal opinion, I’m just stating what is.
 
bflynn said:
curious - why did you tag me?

Factually, the FAA has a evaluation system and when SSRIs and/or alcohol are involved, the process to get into the
left seat is arduous and expensive. Because of this, there are very, very few incidents of suicide by plane or flying while impaired, far lower than in the general population.

From your posting history, I cannot see what characterizes “people like you”, but if you have a personal axe to grind with the FAA medical system, there are only three paths I can recommend:
1) get with their program. When it comes to flying, you play by their rules or you don’t play. You can scream at the wind for not blowing the way you want or you can adjust your heading and handle it.
2) lobby Congress to force the FAA to change their medical. I don’t know how much support you can gather, but I suspect this is much more effort and cost than #1.
3) adopt a new hobby. If you have a medical issue and really want to fly anyway, find your path through the FAA system and out stubborn them. There is a path for almost everyone, but you have to want it bad.

Little or none of this is my personal opinion, I’m just stating what is.
Click to expand...
Understood, however I question at what cost has those policy’s been pursued.

With regards to the medical for the sake of argument, if for every 100 people in HIMS 1 person had a medically related accident, should it not be viewed through the lens of allowing 99 other pilots to fly which otherwise would’ve been disqualified?

Regardless, I’m not one who gives up easily, I’ve been active in this subject for for the last 5 years regarding specifically a medical. So I think I will fall into the latter category.


I’m going try my damnedest to be a thorn in their side they just can’t get rid of lol.
 
ProjectInfinity1 said:
At this point I’m have tempted to get a federal explosive license and a commercial drivers license as a means of further highlighting the absurdity of the medical process. Along with getting my congressman involved to see if there is anything they can do to help.
Click to expand...

In this case your congressman can do nothing at all to help. At best it might get your application review sooner, but you will still have to jump through all the hoops.

With a denied medical, you can still fly gliders (including motorgliders) and ultralights...
 
ProjectInfinity1 said:
Understood, however I question at what cost has those policy’s been pursued.

With regards to the medical for the sake of argument, if for every 100 people in HIMS 1 person had a medically related accident, should it not be viewed through the lens of allowing 99 other pilots to fly which otherwise would’ve been disqualified?

Regardless, I’m not one who gives up easily, I’ve been active in this subject for for the last 5 years regarding specifically a medical. So I think I will fall into the latter category.


I’m going try my damnedest to be a thorn in their side they just can’t get rid of lol.
Click to expand...


Am I correct that you haven’t applied for a medical?
 
ProjectInfinity1 said:
Understood, however I question at what cost has those policy’s been pursued.

With regards to the medical for the sake of argument, if for every 100 people in HIMS 1 person had a medically related accident, should it not be viewed through the lens of allowing 99 other pilots to fly which otherwise would’ve been disqualified?

Regardless, I’m not one who gives up easily, I’ve been active in this subject for for the last 5 years regarding specifically a medical. So I think I will fall into the latter category.


I’m going try my damnedest to be a thorn in their side they just can’t get rid of lol.
Click to expand...
The FAA is populated by Civil Service. They get paid, no matter what. They follow the rules, make a decison, then move on to the next application.
 
bflynn said:
Factually, the FAA has a evaluation system and when SSRIs and/or alcohol are involved, the process to get into the left seat is arduous and expensive. Because of this, there are very, very few incidents of suicide by plane or flying while impaired, far lower than in the general population.
Click to expand...

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Is this true?

First, the rate of suicide in pilots is already lower than the general population irrespective of any FAA intervention. People who manage to learn how to fly a plane are of a demographic less suicidal than the overall population. A number of studies have shown an inverse relationship between suicide and higher socioeconomic status and higher intelligence which pilots as a group are, despite pilot forum posters calling each other stupid.

Second, is it true that the FAA has reduced the already minuscule number of suicides by plane? Suicide by plane is incredibly rare. So rare that the change in numbers is actually not statistically meaningful, as stated in this paper:
The relative aircraft-assisted pilot suicide risk for the U.S. was 1.4 (95% CI 0.3-4.2) which was not statistically significant. Six of the pilots who died by suicide had told someone of their suicidal intentions. We consider changes in the rate to be within a normal variation.
Click to expand...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29534475/

That paper was looking for increases due to Germanwings copycats, but the same conclusion applies looking for reductions due to increased FAA oversight. Here are the actual numbers of aviation assisted suicides by year from 2003 to 2012:

poaCapture - Copy.JPG


https://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oamtechreports/2010s/media/201402.pdf

These numbers are not statistically enough to draw any conclusion about the effect of any intervention.

I'm not saying the FAA is wrong to try to reduce the already crazy low rate of suicide by plane. The real benefit is to reduce the alcohol portion of your statement which is another matter, and the effects of non-suicide incidents involving planes that are associated with depression and substance abuse. But your sentence includes suicide by plane, and I cannot let that stand, as that is not a proven fact that anything the FAA has done has reduced suicide by plane.

There is one sure way to completely eliminate suicide by plane by FAA certified pilots: Ban male pilots. 100% of all suicides by plane were male. But you still wouldn't eliminate ALL suicides by plane, you'd still have your Richard Russells.
 
Half Fast said:
Am I correct that you haven’t applied for a medical?
Click to expand...
Apparently, he has and has been deferred, though unless he jumps through a lot of hoops, that's going to be a denial in short order.
 
I used to work with a couple people that said, “I can stop taking my meds any time; I’m totally fine.” A few months later they’d be a lot different: moody, angry, aggressive, weepy, unfocused, not show up for work for several days, rumpled clothing, disheveled, unkempt, easily confused, unable to perform work duties that they previously did well, etc. In short order they’d be back to their higher functioning selves, back on their pills. But yeah, totally fine off their meds. ;)
 
Rushie said:
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Is this true?

First, the rate of suicide in pilots is already lower than the general population irrespective of any FAA intervention. People who manage to learn how to fly a plane are of a demographic less suicidal than the overall population. A number of studies have shown an inverse relationship between suicide and higher socioeconomic status and higher intelligence which pilots as a group are, despite pilot forum posters calling each other stupid.

Second, is it true that the FAA has reduced the already minuscule number of suicides by plane? Suicide by plane is incredibly rare. So rare that the change in numbers is actually not statistically meaningful, as stated in this paper:


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29534475/

That paper was looking for increases due to Germanwings copycats, but the same conclusion applies looking for reductions due to increased FAA oversight. Here are the actual numbers of aviation assisted suicides by year from 2003 to 2012:

View attachment 102681

https://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oamtechreports/2010s/media/201402.pdf

These numbers are not statistically enough to draw any conclusion about the effect of any intervention.

I'm not saying the FAA is wrong to try to reduce the already crazy low rate of suicide by plane. The real benefit is to reduce the alcohol portion of your statement which is another matter, and the effects of non-suicide incidents involving planes that are associated with depression and substance abuse. But your sentence includes suicide by plane, and I cannot let that stand, as that is not a proven fact that anything the FAA has done has reduced suicide by plane.

There is one sure way to completely eliminate suicide by plane by FAA certified pilots: Ban male pilots. 100% of all suicides by plane were male. But you still wouldn't eliminate ALL suicides by plane, you'd still have your Richard Russells.
Click to expand...
Your table shows that from 2003-2012, suicides went from 3/yr to 1/yr. That's a 67% reduction! Good enough for a newspaper headline.....;)
 
Rushie said:
Second, is it true that the FAA has reduced the already minuscule number of suicides by plane? Suicide by plane is incredibly rare. So rare that the change in numbers is actually not statistically meaningful, as stated in this paper:
Click to expand...

But the only change to the FAA's protocols over this time I'm aware of was in 2010 to consider SSRI use at all. Before that pilots using SSRIs were not permitted to fly, period. After 2010, they began evaluation on a case by case basis. I would expect similar number before and after 2010 since the drugs were used (with or without reporting them to the FAA).
 
ProjectInfinity1 said:
Understood, however I question at what cost has those policy’s been pursued.
Click to expand...

This should not be a question. It has come at the cost of preventing some pilots from flying until they prove they are safe to the FAA's satisfaction. There are some people who believe the FAA is too strict and others who believe they're not strict enough. I try not to judge, it just is.
 
Lachlan said:
I used to work with a couple people that said, “I can stop taking my meds any time; I’m totally fine.” A few months later they’d be a lot different: moody, angry, aggressive, weepy, unfocused, not show up for work for several days, rumpled clothing, disheveled, unkempt, easily confused, unable to perform work duties that they previously did well, etc. In short order they’d be back to their higher functioning selves, back on their pills. But yeah, totally fine off their meds. ;)
Click to expand...

Mental illness can be a horrible disease. Unfortunately no one likes being on meds for the rest of their lives, especially at a younger age, but the reality is that some need to be on medication. The issue is that once effective meds are found, people with these issues feel better, think they are cured, stop the meds, then get ill again. If someone wants to stop a med like this, they need to do it under their doc's supervision and be realistic if symptoms come back, even if it means the meds make some vocations unavailable for them. It's more important to be healthy than to fly.
 
Half Fast said:
Am I correct that you haven’t applied for a medical?
Click to expand...
No sir, I have not. I do plan on going sport pilot as recommended in the short term, however Basic med is my long term goal.

In the meantime I hope the weight increase comes soon for LSA.
 
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