More Change at FAA medical

Dana said:
It's ironic that we're using ICAO as a reason to justify keep the class 3, when most other country's (and thus ICAO's) aviation regulations were originally based on the US regs, often even down to the section numbers.
Click to expand...
We are no longer the leader, we are a follower.
 
FlyingBiscuit said:
If you don't mind sharing, what was your deferral and subsequent SI for? Are you an AME?
Click to expand...

Not an AME. I have an SI for OSA and T2 diabetes. OSA was more recent. Took very little time. Diabetes one took all of 6-7 months.
 
Anthem said:
Not an AME. I have an SI for OSA and T2 diabetes.
Click to expand...
I don't know what the deferral time for that is, but those aren't the deferral reasons I AM referring to or the ones I believe specifically need reform.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
I don't know what the deferral time for that is, but those aren't the deferral reasons I AM referring to or the ones I believe specifically need reform.
Click to expand...
You obviously only agree with the ones that you want and are personally relevant to you. but no point arguing since we differ. I agree with that speeding things up would help, I disagree with releasing the entire gates that are there. But again, no point to rehash.
It was a question from someone and i answered it. Sorry it doesnt meet your reasons but it also wasnt in response to your question either. It would be like me saying - well the FAA shouldnt even respond to your issue in the whatever time that is. . . lol
 
Anthem said:
You obviously only agree with the ones that you want and are personally relevant to you. but no point arguing since we differ. I agree with that speeding things up would help, I disagree with releasing the entire gates that are there. But again, no point to rehash.
It was a question from someone and i answered it. Sorry it doesnt meet your reasons but it also wasnt in response to your question either. It would be like me saying - well the FAA shouldnt even respond to your issue in the whatever time that is. . . lol
Click to expand...
You misinterpreted my response. I agree diabetes should be "investigated" to make sure it's being treated and stable. Not so sure sleep apnea should even be a reason for SI.

I am glad you got your SI...how long did it take?
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
You misinterpreted my response. I agree diabetes should be "investigated" to make sure it's being treated and stable. Not so sure sleep apnea should even be a reason for SI.

I am glad you got your SI...how long did it take?
Click to expand...

OSA - a few weeks once I had all the data that they wanted. Its an OSCAR report from my cpap machine that I bring to show compliance every year. Really a non-issue.
Diabetes - one turn after they came back asking for more. Just under 7 months.
In terms of timeline - I get it. There are other factors for diabetics that they want to know. You would think - ok - less than 9 on the a1c (which is fairly easy to do) - and thats it - just issue as you comply with their standard, but they want reports from your opthamlogist that you dont have retinopathy (degradation in the eye), they want from your endo or pcp that you dont have neuropathy in your feet, they want to make sure your cholesterol, blood pressure, kidney proteins, nerves and what not are all in compliance. And lastly, what you are using to treat and whether thats allowed.

So the ironiy is that I have continued compliance on an annual level. But others in other categories, are one time checks and not even an SI.
 
Anthem said:
OSA - a few weeks once I had all the data that they wanted. Its an OSCAR report from my cpap machine that I bring to show compliance every year. Really a non-issue.
Diabetes - one turn after they came back asking for more. Just under 7 months.
In terms of timeline - I get it. There are other factors for diabetics that they want to know. You would think - ok - less than 9 on the a1c (which is fairly easy to do) - and thats it - just issue as you comply with their standard, but they want reports from your opthamlogist that you dont have retinopathy (degradation in the eye), they want from your endo or pcp that you dont have neuropathy in your feet, they want to make sure your cholesterol, blood pressure, kidney proteins, nerves and what not are all in compliance. And lastly, what you are using to treat and whether thats allowed.

So the ironiy is that I have continued compliance on an annual level. But others in other categories, are one time checks and not even an SI.
Click to expand...
A few weeks, no offense, is completely manageable. I'm over 2 years into a deferral originally related to being prescribed Zoloft for work related anxiety (I have to do a lot of public speaking and presenting which I don't enjoy and used to cause great anxiety). I reported that I previously drank to deal with my stress and anxiety and finally sought medication to better and more healthily deal with that stress. So, the FAA then required IOP, alcohol/drug monitoring (I didn't use drugs other than trying pot 3-4 times when in college over 20 years ago). I had actually already put myself into IOP for alcohol before the FAA required it as I knew it wasn't healthy, BUT the FAA's reasoning is:

1. You have anxiety, therefore you're a clear danger of flying the plane intentionally into the ground with passengers
2. You drink to deal with work stress (which I do agree was an abusive use), therefore you clearly fly while chugging a handle of tequila.

So, 2 years later, over $10K later in psychology/neuropsychology examinations (not to mention the IOP that I proactively did that costs over $15K), and random pee tests, I'm hopefully about to submit my updated information, med exam and get an SI.

Tell me that's reasonable.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
A few weeks, no offense, is completely manageable. I'm over 2 years into a deferral originally related to being prescribed Zoloft for work related anxiety (I have to do a lot of public speaking and presenting which I don't enjoy and used to cause great anxiety). I reported that I previously drank to deal with my stress and anxiety and finally sought medication to better and more healthily deal with that stress. So, the FAA then required IOP, alcohol/drug monitoring (I didn't use drugs other than trying pot 3-4 times when in college over 20 years ago). I had actually already put myself into IOP for alcohol before the FAA required it as I knew it wasn't healthy, BUT the FAA's reasoning is:

1. You have anxiety, therefore you're a clear danger of flying the plane intentionally into the ground with passengers
2. You drink to deal with work stress (which I do agree was an abusive use), therefore you clearly fly while chugging a handle of tequila.

So, 2 years later, over $10K later in psychology/neuropsychology examinations (not to mention the IOP that I proactively did that costs over $15K), and random pee tests, I'm hopefully about to submit my updated information, med exam and get an SI.

Tell me that's reasonable.
Click to expand...
if you have to submit information - then essentially it wasnt done the first time correctly. You should have gone to an Senior /HIMS AME that would have gotten it in the first time and correctly. Every flip is months. And they dont consider you in "deferral" as long as they are waiting for something from you. So their version of "reasonable" is that you havent given them everything they want. Retain Dr Bruce or wingman med - and they get the stuff that they need in - hopefully the first time.

As for the rest - I consider it grateful that I can and am allowed to fly. So I dont get bent out of shape over things that need to be done because of my health condition. Some of this problem is that you expect and demand that you are allowed to fly - whether you have had anxiety, and alcohol, and admitted drug use. So they want to look in to it, and I dont have a problem with that. They wanted to look in to my crap as well. Some things do take longer that others (whether its appointments, or summaries), and sometimes things are more complex.

Is 2 years long ? Sure. I agree with you. But you also have a **** ton of things related to you that they all have issues with. It isnt one thing for you - youve got anxiety with an ssri, drugs and alcohol. You know that, they know that. In the past - you probably wouldnt even get to get a medical (and neither would i). But the path is there. It isnt fast and it isnt cheap. but as I said earlier - i am grateful that the path is there and I was able to get it. And I appreciate the extent of what they make you go through - even if I thought it could have been short circuited significantly.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
I agree diabetes should be "investigated" to make sure it's being treated and stable.
Click to expand...

Since any physician, using his own judgment, can approve Basic Med for someone with diabetes, why can’t an AME use his own judgment to issue a class 3? Why shouldn’t diabetes be on the CACI list?
 
Anthem said:
if you have to submit information - then essentially it wasnt done the first time correctly. You should have gone to an Senior /HIMS AME that would have gotten it in the first time and correctly. Every flip is months. And they dont consider you in "deferral" as long as they are waiting for something from you. So their version of "reasonable" is that you havent given them everything they want. Retain Dr Bruce or wingman med - and they get the stuff that they need in - hopefully the first time.

As for the rest - I consider it grateful that I can and am allowed to fly. So I dont get bent out of shape over things that need to be done because of my health condition. Some of this problem is that you expect and demand that you are allowed to fly - whether you have had anxiety, and alcohol, and admitted drug use. So they want to look in to it, and I dont have a problem with that. They wanted to look in to my crap as well. Some things do take longer that others (whether its appointments, or summaries), and sometimes things are more complex.

Is 2 years long ? Sure. I agree with you. But you also have a **** ton of things related to you that they all have issues with. It isnt one thing for you - youve got anxiety with an ssri, drugs and alcohol. You know that, they know that. In the past - you probably wouldnt even get to get a medical (and neither would i). But the path is there. It isnt fast and it isnt cheap. but as I said earlier - i am grateful that the path is there and I was able to get it. And I appreciate the extent of what they make you go through - even if I thought it could have been short circuited significantly.
Click to expand...
That’s not correct. I got the FAA everything they requested in the 60 days they requested it via a HIMS AME. It took 15 months for the reply…which was a denial with reconsideration upon further information. Which was another round of psychology/neuropsychology examinations, the monitoring for alcohol/drugs, 6 months of sobriety and IOP, which I had thankfully already done. So, now 2+ years, $25K in expenses and likely another 12 months to hear back something.

Also, I HAD a Class 3 medical from 1996 to 2005. I didn’t fly for some time due to life, kids, other obligations, etc. I started flying again in 2022 but didn’t apply for the new medical until I needed to for my IFR check ride. Yes, shame on me for not doing my DD.

I don’t have an issue with them looking into the specifics. I have issues with the timing it takes them and the means in which they conduct the investigation.
 
Half Fast said:
Since any physician, using his own judgment, can approve Basic Med for someone with diabetes, why can’t an AME use his own judgment to issue a class 3? Why shouldn’t diabetes be on the CACI list?
Click to expand...
I just got to fly a very high performance SEL experimental aircaft recently with an elderly pilot - they aren’t basic med. It was clear they should not be flying. I had to warn them there was a plane on final right before we were taking off as he never heard the calls and almost hit a taxi light going off the taxiway when heading back to the hangar.

Okay for class 3 according to the FAA!
 
Anthem said:
Just the previous 1/2/3 medical has eliminated a crap ton of non-eligible people. Just the failure of a medical and eliminating sport pilots has also eliminated a crap ton of people that shouldn’t be pilots. Your new “standard” of just a drivers license opens things up to drunks, mental health issues, drug addicts, and every other person that previously couldn’t hold a medical to be flying. And everyone knows you can get any doctor to sign something without oversight. Look at the online paid telemedicine. Look at all the mj medical cards. All of those people are docs of some accrediation that can sign off on a new lower standard basic med without any oversight.
Click to expand...


Anthem said:
Again, you're data is suspect and wrong. just like I and the other docs have mentioned. Your BM data is using a set of data from an already cleared set. There is/was a pre-requisite of having already passed a class 1/2/3 medical before you were eligible for BM. Therefore, many repeated alcoholics, drug use, mental health (bipolar, spectrum, major depression, suicidality), coronary/stroke, and other disqualifying factors) have all been previously eliminated, or the few that passed were accepted with passable standards. Yes. they dont have to maintain that standard every year, but they had to have passed it the first time -which is a significant barrier (look at all the posts here). When you open it up to just everybody with a drivers license (which the above subset group all probably possess) without that first gate, then that data becomes significant. Since you dont have it - your data isnt relevant for what you are proposing and arguing over.

So your data that is saying there isnt a statistical difference between basicMed and class 1/2/3 incidents at the current time with the current restrictions is somewhat valid - though Dr Chien argues that there are significant aviation related issues that regular non aviation docs are not familiar with for higher altitude, G's, etc.. But nonetheless - the data is not valid or statistically accurate or can be successfully extrapolated for what the "just having a license" crowd is arguing for what they want BM with just a drivers license to be is. That data above is comparing 3rd class against ex-third class (or 1st/2nd as well) who have evolved to BM. Thats the comparison. You think that would be the same if opened up to anyone with a drivers license compared to 3rd class ? I call bull.....

Its like saying - Im going to use the commited crime per 100000 people statistical rate, but Im going to eliminate all the previous criminals from that data. So yes, your data is bunk.
Click to expand...

25 year old Past suicidal, ADHD and (actively med treated at that), Depression (actively treated with meds), OCD, autism spectrum disorder, and severe asthma diagnosed sport pilot reporting in.

Thankfully with the wonderful resource that is the internet, some of us know enough to not apply for a medical, because we’re aware there’s a better chance of dumps trucks flying than us getting a medical

But what would you know?!, knock on wood but I haven’t had any incidents yet.

Almost like some people can be responsible enough to say “eh, I’m not feeling up to flying today”.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
So were you, before you demonstrated otherwise.
Click to expand...
Nothing has been demonstrated. It’s all been inferred or assumed with subjective measures.

Hearing can be objectively tested, sight can be objectivly tested, diabetes can be objectively tested, OSA can be objectivy tested. Matters of mental items are more difficult, I agree. But if there is ZERO history bipolar, suicide or idealization, self harm, etc. or history of legaly issues, life consequences due to substance use, and when the substance is otherwise legal (i.e. alcohol), it should be treated differently than the opposite scenario. It’s a poorly constructed system.

Nonetheless, I’m doing everything asked of me by the FAA.
 
ProjectInfinity1 said:
Past suicidal, ADHD and (actively med treated at that), Depression, OCD, autism spectrum disorder, and severe asthma diagnosed sport pilot reporting in.

Thankfully with the wonderful resource that is the internet, some of us know enough to not apply for a medical, because we’re aware there’s a better chance of dumps trucks flying than us getting a medical

But what would you know?!, knock on wood but I haven’t had any incidents yet.

Almost like some people can be responsible enough to say “eh, I’m not feeling up to flying today”.
Click to expand...
Good for you! That’s awesome and I’m happy you’re up in the air! I wish I had done the diligence before re-applying for a Class 3. Since I didn’t have issues the previous 2 times, I didn’t think it would be an issue.

You worked the system and more power to you! Safe flying!
 
Half Fast said:
Since any physician, using his own judgment, can approve Basic Med for someone with diabetes, why can’t an AME use his own judgment to issue a class 3? Why shouldn’t diabetes be on the CACI list?
Click to expand...
You’re not trying to apply logic or consistent standards to this, are you?
Stop that; right now!

This could all be so simple. Drop the prior medical requirement for basic med. PPL and SPL can be obtained with a class 3 OR with basic med (class 3 for icao and some insurance requirements).

Grandfather anyone currently on SPL who does not want to upgrade to PPL, then phase out sport and recreational.

Simplify, reduce regulation, ensure all aviators are being reviewed by a medical professional.

But, instead - they’ll just continue to layer regulation on top of regulation creating contradictions, inefficiency - and ultimately a less safe and less equitable system.
 
Last edited:
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
Nothing has been demonstrated. It’s all been inferred or assumed with subjective measures.

Hearing can be objectively tested, sight can be objectivly tested, diabetes can be objectively tested, OSA can be objectivy tested. Matters of mental items are more difficult, I agree. But if there is ZERO history bipolar, suicide or idealization, self harm, etc. or history of legaly issues, life consequences due to substance use, and when the substance is otherwise legal (i.e. alcohol), it should be treated differently than the opposite scenario. It’s a poorly constructed system.

Nonetheless, I’m doing everything asked of me by the FAA.
Click to expand...
Didn't you admit to relapsing after you applied for your SI?
 
Lindberg said:
Didn't you admit to relapsing after you applied for your SI?
Click to expand...
No, we’ve already had this conversation. I haven’t drank since the FAA said stop. Which was the denial upon further consideration and almost 7 months ago. Nice try.

The fact so many on this forum think it’s okay for the FAA to tell someone what they can and can’t do on their free time, outside of the cockpit and with a legal substance that flows freely even at events like Oshkosh is sad.

Not all that drink or drank are incapable of good decision making or maintaining boundaries when it comes to piloting.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
No, we’ve already had this conversation. I haven’t drank since the FAA said stop.
Click to expand...
This is what you said in June:

During the deferment process I actually self admitted myself to an IOP treatment for alcohol, which FAA said I needed to do this go around, and was sober for 6 months. All this transpired while in the 15+ months process of doing the HIMS/SSRI deferral.

I've since quit the job that was causing so much stress, but I did have a relapse in January and have been on and off of sobriety for the past 6 months - I'm a week and a half into sobriety this time.
Click to expand...
So you admit to relapsing alcoholism while in deferment. You seem to be saying that the FAA should allow AMEs to issue medicals to wet alcoholics. But maybe I misunderstand what you're arguing.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
That’s not correct. I got the FAA everything they requested in the 60 days they requested it via a HIMS AME. It took 15 months for the reply…which was a denial with reconsideration upon further information. Which was another round of psychology/neuropsychology examinations, the monitoring for alcohol/drugs, 6 months of sobriety and IOP, which I had thankfully already done. So, now 2+ years, $25K in expenses and likely another 12 months to hear back something.

Also, I HAD a Class 3 medical from 1996 to 2005. I didn’t fly for some time due to life, kids, other obligations, etc. I started flying again in 2022 but didn’t apply for the new medical until I needed to for my IFR check ride. Yes, shame on me for not doing my DD.

I don’t have an issue with them looking into the specifics. I have issues with the timing it takes them and the means in which they conduct the investigation.
Click to expand...
You mean you DIDN’t do all that prior to application? The idea is to win on the FIRST ROUND! NOT when demanded after the relapse round……sigh…..
 
Anthem said:
Is 2 years long ? Sure. I agree with you. But you also have a **** ton of things related to you that they all have issues with. It isnt one thing for you - youve got anxiety with an ssri, drugs and alcohol. You know that, they know that. In the past - you probably wouldnt even get to get a medical (and neither would i). But the path is there. It isnt fast and it isnt cheap. but as I said earlier - i am grateful that the path is there and I was able to get it. And I appreciate the extent of what they make you go through - even if I thought it could have been short circuited significantly.
Click to expand...
Again, the issue is not that it just takes a while. The issue is that it takes a while for no good reason. I'm not who you responded to but I am in the mix for an SSRI and GAD and that's it. As far as I can tell people like me usually end up getting their SI's, there are no complication like multiple medications, ADHD or depression, past suicidal actions, psychiatric stays, etc... I am almost 100% certain that I will get through this process and have an SI at the end of it.

But, because there is a massive backlog, 2 or so doctors reviewing it, and a ton of hoops to jump through (unreasonable ones) it ends up being an extremely significant investment of time and money. Some of it is understandable (psych eval, meds wait time) but much of it is not (cogscreen, backlog).

And in the end what will happen is, the doctors will read my medical history, read my psych eval, read the submitted report, and determine whether or not I'm good to go based on an established checklist. There is absolutely no reason for this to happen in OKC.

So yes, I'm glad I can get a medical, but I'm not going to be satisfied or grateful for the process that's horribly inefficient and clearly shows a lack of effort by the FAA.
 
Lindberg said:
This is what you said in June:


So you admit to relapsing alcoholism while in deferment. You seem to be saying that the FAA should allow AMEs to issue medicals to wet alcoholics. But maybe I misunderstand what you're arguing.
Click to expand...
Man, you have too much free time! :goofy:

You’re missunderstanding. The deferral was for SSRI use, alcohol was never a factor for the deferral. I was deferred in 2022. I decided to stop drinking in June of 2023, did IOP in 2023. I was sober for over 6 months, at my own volition and not FAA request. I “relapsed” over New Years of 2024, still while under deferral for SSRI (nothing to do with alcohol). FAA send denial in 2024, wanting further test for SSRI use since it had been 18 months since initial SSR related tests and NOW for alcohol use.

So no, I didn’t relapse during a deferral that was related to alcohol. I didn’t come to the conclusion that I had a drinking problem until I was already almost a year into deferral for another reason.
 
bbchien said:
You mean you DIDN’t do all that prior to application? The idea is to win on the FIRST ROUND! NOT when demanded after the relapse round……sigh…..
Click to expand...
You’re missunderstanding the timeline - read my response to Lindberg.
 
Lindberg said:
It's trivial to search the forum for your screen name and "relapse."
Click to expand...
It’s trivial to take the time to do that in attempt to discredit my post vs recognizing the need for more changes at the FAA, as the thread is titled.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Doesn’t sound inferred or assumed to me.
Click to expand...
That was reported to the treating physician when seeking medication for the anxiety and for prescribing the SSRI. It wasn’t until their report went to the FAA for the SSRI deferral that the alcohol component was brought up by the FAA.

If you are okay with the FAA using a statement from a physician about having cocktails to unwind at the end of a stressful work day as a means to deny a medical, with no other means testing to establish a substance abuse issue prior to denial, then every commercial pilot, or otherwise, that heads to the bar after a long flight and overnight layover or has alcohol in the evening for relaxing has a drinking problem by FAA definition.

That’s a joke.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
That was reported to the treating physician when seeking medication for the anxiety and for prescribing the SSRI. It wasn’t until their report went to the FAA for the SSRI deferral that the alcohol component was brought up by the FAA.

If you are okay with the FAA using a statement from a physician about having cocktails to unwind at the end of a stressful work day as a means to deny a medical, with no other means testing to establish a substance abuse issue prior to denial, then every commercial pilot, or otherwise, that heads to the bar after a long flight and overnight layover or has alcohol in the evening for relaxing has a drinking problem by FAA definition.

That’s a joke.
Click to expand...
Still sounds like denial to me.
 
MauleSkinner said:
There are a lot of incompetent pilots out there who probably say the same thing.
Click to expand...
Good thing I don’t fall into that category. But we’re also talking about FAA standards of medical “fitness,” not pilot competency. Once again, I’m happy your thoughts have no bearing on this matter.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
Good thing I don’t fall into that category. But we’re also talking about FAA standards of medical “fitness,” not pilot competency. Once again, I’m happy your thoughts have no bearing on this matter.
Click to expand...
I’m happy that yours don’t, either.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
I’m happy that yous don’t, either.
Click to expand...
We can agree there.

See you up in the sky! I just bought a self launching glider that cruises at 115kn with VNE of 120kn, or same speed as LS aircraft currently.

Hooray for me!
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
Good thing I don’t fall into that category. But we’re also talking about FAA standards of medical “fitness,” not pilot competency. Once again, I’m happy your thoughts have no bearing on this matter.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of folks here with legitimate gripes against FAA Medical, but I don't think you're going to find a lot of support for changing the FAA's stance on not certifying wet alcoholics in denial about their condition.
 
Wheresmychute said:
Again, the issue is not that it just takes a while. The issue is that it takes a while for no good reason. I'm not who you responded to but I am in the mix for an SSRI and GAD and that's it. As far as I can tell people like me usually end up getting their SI's, there are no complication like multiple medications, ADHD or depression, past suicidal actions, psychiatric stays, etc... I am almost 100% certain that I will get through this process and have an SI at the end of it.

But, because there is a massive backlog, 2 or so doctors reviewing it, and a ton of hoops to jump through (unreasonable ones) it ends up being an extremely significant investment of time and money. Some of it is understandable (psych eval, meds wait time) but much of it is not (cogscreen, backlog).

And in the end what will happen is, the doctors will read my medical history, read my psych eval, read the submitted report, and determine whether or not I'm good to go based on an established checklist. There is absolutely no reason for this to happen in OKC.

So yes, I'm glad I can get a medical, but I'm not going to be satisfied or grateful for the process that's horribly inefficient and clearly shows a lack of effort by the FAA.
Click to expand...
Bingo!
 
Lindberg said:
There are a lot of folks here with legitimate gripes against FAA Medical, but I don't think you're going to find a lot of support for changing the FAA's stance on not certifying wet alcoholics in denial about their condition.
Click to expand...
You're probably right. The question is "what's the FAA's definition of an alcoholic and is that definition a fair standard to evaluate a pilots' medical fitness to fly?"
 
Anthem said:
Not an AME. I have an SI for OSA and T2 diabetes. OSA was more recent. Took very little time. Diabetes one took all of 6-7 months.
Click to expand...
I see.

Even though you haven't personally experienced a mental health deferral, I'm sure you've read people's stories. But they way these cases are adjudicated is obscene. It shouldn't take two years and cost me five figures to get a third class medical when my AME can already tell that I will probably eventually be certified. That's my biggest gripe with the system, anyway. Physical health cases such as yours are fairly straightforward from what I've heard and I have less of a problem with them.

So we're left with reforming the way AAM-300 approaches mental health or removing them from the loop entirely for small aircraft being flown for recreation. Since they seem resistant to meaningful reform (even after the ARC report), that's why a lot of people are sympathetic to the second idea.

I'll take either option as long as they quit asking me to take CogScreens after I already passed them.
 
FlyingBiscuit said:
I see.

Even though you haven't personally experienced a mental health deferral, I'm sure you've read people's stories. But they way these cases are adjudicated is obscene. It shouldn't take two years and cost me five figures to get a third class medical when my AME can already tell that I will probably eventually be certified. That's my biggest gripe with the system, anyway. Physical health cases such as yours are fairly straightforward from what I've heard and I have less of a problem with them.

So we're left with reforming the way AAM-300 approaches mental health or removing them from the loop entirely for small aircraft being flown for recreation. Since they seem resistant to meaningful reform (even after the ARC report), that's why a lot of people are sympathetic to the second idea.

I'll take either option as long as they quit asking me to take CogScreens after I already passed them.
Click to expand...
I’m not trying to compare the two. Someone asked - I responded. If it’s going to cause that much turmoil because it’s not mental health - so be it. If he was fishing for a non mental health diagnosis to “justify” - really don’t care.

But this works both ways. In many cases for those that get through for mental health - guess what. You guys are free and done without an ever present SI. So you have regular lengths for duration of medical. You also have fast tracks that issue in the office with no special issuance. Obviously not all things apply and they are going to be conservative. But mental health deserves more scrutiny - it’s a great unknown and probably will never be known. You aren’t going to see diabetics trying to fly a passenger jet in to the ground. So it’s there and until it’s understood - it’s never going to be easy.
 
Back
Top