More Change at FAA medical

bbchien said:
This discussion is exactly why the "gotta get a 3rd first" before Basic, rule exists.
Click to expand...
And exactly why the particular group doesnt want to do it because they know it’s going to be difficult and costly.
 
Anthem said:
You aren’t going to see diabetics trying to fly a passenger jet in to the ground.
Click to expand...
None of this discussion is going to change the FAA, nor is it likely to change any minds.

That said - given research shows a bi-directional connection between diabetes and mental health conditions, maybe a bit of empathy for those who get caught in that process with the FAA?

Suppose you’ll feel the same way if the FAA decides to treat a diabetes diagnosis with the same broad brush as depression, anxiety, or ADHD?

Think you would be quite so glib in throwing around comments about who is going to cause harm to others?

https://ihpi.umich.edu/news/mental-...betes-complications-strongly-linked-both-ways
 
Learnin’ to fly… said:
None of this discussion is going to change the FAA, nor is it likely to change any minds.

That said - given research shows a bi-directional connection between diabetes and mental health conditions, maybe a bit of empathy for those who get caught in that process with the FAA?

Suppose you’ll feel the same way if the FAA decides to treat a diabetes diagnosis with the same broad brush as depression, anxiety, or ADHD?

Think you would be quite so glib in throwing around comments about who is going to cause harm to others?

https://ihpi.umich.edu/news/mental-...betes-complications-strongly-linked-both-ways
Click to expand...
None of this has anything to do with me with an SI. It’s a discussion around the policies and procedures with the FAA for how they handle special issuances - or not even that. If it’s all mental health - and that’s the discussion - then start a damn thread and go about it. This started with the doctor just saying that the procedures are changing with regard to how denials are being handled - regardless of reason.

My si really has nothing to do with this. Someone asked me - probably to make a point of his own. I answered (though in reality I probably shouldn’t have) - and they took it and ran with an alternate track and that because mine wasn’t theirs - that it all of a sudden became irrelevant. But in reality it doesn’t matter. But if that’s the case - then someone without any SI has no business commenting any of their opinions on the matter. But this is a discussion forum - if you want feel good talk therapy then go and get feel good talk therapy. No one is paying any of us nor are we qualified to do it.

The reality is that it’s a discussion. If you want to drag my pseudo personal details in to it as justification for something else - then be prepared for the responses. Because whether I have an si or not - has no bearing on the opinions that one can have on this matter.

But since you feel because that to be the case - and it should be empathetic - go for it. I’ll leave the discussion. You guys can go and all cheer lead together. It’s obvious that opinions contrary to a select few are not accepted. lol
 
The thread is titled “More Change at FAA Medical.” Not appropriate to suggest or vent about other changes?

Also, 99.999% of people with anxiety or depression don’t seek to harm others intentionally.

A diabetic could forget their meds and unintentionally pass out and crash.

The point is the “punishment doesn’t fit the crime” for many deferred reasons.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
The thread is titled “More Change at FAA Medical.” Not appropriate to suggest or vent about other changes?

Also, 99.999% of people with anxiety or depression don’t seek to harm others intentionally.

A diabetic could forget their meds and unintentionally pass out and crash.

The point is the “punishment doesn’t fit the crime” for many deferred reasons.
Click to expand...
Actually the example you gave WILL NOT HAPPEN. They will ever so slowly dehydrate. Think again and grind a different stone.

And BTW I have half a dozen IDDM -1 pilots on flight decks. They are performing WELL.
 
bbchien said:
Actually the example you gave WILL NOT HAPPEN. They will ever so slowly dehydrate. Think again and grind a different stone.

And BTW I have half a dozen IDDM -1 pilots on flight decks. They are performing WELL.
Click to expand...
You’re the doc. All I know is I had a buddy with diabetes that needed shots to treat it. One day we were walking to work and he started stumbling, walking like he was drunk then couldn’t stand, and I had to run and get him something with high sugar content so he could recover.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
You’re the doc. All I know is I had a buddy with diabetes that needed shots to treat it. One day we were walking to work and he started stumbling, walking like he was drunk then couldn’t stand, and I had to run and get him something with high sugar content so he could recover.
Click to expand...
That’s from too much medicine, he didnt FORGET HIS medicine……Which is what you wrote. He OD’d, not forgot….and all class 1s and 2s demonstrate they can keep good margins for six months b4 they even get considered.
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
Thats from too much medicine, he didnt FORGET HIS medicine. Which is what you wrote. He OD’d, not forgot….and out class1s have 2 demonstrate the can keep good margins for six months b4 they even get considered.
Click to expand...
Well, the point is human error. Which is always possible. So anything is possible, but not probable.

The issue with the FAA is they choose to treat some things as possible and others as probable.
 
bbchien said:
Did you read the part about demonstrating good margins for 6 months….?
Click to expand...
Yes. Just because someone demonstrates something for 6 months when under the microscope doesn’t mean they will continue to do so, or mistakes won’t happen in the future.

Look, I agree with you. I’m playing devil’s advocate because the FAA’s approach on some deferral reasons is draconian. 1 person does "X" therefore we must treat all people with somewhat similar situations, if nowhere near the same situation, as the person that did "X."

Should a person with diabetes, or other physical abnormalities potentially dangerous to flying be further looked into, yes. Should a person with a history of legal issues/repeated offenses related to drugs or alcohol be looked into further, yes. Should a person with certain mental issues be looked into further, yes. However, one DUI does not an alcoholic make. Social anxiety, work related anxiety or even depression does not a suicidal or sociopathic killer make. One ADD/ADHD diagnosis at age 6 does not a focus less/total distracted person make.

The issues I have are the level of scrutiny given to certain deferrals reasons and with no evaluation level commensurate with the level of the applicant's specific situation and the timing to evaluate such applicant. Professionals authorized by the FAA to evaluate these things come to a conclusion within weeks.

Why does the FAA need a year to come to the same conclusion? And if you say that the FAA is better suited to evaluate this vs. the professional you MUST currently see prior to FAA review, why even make the applicant go to the professional in the first place? Just use the already tax funded people at the FAA that ultimately make the determination at the onset. Hell, I'd rather do that and meet face to face with them vs. being some complete stranger on a piece of paper and FAA file sitting on a desk for 6-12 months.

The system is broken. We're making progress...it can be much better and in a manner that maximizes personal freedoms while still maintaining the public safety. We will NEVER get it perfect, because people are people and they are imperfect. But to state that the status quo is ideal is disingenuous.
 
And moreover, to accept their ineptitude on the basis it’s THEIR sandbox is ludicrous. It’s OUR sandbox. We are ENTITLED to use it.

The price of admission is following their PUBLISHED SCRUTINIZED regulations, not internal secret policy.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
Yes. Just because someone demonstrates something for 6 months when under the microscope doesn’t mean they will continue to do so, or mistakes won’t happen in the future.

Look, I agree with you. I’m playing devil’s advocate because the FAA’s approach on some deferral reasons is draconian. 1 person does "X" therefore we must treat all people with somewhat similar situations, if nowhere near the same situation, as the person that did "X."

Should a person with diabetes, or other physical abnormalities potentially dangerous to flying be further looked into, yes. Should a person with a history of legal issues/repeated offenses related to drugs or alcohol be looked into further, yes. Should a person with certain mental issues be looked into further, yes. However, one DUI does not an alcoholic make.
Click to expand...
.....but you'd be amazed how many are supertolerant and have been drinking amazing amounts on their first 0.15-0.20.

UTLonghorn_1979 said:
Social anxiety, work related anxiety or even depression does not a suicidal or sociopathic killer make. One ADD/ADHD diagnosis at age 6 does not a focus less/total distracted person make.

The issues I have are the level of scrutiny given to certain deferrals reasons and with no evaluation level commensurate with the level of the applicant's specific situation and the timing to evaluate such applicant. Professionals authorized by the FAA to evaluate these things come to a conclusion within weeks.

Why does the FAA need a year to come to the same conclusion? And if you say that the FAA is better suited to evaluate this vs. the professional you MUST currently see prior to FAA review, why even make the applicant go to the professional in the first place? Just use the already tax funded people at the FAA that ultimately make the determination at the onset. Hell, I'd rather do that and meet face to face with them vs. being some complete stranger on a piece of paper and FAA file sitting on a desk for 6-12 months.

The system is broken. We're making progress...it can be much better and in a manner that maximizes personal freedoms while still maintaining the public safety. We will NEVER get it perfect, because people are people and they are imperfect. But to state that the status quo is ideal is disingenuous.
Click to expand...
You time scale is incorrect. It's not a year. Back in 2006 when we petitioned for an SSRI path, it took 4 years and "some" lobbying to make it happen. Basic took 5 years.

It's basically why the Marines are successful and the Bureaucracy is not. The MARINES reward even the O-1 to O-3 innovators who figure out how to get the job done. They reward initiative.
 
bbchien said:
.....but you'd be amazed how many are supertolerant and have been drinking amazing amounts on their first 0.15-.20.
Click to expand...
Sure, and treat those as such. But don’t treat every DUI applicant, or even those with no DUIs but “believed” to have issues with alcohol, as though they are 1 flight away from flying drunk.

bbchien said:
You time scale is incorrect. It's not a year. Back in 2006 when we petitioned for an SSRI path, it took 4 years and "some" lobbying to make it happen. Basic took 5 years.

It's basically why the Marines are successful and the Bureaucracy is not. The MARINES reward even the O-1 to O-3 innovators who figure out how to get the job done. They reward initiative.
Click to expand...
What time scale are you referring to?

Agreed, the bulk of the government is NOT results oriented. Let’s change that!!
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
Sure, and treat those as such. But don’t treat every DUI applicant, or even those with no DUIs but “believed” to have issues with alcohol, as though they are 1 flight away from flying drunk.


What time scale are you referring to?
Click to expand...
The timescale of BATTLE.

UTLonghorn_1979 said:
Agreed, the bulk of the government is NOT results oriented. Let’s change that!!
Click to expand...
Good luck with that.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
You do realize they work for us, right?
Click to expand...
By "Us", I assume you're referring to pilots and aircraft owners. But the actual "Us" is the populace as a whole. Who see no reason to reduce safety factors in the aircraft over their heads.

As long as Government bureaucrats' careers can be affected by a failure in judgement, you'll find said bureaucrats reluctant to "cut any favors" for individuals. If an airplane crashes into a school, with the engine bouncing off and ramming through a retirement home, Congress and the press will want to find the person responsible for NOT ensuring their safety. Colgan crash all over again.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
By "Us", I assume you're referring to pilots and aircraft owners. But the actual "Us" is the populace as a whole. Who see no reason to reduce safety factors in the aircraft over their heads.

As long as Government bureaucrats' careers can be affected by a failure in judgement, you'll find said bureaucrats reluctant to "cut any favors" for individuals. If an airplane crashes into a school, with the engine bouncing off and ramming through a retirement home, Congress and the press will want to find the person responsible for NOT ensuring their safety. Colgan crash all over again.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
Correct, and no need to reduce safety. The need is to reduce waste, redundancy and overregulation and create efficiency and common sense practices. I wasn't familiar with the Colgan crash, but what does that have to do with ensuring safety due to medical issuance? That was pilot error...which last time I checked is responsible for 99.999% of the crashes vs. a medical condition in flight leading to a crash...whether that be contributing or intentional in nature.

One might argue that as long as the FAA handles things in a way the deters honesty and people getting help for things that would currently ground them for potentially 2+ years, and potentially forever, they have already created an environment of potentially dangerous pilots in the flight deck.

But my focus is GA and class 3 pilots, not class 1 or 2.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
Correct, and no need to reduce safety. The need is to reduce waste, redundancy and overregulation and create efficiency and common sense practices. I wasn't familiar with the Colgan crash, but what does that have to do with ensuring safety due to medical issuance? That was pilot error...which last time I checked is responsible for 99.999% of the crashes vs. a medical condition in flight leading to a crash...whether that be contributing or intentional in nature.
Click to expand...
The Colgan crash was a good example of what I was referring to. Yes, it was pilot error. But the American public and Congress decided that a root cause was pilot experience, and forced through a requirement that wasn't justified by the facts of the case.

It was the same thing that could have potentially happened with Sport Pilot. If a J-3 flown by a Sport Pilot had collided with an airliner, you would have had shocked headlines about "unqualified pilots" and the need to sweep them from the skies.

UTLonghorn_1979 said:
But my focus is GA and class 3 pilots, not class 1 or 2.
Click to expand...
Sure...but does the American public understand the difference? Remember, again, eventually the bureaucracy is responsible for aviation as a whole, not just a niche of it. The FAA gets political brownie points by RESTRICTING those fat cats with their little airplanes, not by turning them free.

Ron Wanttaja
 
bbchien said:
Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
Well, to put a little optimism in here, they have been changing, not to be more "results oriented" but they are making some improvements. New medications allowed and pretty significant changes to the ADHD pathways. I mentioned earlier how younger folks are more aware of mental health issues and I think that will result in more positive changes in that area as well. You also have a greater amount of scrutiny from the general public on these issues. What I'm worried about is the FAA being reactive and not proactive and only making changes after some devastating accident occurs due to a pilot with untreated illnesses. The FAA is going to have to evolve, it's just I would rather it be sooner rather than later.
 
Bob Noel said:
I long for the day when people truly understand the difference between "safe" and "safe enough"
Click to expand...

Get used to disappointment. Here's the FAA mission statement:

Our Mission​

Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.​
​

Our Vision​

We strive to reach the next level of safety and efficiency and to demonstrate global leadership in how we safely integrate new users and technologies into our aviation system. We are accountable to the American public and our aviation stakeholders.​
​

Our Values​

  • Safety is our passion. We work so all air and space travelers arrive safely at their destinations.

"Safe enough" isn't in their vocabulary. The more pilots and planes the FAA can ground, the less risk there is and the closer they come to fulfilling their mission.
​
​
 
Half Fast said:
"Safe enough" isn't in their vocabulary. The more pilots and planes the FAA can ground, the less risk there is and the closer they come to fulfilling their mission.
​
​
Click to expand...
Until it backfires and another pilot self-medicating with shrooms succeeds in his intent to hurt others.

Changes will keep going when the FAA finds out that the lowest risk means finding a medium between grounding some pilots and letting other pilots seek treatment.
 
Wheresmychute said:
Well, to put a little optimism in here, they have been changing, not to be more "results oriented" but they are making some improvements. New medications allowed and pretty significant changes to the ADHD pathways. I mentioned earlier how younger folks are more aware of mental health issues and I think that will result in more positive changes in that area as well. You also have a greater amount of scrutiny from the general public on these issues. What I'm worried about is the FAA being reactive and not proactive and only making changes after some devastating accident occurs due to a pilot with untreated illnesses. The FAA is going to have to evolve, it's just I would rather it be sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...
They’re making changes. But AMEs aren’t following them. The ADHD Fast track…many AMEs are refusing to do this and deferring anyway.
 
Bob Noel said:
I long for the day when people truly understand the difference between "safe" and "safe enough"
Click to expand...
.....or, "risk" vs "occurrence".
Jon wilder said:
The ADHD Fast track…many AMEs are refusing to do this and deferring anyway.
Click to expand...
The AME guide is up to 800+ pages. A lot of the examiners have just "given up". The list of change orders is mind numbing.
 
Half Fast said:
Get used to disappointment. Here's the FAA mission statement:

Our Mission​

Our continuing mission is to provide a pretty safe and efficient aerospace system.​
​

Our Vision​

We strive to reach an adequate level of safety and efficiency and to demonstrate some effort with safely integrate new users and technologies into our aviation system. We are not really accountable to the American public and our aviation stakeholders.​
​

Our Values​

  • Safety is on our list of priorities. We work so all air and space travelers arrive safely at their destinations most of the time.


"Safe enough" isn't in their vocabulary. The more pilots and planes the FAA can ground, the less risk there is and the closer they come to fulfilling their mission.
​
​
Click to expand...
I rewrote it using your vocabulary. Do you think anyone would be ok with this?
 
Lindberg said:
I rewrote it using your vocabulary. Do you think anyone would be ok with this?
Click to expand...
Saying that safety is important is a given and obvious. It’s like a surgeon saying “my focus is making sure I remove the right organ or limb.” No $h!t.

Why not just say “not having passengers of commercial planes go down in a terrifying, flaming hunk of metal is our priority.”

Useless platitudes that don’t mean anything other than, please don’t get mad at us if or when something goes wrong.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
Useless platitudes that don’t mean anything other than, please don’t get mad at us if or when something goes wrong.
Click to expand...
Which is why reducing restrictions isn’t in the best interest of anyone at the FAA…it’s a lot easier for someone to get mad at you if a change you made can be somehow (realistically or otherwise) tied to an accident.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Which is why reducing restrictions isn’t in the best interest of anyone at the FAA…it’s a lot easier for someone to get mad at you if a change you made can be somehow (realistically or otherwise) tied to an accident.
Click to expand...
I agree with your premise that fear is the driver of status quo or inaction. But I disagree that this is actually increasing safety and disagree that reducing restrictions is the solution most are advocating for. I think most are advocating for a more transparent, objective and timely solution for certain conditions vs. just get rid of the obstacle or anything goes.

As someone stated above, we are much more likely to see an intentional incident by someone that has an unknown/undisclosed condition due to fear of losing their job vs. someone that needs help, wants help or is seeking help yet given a fair, transparent and factually objective process to stay in the air.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
I agree with your premise that fear is the driver of status quo or inaction. But I disagree that this is actually increasing safety and disagree that reducing restrictions is the solution most are advocating for. I think most are advocating for a more transparent, objective and timely solution for certain conditions vs. just get rid of the obstacle or anything goes.
Click to expand...
“Most” is most who are familiar with the aviation medical process, which is a very small percentage of the overall population. And it’s the overall population that’s driving the fear.
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
As someone stated above, we are much more likely to see an intentional incident by someone that has an unknown/undisclosed condition due to fear of losing their job vs. someone that needs help, wants help or is seeking help yet given a fair, transparent and factually objective process to stay in the air.
Click to expand...
The overall population won’t see a distinction there.
 
MauleSkinner said:
“Most” is most who are familiar with the aviation medical process, which is a very small percentage of the overall population. And it’s the overall population that’s driving the fear.

The overall population won’t see a distinction there.
Click to expand...
I can’t think of a single person that’s ever said I’m scared the pilot is going to intentionally fly the plane into the ground.

Now, if it’s Boeing I’m not going…I hear that a lot.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
As someone stated above, we are much more likely to see an intentional incident by someone that has an unknown/undisclosed condition due to fear of losing their job vs. someone that needs help, wants help or is seeking help yet given a fair, transparent and factually objective process to stay in the air.
Click to expand...
How much more likely, and how do you know?

Ideally, we would keep all alcoholics, drug addicts, and seriously mentally ill people out of the cockpit. The FAA's position is to start with the ones it knows about, and try to uncover the rest. Are you suggesting that we should leave the ones we know about in the cockpit because they're less of a danger than the ones we don't know about, or if we can't get them all out, we should ignore the ones we know about?
 
Lindberg said:
How much more likely, and how do you know?

Ideally, we would keep all alcoholics, drug addicts, and seriously mentally ill people out of the cockpit. The FAA's position is to start with the ones it knows about, and try to uncover the rest. Are you suggesting that we should leave the ones we know about in the cockpit because they're less of a danger than the ones we don't know about, or if we can't get them all out, we should ignore the ones we know about?
Click to expand...
There is no certainty in anything, but what we DO know is that if someone has a known condition disclosed to the FAA/their employer, they are going to be actively monitored to make sure they are flight ready. So, by that fact, it's much less likely that those people being treated would cause an accident because 3rd parties are involved and monitoring and they ARE being treated.

Ideally, as you put it, no one with any "condition" would be in the cockpit if safety was truly paramount. No diabetics, no high BP, no high cholesterol, no obesity, nothing less than perfect vision and hearing, etc. But that's not realistic.

Of course people with serious mental illness (I'd like a definition for that) should not be piloting aircraft.

So, you would ground sober/long term abstinent alcoholics and recovered drug addicts from flying? Really?
 
Back
Top