More Change at FAA medical

MauleSkinner said:
only because it’s beyond your range of vision.
Click to expand...
I'd say based upon your responses you're the one being myopic and unwilling to consider other views.

Let's keep the discussion constructive vs. levying personal attacks when there is a different viewpoint. It makes for a more productive forum.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
I'd say based upon your responses you're the one being myopic and unwilling to consider other views.

Let's keep the discussion constructive vs. levying personal attacks when there is a different viewpoint. It makes for a more productive forum.
Click to expand...
Ok…so explain to me how a knee-jerk reaction by Congress to assign blame within the FAA for an accident and increase qualification requirements in an airline cockpit to a level that was exceeded by the accident crew to make the general populace feel safer about aviation has no bearing on fears within the FAA that making it easier for those with alcohol dependency or mental illness to get into the cockpit.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Ok…so explain to me how a knee-jerk reaction by Congress to assign blame within the FAA for an accident and increase qualification requirements in an airline cockpit to a level that was exceeded by the accident crew to make the general populace feel safer about aviation has no bearing on fears within the FAA that making it easier for those with alcohol dependency or mental illness to get into the cockpit.
Click to expand...
Was the accident caused by a pilot flying drunk or a known/active substance abuse problem or a known mental illness?
 
MauleSkinner said:
No, it was caused by pilots whom the FAA let fly, but the general populace believes shouldn’t have been allowed to. Same effect.
Click to expand...
Well, those are 2 very different things. One is pilot ability, which can only be addressed by more training, experience and the pilot's commitment to continued mastery of their craft (which is never ending).

The other is pilot health related and is treated by qualified physicians.

I'd take a better skilled pilot being treated for anxiety or who is an abstaining/sober alcoholic every time over a perfectly healthy person that's less skilled. The better skilled pilot has more potential scenarios that could lead to a safe landing or fatal crash where ability is the determining factor.

Would I prefer the best of both, of course. But there are far more pilots involved in accidents due to pilot error vs. some medical condition contributing to an accident.

And I must reiterate, that for hire/commercial requirements should be different than class 3/GA requirements, of course.

That’s been my fight this whole time.
 
Last edited:
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
They aren't what?
Click to expand...
Screenshot_20241216-161035.png

Long-term abstinent alcoholics and recovered drug addicts aren't grounded.

I think you really need to touch grass. And while you're outside, ask some normals how they feel about alcoholics, drug addicts, and the mentally ill flying planes.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
Well, those are 2 very different things. One is pilot ability, which can only be addressed by more training, experience and the pilot's commitment to continued mastery of their craft (which is never ending).

The other is pilot health related and is treated by qualified physicians.

I'd take a better skilled pilot being treated for anxiety or who is an abstaining/sober alcoholic every time over a perfectly healthy person that's less skilled. The better skilled pilot has more potential scenarios that could lead to a safe landing or fatal crash where ability is the determining factor.

Would I prefer the best of both, of course. But there are far more pilots involved in accidents due to pilot error vs. some medical condition contributing to an accident.

And I must reiterate, that for hire/commercial requirements should be different than class 3/GA requirements, of course.

That’s been my fight this whole time.
Click to expand...
You clearly don’t understand your opponents.
 
Lindberg said:
View attachment 136284
Long-term abstinent alcoholics and recovered drug addicts aren't grounded.

I think you really need to touch grass. And while you're outside, ask some normals how they feel about alcoholics, drug addicts, and the mentally ill flying planes.
Click to expand...
That’s a loaded way to ask, and everyone, including myself would say absolutely not if posed the way you’re asking it. If the question is “would you be okay with a recovered alcoholic or drug addict flying commercial airplanes?” I’d ask, how long have they been sober? Any longterm impairments caused by the former lifestyle? No? Then I’m okay with that if they are continuing treatment to maintain sobriety and the employer is monitoring this."

And please define mentally ill. Are we talking schizophrenic, anxiety, depression, gender disphoria, OCD, Jordan Neely on the subway? What are we talking about here?
 
Last edited:
Tools said:
The faa doesn’t have a good track record with changes…

Had to rethink their 3 yr registration debacle.

Had to rethink their lifetime HIMS debacle.

Had to rethink their SSRI posture.

Their 1500 hr part 121 project aint doing great.

There are more.

They just aren’t very, uh, how do you put it… good.
Click to expand...
To be fair the 121 1500 hour screwing was forced on them by legislation that pilot unions lobbied for under the guise of safety.

In my opinion the labor unions wanted it to create a pinch in the labor supply to get contract improvements.

I’m going to take break counting my money and pull up the ladder.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
That’s a loaded way to ask, and everyone, including myself would say absolutely not if posed the way you’re asking it. If the question is “would you be okay with a recovered alcoholic or drug addict flying commerial airplanes?” I’d ask, how long have they been sober? Any longterm impairments caused by the former lifestyle? No? Then I’m okay with that if they are contuing treatment to maintain sobriety and the employer is monitoring this."

And please define mentally ill. Are we talking schizophrenic, anxiety, depression, gender disphoria, OCD, Jordan Neely on the subway? What are we talking about here?
Click to expand...
YOU would ask those questions. The majority of people in the U.S. wouldn’t care about the differentiation. That’s what you don’t understand, and why your tilting at windmills will ultimately fail.
 
MauleSkinner said:
You clearly don’t understand your opponents.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t mean I have to throw my hands up and say I give up. Congress is already moving to reform the FAA’s stance on certain conditions, because it’s needed and, for whatever reason, there is an ever increasing % of the population being diagnosed with mental or mood disorders. This will only get worse if nothing is done.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
That doesn’t mean I have to throw my hands up and say I give up. Congress is already moving to reform the FAA’s stance on certain conditions, because it’s needed and, for whatever reason, there is an ever increasing % of the population being diagnosed with mental or mood disorders. This will only get worse if nothing is done.
Click to expand...
It’ll also get worse if the right thing isn’t done, which is where you are.
 
MauleSkinner said:
YOU would ask those questions. The majority of people in the U.S. wouldn’t care about the differentiation. That’s what you don’t understand, and why your tilting at windmills will ultimately fail.
Click to expand...
Time will tell, the FAA is already moving closer to my position on mental health items. So there is progress, albeit at government pace.
MauleSkinner said:
It’ll also get worse if the right thing isn’t done, which is where you are.
Click to expand...
I’m for common sense reform…I’m not asking for dangerous people to be flying. I’m asking for the FAA to implement a faster process for issuance for those that have already been determined fit to fly by HIMS psychologists/neuropsychologists faster than 12 months from application submission to issuance.

I also beleive it worth looking at a revised tiered level of requirements/processes for applicants just like the tiered privileges across the medical classes and certificate types. More restrictions/requirements for Class 2 and 1, and Commercial/Airline certificates. Less for Class 3 and Private, Recreational and Student certificates.
 
I think people have lost the original crux of the issue here. And that is the FAA needs to be more efficient not more lax.

Its, "The FAA needs to be better at finding out whose safe to fly and letting them fly" vs. "The FAA needs to just let more people fly."

You can't really argue against the first point, you can say its unlikely, or there is no profit incentive, but you can't really say its a bad thing.

Lindberg said:
And while you're outside, ask some normals how they feel about alcoholics, drug addicts, and the mentally ill flying planes.
Click to expand...
Rephrase the question, "Sir, how do you feel about the FAA directing more attention towards allowing and encouraging pilots to seek treatment for mental/physical illnesses and addiction like past alcoholism/anxiety/and mild depression?"

You would still get some mixed answers, but I think fairly positive.
 
Wheresmychute said:
I think people have lost the original crux of the issue here. And that is the FAA needs to be more efficient not more lax.

Its, "The FAA needs to be better at finding out whose safe to fly and letting them fly" vs. "The FAA needs to just let more people fly."

You can't really argue against the first point, you can say its unlikely, or there is no profit incentive, but you can't really say its a bad thing.


Rephrase the question, "Sir, how do you feel about the FAA directing more attention towards allowing and encouraging pilots to seek treatment for mental/physical illnesses and addiction like past alcoholism/anxiety/and mild depression?"

You would still get some mixed answers, but I think fairly positive.
Click to expand...
I definitely agree. I have stated more than I can count on this forum that the main issue I have is the timeline the FAA works under and take issue with the fact that certain deferrals require you to visit FAA approved specialists in those fields. Those specialists make their determination withing a few weeks but then the reports go to the FAA to sit for 8-12 months to collect dust. If the specialists recommend issuance or SI, then the AME should be required to issue in 99% of the cases.

Alternatively, if the FAA currently has the ultimate decision power, then get rid of the requirement to visit the specialists outside of the FAA and go direct to the FAA medical staff that ultimately makes the decision. If they are “qulaified” to make the yay or nay decision and already tax payer funded, then they can do the evaluation over zoom or in person. It would be cheaper in many cases to fly to them vs. pay the $3-$5K per specialists as is currently required.

Should there be less stringent measures for sports pilots, yes, but a perfect and logical next steps is as you suggest…the FAA needs to be more efficient and this can easily be accomplished by allowing/requiring the HIMS AMES to issue themselves based upon the specialists recommendations and their own reasoning.

You could even provide the HIMS AMES and specialists immunity other than willful/reckless negligence.
 
I actually codified an entire method to do that, using recognized board certified specialists, removing all but administrative responsibility from the FAA (as that’s ALL they should be liable for), decentralized a bunch, built in automatic flexibility and metrics for performance… sent it all to Homendy. Crickets.
 
Tools said:
I actually codified an entire method to do that, using recognized board certified specialists, removing all but administrative responsibility from the FAA (as that’s ALL they should be liable for), decentralized a bunch, built in automatic flexibility and metrics for performance… sent it all to Homendy. Crickets.
Click to expand...
Wrong person. Send to Sec Trans.
 
IMH(and oft ignored)O, the quickest and simplest way for OKC to improve efficiency would be to increase the authority of the AMEs by expanding the CACI list. The only things that should be deferred to OKC are the Big Three that require an SI under Basic Med.

If any physician in the country can use his medical judgement to decide whether to issue Basic Med to a pilot with diabetes, sleep apnea, cancer, kidney stones, etc., etc., why can't an AME do the same for a 3rd class? Why must such go into a loooong queue at OKC?
 
Tools said:
I actually codified an entire method to do that, using recognized board certified specialists, removing all but administrative responsibility from the FAA (as that’s ALL they should be liable for), decentralized a bunch, built in automatic flexibility and metrics for performance… sent it all to Homendy. Crickets.
Click to expand...
Tools - DM me. I’d be happy to run parallel efforts communicating the same things.

With gov efficiency, overreach, etc being the point of DOGE, now is the time to make that push.
 
AvNavCom said:
Like it or not, the general public (the ones constantly trying to shut down airports) feel safer knowing that pilots are held to a higher level of scrutiny, both medically and in training.
Click to expand...
This kind of a wrong assumption is one of the reasons we have such a crazy system.
A typical person who complains about the plane noise has no clue about the medical certification for pilots.
 
Jon Wilder said:
If the public knew ANYTHING about and had any say in FAA medical scrutiny, we'd have no pilots.
Click to expand...
Like everything with the public, it all depends on what and how you tell them. Make the message about safety and QoL for pilots (which is not a lie) and "the public" will be in support.
 
All of this is moot.

The faa operates on an irrational fear of liability, justifying it with the public’s irrational fear of flying, coupled with zero consequence.

They ain’t gonna change until SOMEONE makes them, or it suddenly becomes more troublesome to not do their job, than just doing it.

The public really don’t care. Want proof? Watch them get upset when you divert instead of fly through a thunderstorm. The public is fickle and short sighted, they’re not the problem.
 
Since they have suspended this until later, does that mean if someone applies for a SI now; as long as their info is in prior to the date, even when reviewed, it will be held for further documentation if needed instead of automatically denied?

Because if not, March 1 doesn’t really change much given how long it takes them to review.

I have a friend going after a SI for being on diabetic medication after previously having one who is sweating it for an employment opportunity. His meds are stable and he has all his documents from Dr. visits every 6 months and in the approved categories, however it’s just not fun when you’re currently flying on BasicMed to risk a denial and be out of the game for 6 months or a year.

Being a flight school owner it’s been quite fun trying to keep up with all these changes.
 
Sierra1 said:
For those that have not seen the news:

www.avweb.com

FAA Postpones Medical Certification Changes

Move came five days after backlash on new policy to deny deferred medicals if they didn't have complete documentation.
www.avweb.com www.avweb.com
Click to expand...

They’re just giving themselves time to educate us about how wonderful their change is.

“Postponing allows the FAA additional time to educate the pilot community and to host a listening session with various aviation associations in early January."
 
They should be required to submit a Notice of Proposed Rule Making for **** like this just like when they issue new ADs. NPRM it and open it for comment up to a certain date.
 
Sierra1 said:
For those that have not seen the news:

www.avweb.com

FAA Postpones Medical Certification Changes

Move came five days after backlash on new policy to deny deferred medicals if they didn't have complete documentation.
www.avweb.com www.avweb.com
Click to expand...
FAA: “The decision to implement this change was not associated with the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, but the need to provide immediate answers to airmen regarding the medical certification process.”

This is the dumbest $h!t I’ve read. So rather than doing their job in a timely manner or making changes that actually fix the issues, the decision was to just deny the applicant in order to “provide immediate answers to airmen…” and give the applicant a timely response…a denial. These folks suck so incredibly bad. How can anyone defend this??

How long does it take for these jokers to even determine if it’s incomplete? 6 months?

F them.
 
Last edited:
Half Fast said:
They’re just giving themselves time to educate us about how wonderful their change is.

“Postponing allows the FAA additional time to educate the pilot community and to host a listening session with various aviation associations in early January."
Click to expand...
I'm sure if they get hit with more backlash during the listening sessions...especially if some of the people at the sessions are aviation attorneys, they may back off.

I mean...CFI's initially weren't allowed to use BasicMed until some feathers got ruffled. Then they eased up on that.

I wouldn't hold my breath though.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
FAA: “The decision to implement this change was not associated with the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, but the need to provide immediate answers to airmen regarding the medical certification process.”

This is the dumbest $h!t I’ve read. So rather than doing their job in a timely manner or making changes that actually fix the issues, the decision was to just deny the applicant in order to “provide the immediate answers to airmen…” and give the applicant a timely response…a denial. These folks suck so incredibly bad. How can anyone defend this??

How long does it take for these jokers to even determine if it’s incomplete? 6 months?

F them.
Click to expand...
They were clearly hit with backlash over it. I've a feeling the listening sessions they speak of may be productive enough to get them to back off.
 
Jon Wilder said:
They were clearly hit with backlash over it. I've a feeling the listening sessions they speak of may be productive enough to get them to back off.
Click to expand...
I’m sure they will back off, but it does nothing to fix the overall rot that is at the FAA. The more I learn the more it seems they just make it up as they go along and with zero accountability.

It’s infurating. I REALLY hope DOGE comes out swinging and get the Gov working for us again vs. us working for the Gov.
 
Half Fast said:
They’re just giving themselves time to educate us about how wonderful their change is.

“Postponing allows the FAA additional time to educate the pilot community and to host a listening session with various aviation associations in early January."
Click to expand...

Yeah I imagine it’s just like the ATF and their nonsense. We are opening a comment period but will refuse to listen and do what we want anyway.
 
I really think the whole “we are going to deny people more” coupled with their stance on “have you ever been denied” on applications just creates a ton more work for them while being supposedly overworked, while also penalizing those seeking certification. I don’t understand how they can think otherwise.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
I’m sure they will back off, but it does nothing to fix the overall rot that is at the FAA. The more I learn the more it seems they just make it up as they go along and with zero accountability.

It’s infurating. I REALLY hope DOGE comes out swinging and get the Gov working for us again vs. us working for the Gov.
Click to expand...
I really hope so as well. They need to put a statute of limitations on all criminal offenses. If it's older than 10 years old, it's off limits. And anyone who was forced into HIMS based on offenses that were 10+ years old at the time they were forced into HIMS need to have that requirement removed. If they otherwise meet standards, they can be returned to an unrestricted medical certificate, effective immediately.
 
Back
Top