SSRI Deferral/Round 2 Application for Class 3 Medical

Lindberg said:
Where do relapsing alcoholics who appear to be in denial fit on this
Click to expand...

Lindberg said:
Where do relapsing alcoholics who appear to be in denial fit on this spectrum?
Click to expand...
As opposed to those actively in a program and addressing it? Didn’t I just address that in prior post?

Is this a genuine question or are you just gaslighting?
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
I don’t understand the people on this forum that lord their unencumbered situation over people having medical situations.

There are people that aren’t willing to address their situation or meet the FAA where they are. That’s a problem.

Then you have people like myself, already with 400 hours flying without incident, even when dealt with inflight issues such as engine or prop issues, or full electrical failure, that are absolutely willing to do what it takes. Doesn’t mean I can’t question the process.

You’d think one pilot to another would understand the defeating feeling of losing your wings after years and hours demonstrating you’re more then capable and fit, and when you don’t believe your individual circumstance merits it. That’s the reasons so many people aren’t being truthful with their AME, they don’t want to be in this position.

Instead many of the responses are akin to tough ****, glad I’m not you. Juvenile.
Click to expand...
not at all. it’s the difference between someone taking the steps they need to get and stay sober and fly safely and someone who wants to go through the motions to get a certificate without doing the legwork
 
wellknow said:
not at all. it’s the difference between someone taking the steps they need to get and stay sober and fly safely and someone who wants to go through the motions to get a certificate without doing the legwork
Click to expand...
Well, I agree with you there. Being one of the formerly described, maybe the responses of people so full of opinions should give a little grace, think the best of other pilots in a rough spot and be constructive vs. judgmental A-holes. :)
 
Sigh.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3986.png
    IMG_3986.png
    899.3 KB · Views: 39
Well…i am one of 4 original petitioners for the SSRI path….(adopted 4/2010), and one of 18 (the lead petitioner) for HIMS AME stepdown authority (adopted 10/2023).

But you need to adopt a much more “let me try to understand “why the restrictions are where they are” approach, rather than “rail” against a system put in place to minimize blood (already spilled).

Remember, in our culture, “if your head explodes, you lose” pertains.
 
bbchien said:
Well…i am one of 4 original petitioners for the SSRI path….(adopted 4/2010), and one of 18 (the lead petitioner) for HIMS AME stepdown authority (adopted 10/2023).

But you need to adopt a much more “let me try to understand “why the restrictions are where they are” approach, rather than “rail” against a system put in place to minimize blood (already spilled).

Remember, in our culture, “if your head explodes, you lose” pertains.
Click to expand...
I respect that. I understand the need to make sure people flying are both mentally and physically fit. I want the same thing.

That’s not the issue I have. The issue I have is you’re required to provide the FAA with a laundry list of items and evaluations from FAA approved, and expensive, specialists in a tight timeframe. I think it was 60 days, definitely not more than 90, to have your AME provide the complete SSRI Initial deferral package or you start all over in the process. This was already after a 6 months wait for the required deferral and the FAA’s initial reply.

You then wait another year (as was my situation) to have them decline and request another round of HIMS evaluations, because the ones you provided are a year old and they need them current. It doesn’t take a genius to understand that the new HIMS evaluations are going to be a year old again by the time the FAA reviews again. Thus, you get stuck in this bureaucratic black hole - the reports will never be “current” because they have created a process that makes that requirement logistically impossible.

If any new diagnoses arises, and as should absolutely be vetted, this now compounds the process inefficiencies.

The issue I have is it’s horribly inefficient and doesn’t have to be. And that there doesn’t appear to be any use of past performance/experience to predict future outcome for the initial intake process. Lastly, my issue is all initial deferral applicants go into the same queue, regardless of specific situation. Seems that there should be various tracks/pathways to streamline the process, “triage” if you will, based upon the level of complexity of the situation. Process those with highest % of approval first vs, what I understand to be, a first in first out process.

I am doing everything that the FAA is asking me. I plan to go above and beyond their requirements and include letters of recommendation from the CFIs I’ve flown with over the past 3 years as well as letters from my AA sponsor and IOP treating physician/aftercare leader.

My hope, prayer, would be that if every individual person in their respective field (and all relevant to airmen medical/HIMS duties) says it’s their professional opinion that I should be granted special issuance for class 3 medical, that the FAA would follow suit. I also pray that the process takes less than half a decade. Hell, I could have become a Dr in that same timeframe.

I appreciate the feedback.
 
Last edited:
I think people who are skeptical about your situation aren't wrong. Your initial post say you were sober for a week and a half? That's hardly any time at all.

Your thinking seems to be that you are trying hard to be sober and you removed the stress trigger of a bad job and that is why you should be fine. I don't agree with that sentiment. I have a younger daughter with anxiety and OCD disorders and she's only functional with medication. I can see that it is going to be a life long challenge for her with possibilities she'd end up making bad life choices. She's never going to be like her older sister who's someone that takes pressure, cries or gets angry, finds a solution to her problem and becomes better in the process. There are lots of people with stressful jobs and life situations and it is how they handle it that matters. Your sobriety challenges are indicators of how you'd react with stress and it is based on the rules incompatible with being fit to fly. It is your tendencies not the triggers that matters.

I also see you are posting https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...afety-pilot-arrangements.147635/#post-3529313 questions like this. To me that reminds me of https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/209043 . And I am concerned that you actually feels that your rights are being unfairly taken from you and you'd do anything to keep flying.
 
SebIp said:
I think people who are skeptical about your situation aren't wrong. Your initial post say you were sober for a week and a half? That's hardly any time at all.

Your thinking seems to be that you are trying hard to be sober and you removed the stress trigger of a bad job and that is why you should be fine. I don't agree with that sentiment. I have a younger daughter with anxiety and OCD disorders and she's only functional with medication. I can see that it is going to be a life long challenge for her with possibilities she'd end up making bad life choices. She's never going to be like her older sister who's someone that takes pressure, cries or gets angry, finds a solution to her problem and becomes better in the process. There are lots of people with stressful jobs and life situations and it is how they handle it that matters. Your sobriety challenges are indicators of how you'd react with stress and it is based on the rules incompatible with being fit to fly. It is your tendencies not the triggers that matters.

I also see you are posting https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...afety-pilot-arrangements.147635/#post-3529313 questions like this. To me that reminds me of https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/209043 . And I am concerned that you actually feels that your rights are being unfairly taken from you and you'd do anything to keep flying.
Click to expand...
Valid observations, I wasn't working a program actively either the last time around. When I was sober for 6 months prior to that, I was. I'm actively working a program again, which I intend to do whether I get my medical or not.

One thing I don't understand, however, is the extrapolation of you drink, therefore you MUST drink and fly, or engage in otherwise poor decision making practices. That's a blanket and far leap. Especially when there isn't a history of DUI/DWI, public intoxication, work related issues, etc. that more times than not follow someone with a substance abuse history. I drank in the evenings after work to relax, not day drinking, didn't need a drink in the morning to get going, didn't go through withdrawal, etc. However, I recognized that my drinking wasn't a healthy way to deal with work stress, thus checked myself into an IOP treatment and prior to the FAA requiring that.

I read the link, I'm not a student pilot. I have my PPL with HP, complex and tailwheel endorsements. I have 400 hours TT, of which ~ 200 was solo/PIC before being denied for a medical. Nonetheless, I see your point.

As I stated a few times, I understand the need for this process and I will comply with the FAA's needs. But, and as someone actively living the process, my observation is the process is not effectively addressing the issues in the same shades/degrees of the applicants specific issue as would the general medical community. You don't treat someone with suicidal idealization the same as someone with social anxiety. You don't treat the person with stage 4 cancer the same way as someone with stage 1 cancer, and so on.

It's my opinion, and I realize it's just that, that the FAA would do themselves a favor in reevaluating their approach to the deferral process.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
That’s not the issue I have. The issue I have is you’re required to provide the FAA with a laundry list of items and evaluations from FAA approved, and expensive, specialists in a tight timeframe. I think it was 60 days, definitely not more than 90, to have your AME provide the complete SSRI Initial deferral package or you start all over in the process. This was already after a 6 months wait for the required deferral and the FAA’s initial reply.

You then wait another year (as was my situation) to have them decline and request another round of HIMS evaluations, because the ones you provided are a year old and they need them current. It doesn’t take a genius to understand that the new HIMS evaluations are going to be a year old again by the time the FAA reviews again. Thus, you get stuck in this bureaucratic black hole - the reports will never be “current” because they have created a process that makes that requirement logistically impossible.
Click to expand...

I keep imagining reading this aloud in the voice of Alan Arkin....

 
robin ardoin said:
Unfortunately, when it comes to some SI's, CAMI draws too many parallel's to Heller's proverbial 'Catch-22'. Best of luck with you endeavor.
Click to expand...
I agree. When I ask a question about why things are they way they are, I feel like it's a scene from Idiocracy:

 
When I first saw that movie, I laughed but thought it to be a bit outlandish. I, unfortunately, have come to see that it was prophetic in many ways.
 
robin ardoin said:
When I first saw that movie, I laughed but thought it to be a bit outlandish. I, unfortunately, have come to see that it was prophetic in many ways.
Click to expand...
Lol! Exactly. I’d never heard of the movie then some years ago I was having a conversation with a good friend and made the statement, “Does it ever appear to you that the people having the most kids are probably those that shouldn’t have any and those that aren’t having any probably should?”

He asked if I’d ever seen the movie.

It’s a good one. Makes me laugh just thinking about it.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
Valid observations, I wasn't working a program actively either the last time around. When I was sober for 6 months prior to that, I was. I'm actively working a program again, which I intend to do whether I get my medical or not.

One thing I don't understand, however, is the extrapolation of you drink, therefore you MUST drink and fly, or engage in otherwise poor decision making practices. That's a blanket and far leap. Especially when there isn't a history of DUI/DWI, public intoxication, work related issues, etc. that more times than not follow someone with a substance abuse history. I drank in the evenings after work to relax, not day drinking, didn't need a drink in the morning to get going, didn't go through withdrawal, etc. However, I recognized that my drinking wasn't a healthy way to deal with work stress, thus checked myself into an IOP treatment and prior to the FAA requiring that.

I read the link, I'm not a student pilot. I have my PPL with HP, complex and tailwheel endorsements. I have 400 hours TT, of which ~ 200 was solo/PIC before being denied for a medical. Nonetheless, I see your point.

As I stated a few times, I understand the need for this process and I will comply with the FAA's needs. But, and as someone actively living the process, my observation is the process is not effectively addressing the issues in the same shades/degrees of the applicants specific issue as would the general medical community. You don't treat someone with suicidal idealization the same as someone with social anxiety. You don't treat the person with stage 4 cancer the same way as someone with stage 1 cancer, and so on.

It's my opinion, and I realize it's just that, that the FAA would do themselves a favor in reevaluating their approach to the deferral process.
Click to expand...
Did you report your AUD on the medical application that was initially deferred? If not, you can't really blame the FAA for seeking a second round of information about a condition they didn't know existed.
 
Lindberg said:
Did you report your AUD on the medical application that was initially deferred? If not, you can't really blame the FAA for seeking a second round of information about a condition they didn't know existed.
Click to expand...
No, because I checked myself into IOP treatment almost a year after the application was sent to the FAA for deferral and was still in process/review, because that's the timeline the FAA works on. However, the notes from the treating physician's showed that I had a history of using alcohol to deal with work stress. That's what I'm now addressing, along with more evaluations for the SSRI deferral.

To clarify, I don't blame the FAA for looking into health issues, I blame them for the inefficient and nonsensical black and white approach in which they conduct it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top