Time for FAA Psychiatric Illness Reform

[old_biker]

you need to find God, seriously he can help. He is your only hope.

*Yes I am being overtly religious. I don’t do it often. To those that are offended. Oh well.

I agree, if you want to talk, message me, I have seen more and lived through more than most can imagine, I have been a biker 35+ years, but it took finding God to give me peace in my life. I was never suicidal, but have lost over 20 friends to suicide. A staggering number in a lifetime, but tiny compared to all the friends and bikers I knew that were killed while riding their Harleys.

 

[Tantalum]

right to travel

True... buuuuut, there are other ways beyond private aviation to travel..

 

[SToL]

The Ninth Amendment says that rights don't have to be listed in the Constitution in order to exist.

So while there is not a right to a private pilot certificate per se, the requirements for getting one must at least be reasonable.

Do you think the requirements for getting one are unreasonable?

 

[Palmpilot]

Do you think the requirements for getting one are unreasonable?

In general, no. I do think that making people wait months and months for deferred medicals and SIs to be decided upon, and then subtracting that waiting time from the period that the privilege is valid, is unreasonable, however.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Some food for thought: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...-witch-hunt-depression-pilots-and-air-crashes

The article they are referring to is available at: https://www.researchgate.net/public...earned/link/5b443840aca2728a0d68b0d6/download

 

[Palmpilot]

True... buuuuut, there are other ways beyond private aviation to travel..

That's the trouble with that word, "unreasonable." It's highly subjective. I do believe that if a mode of transportation that is available to others is closed off to a particular person, then the decision to do that needs to be reasonable and not arbitrary.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

But one area that has seen a large decline is alcohol related aviation accidents once the FAA started checking drivers records as part of the medical process.

Would you happen to have a reference on that?

 

[SToL]

In general, no. I do think that making people wait months and months for deferred medicals and SIs to be decided upon, and then subtracting that waiting time from the period that the privilege is valid, is unreasonable, however.

Personally I believe our government is way over bloated, the last thing we need are more government organizations and employees. Then there is the FAA... what are we going to do with them? They're over burdened and understaffed. Well, either that or totally incompetent.

I feel your pain and agree it should not take months and months.

 

[Tantalum]

If you can get a gun permit (and most mental patients legally can) you should be able to get a PPL.

As others have noted it is not exactly apples-to-apples because one is a constitutionally-protected right that cannot legally be infringed on

Granted, people with a known health issue that may affect their ability to make sound and rational decisions and judgments (or safely own and handle a gun) may not be the best candidates for gun ownership either.. not just flying.. but therein lies the debate and the line... there's safe and there's unreasonably restrictive

I actually think the process of having to get an AME to make many of these consultational judgement calls is not unreasonable.. it's the 'hard disqualifiers' and the process of working with FAA that can be time time consuming, etc

 

[Tantalum]

unreasonable

And this is why lawyers love that word so much, reasonable, and unreasonable. It's kind of like a get-out-of-jail card (so to speak), it comes down to who can argue and make a better point in front of a jury of their peers

Who actually decides what 'reasonable doubt' is for example..

 

[Palmpilot]

Personally I believe our government is way over bloated, the last thing we need are more government organizations and employees. Then there is the FAA... what are we going to do with them? They're over burdened and understaffed. Well, either that or totally incompetent.

I feel your pain and agree it should not take months and months.

Fortunately, I was able to side-step all that, first through exercising sport pilot privileges, and later through BasicMed.

 

[Palmpilot]

And this is why lawyers love that word so much, reasonable, and unreasonable. It's kind of like a get-out-of-jail card (so to speak), it comes down to who can argue and make a better point in front of a jury of their peers

I think Constitutional issues are normally decided by appeals courts and above, not juries.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

There is another difference to consider regarding the standard of evidence for regulations. People are convicted of criminal offenses after the crime is committed by a proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Regulations are attempts to prevent people from committing a bad action against others. Violation of them historically was a civil offense. Recently, that has been changed so that violation of regulations is a crime.

In my view, this makes having regulations much more serious. The old argument that well it is just a civil offense so we can forcibly require compliance with regulations based on a reasonable idea, rather than proof the regulatory violation leads to harm to others, is weaker now.

Some of the differences here are not really based on evidence or data, but rather political differences between when people think it is ok for the government to use violence or threat thereof to prevent other people from doing what they want. Some people think that is fine if it seems like a good idea to have the regulation and that it will possibly prevent harm. Others take the idea of using violence to enforce things more seriously and think that should only be done when there is a clear and present danger of harm.

 

[Palmpilot]

...Regulations are attempts to prevent people from committing a bad action against others. Violation of them historically was a civil offense. Recently, that has been changed so that violation of regulations is a crime....

Can you cite your source for that? How did that change come about?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Appears to have been a more gradual accumulation of criminal regulations than I previously had been told.

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-...rative-state-the-problem-criminal-regulations

Seems there have always been some criminal regulations, but that they have proliferated.

I guess what would be of interest particularly here would be the evolution of FAA regulations with civil penalties and those with criminal penalties.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Do you think the requirements for getting one are unreasonable?

I would argue that requiring pilots to meet a standard, when there is not good evidence that the pilot failing to meet that standard constitutes a clear and present danger to others, is unreasonable.

When such evidence is lacking, it implies the regulatory agency is using violence or threats thereof, to force people to do something they don’t want to do, just because people in the agency think it is a good idea, but with very little evidence or proof. Not reasonable by any stretch in my view.

 

[Palmpilot]

Why do people only bring up the threat of violence when they're talking about laws they don't like? Seems awfully selective to me.

 

[SToL]

I would argue that requiring pilots to meet a standard, when there is not good evidence that the pilot failing to meet that standard constitutes a clear and present danger to others, is unreasonable.

When such evidence is lacking, it implies the regulatory agency is using violence or threats thereof, to force people to do something they don’t want to do, just because people in the agency think it is a good idea, but with very little evidence or proof. Not reasonable by any stretch in my view.

I can't argue the point as I have no experience in this area.

That said, I'm not aware of any violence, or threats of such. Can you provide an example?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I can't argue the point as I have no experience in this area.

That said, I'm not aware of any violence, or threats of such. Can you provide an example?

Well, the FAA says that if you don’t answer the questions on their medical application truthfully you will be guilty of a felony with a possible prison sentence of a number of years or they will forcibly take a large amount of your property. Sounds like a threat of violence if you don’t do what they say - doesn’t it?

Any time the government threatens a criminal penalty, there is a threat of violence if you don’t cooperate. Sure, it is couched more nicely than a guy robbing you at gunpoint in an alley, and it is administered by officials with judges etc, but at core, there is a threat of violence.

My point generally about reasonability is, we should be sure the threat of violence is appropriate to the circumstances. Sometimes violence or a threat is needed, like when defending oneself from imminent bodily harm or death, but many times it is not.

 

[Palmpilot]

The thing about such talk of violence is that it applies to laws that you approve of just as much as to laws that you don't approve of. It adds a significant layer of emotionalism to the discussion, and as such it seems disingenuous to ONLY mention it in relation to laws that you don't like.

 

[SToL]

There seems to be some confusion here as to what violence, or a threat of violence is.

Threat of violence:
I walk in my living room and I see you standing there. I say, "Make a move and I'll put two in your chest".

Not a threat of violence:
I walk in my living room and I see you standing there. I say, "Make a move I'll press charges against you for burglary".

The government is not threatening violence by saying "Falsifying or lying on official Govt documents is a felony punishable by fine and or imprisonment". They are merely stating a fact of law. If you commit a crime, there are repercussions.

If they said, ""Falsifying or lying on official Govt documents is a felony punishable by a thorough beating with a side handle baton", That is a threat of violence.

Do you see the difference?

 

[Warmi]

There is no difference.
If you don’t comply with a fine or any legal requirement and say , refuse to leave your home , there is a very good chance government representatives will show up at your door, break in to your house and either kill you outright ( resisting arrest etc etc ) or violently bring you in.

What’s more frightening - the above can happen if you are suspect in a violent crime ( which would be totally understandable ) but also if you have unpaid taxes or refusing to show up in a court to answer , say a charge of falsifying or lying to FAA or any other government pay agency - frankly, any reason that brings them to your door can result with you being dead and often the outcome is derivative of actual decency or patience of the arresting party ( cops, FBI etc ) - legally they are pretty much covered no matter what the outcome.

The bottom line is that while most people are not insane and will comply with court or any other legal rulings, there is still a significant threat of violence attached to every fine, law or regulation.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

The thing about such talk of violence is that it applies to laws that you approve of just as much as to laws that you don't approve of. It adds a significant layer of emotionalism to the discussion, and as such it seems disingenuous to ONLY mention it in relation to laws that you don't like.

Accusing the speaker of being disingenuous is a form of an ad hominem attack and as such, a logical fallacy. Also rude in a public forum. I’ll ignore it once here.

I agree that enforcement of all laws and regulations involves violence or threat thereof. That is why, in my view, it is important to make sure that such violence or threat thereof is really appropriate to the situation at hand.

As I noted, there are different levels of violence and threats, some more apparent and/or destructive than others. I suppose one could also say physical coercion instead of violence. But what terminology would you suggest generally to refer to all use of physical force to make people do things they don’t want to do?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

The government is not threatening violence by saying "Falsifying or lying on official Govt documents is a felony punishable by fine and or imprisonment". They are merely stating a fact of law. If you commit a crime, there are repercussions.

If they said, ""Falsifying or lying on official Govt documents is a felony punishable by a thorough beating with a side handle baton", That is a threat of violence.

Do you see the difference?

Have to agree with @Warmi on this one. If you don’t comply, both will result in a fairly violent situation ultimately. There is a difference in the degree and immediacy of the violent acts, but the ultimate threat is the same.

What term would you use to describe generally the type of force and threats which is used by the government to enforce laws and regulations?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Returning to point about FAA regulations, my point was, I don’t think it is reasonable to use physical force, coercion, or violence (whatever you want to call those acts) or threats thereof, to force people to obey regulations for which there is not good evidence that they prevent a clear and present danger to others.

Would the people here arguing in favor of having regulations that just seem like a good idea, but for which there is not clear evidence of their ability to prevent a clear and present danger to others, be willing to personally go over with a gun or other weapon and force their hangar neighbor to comply? Perhaps with a group of friends to ensure compliance?

If the answer is no, then I think one shouldn’t advocate for the regulation.

 

[SToL]

There is no difference?

There seems to be a pretty clear picture being painted here that indicates some lacking of basic cognitive reasoning skills. Do you seriously think the result of committing a crime or other violation of regulations which result in the offender facing a fine or jail time is the same thing as facing violence? Please give me your address and I'll send you a dictionary.

We have a system in this country which may not be perfect, but obviously perfect enough that millions of people a year try to get here. It's called the judicial system and it works in part, through laws and regulations.

The world is full of these laws and regulations, some 'Civil' and some 'Criminal', that may or may not have anything to do with danger to others, and if there are no consequences for breaking them, then you have total complete chaos. Criminal laws are going to be treated and responded to differently than Civil laws. Again, that should be common sense.

Paint your house purple in an HOA of pink houses and you may expect to see a lean against your home if you fail to comply. Park in a handicap parking spot and expect to receive a ticket or even have your vehicle towed. Run a red light, speed, jaywalk, etc, and expect to receive a ticket. Pay the ticket or appear in court before a judge and state your defense. Refuse to pay or appear, and go to jail. Don't pay your bills, expect to lose service and receive bad credit reports. Get into trouble with the FAA and lose your license. If it's a serious enough violation, you may be fined or even jailed. Don't drink your milk and grow up a scrawny wimpy kid. I could go on and on, but the point is, there are consequences to ignoring laws and regulations and none of them result in violence.

Are there instances where law enforcement act over zealously? There absolutely are and as an ex law enforcement officer it disgusts and angers me to no end! I see officers doing things that had I done, I'd still be in jail today. I think it's wrong, and I think those officers acted incorrectly. However, those incidents are NOT the norm, they are the exception, and most of those incidents receive tremendous public outcry and more often than not, the agency involved ends up paying out to lawsuits and occasionally those officers will be fired or even face criminal charges themselves.

To think that the "threat" of a fine of lose of license or any other civil penalty is the same as violence is not rational thinking. To think that the FAA is going to kick your do in and do physical bodily harm to you because you had an expired medical certificate is not rational thinking. I can not think of one single FAA regulation where the FAA is going to respond, or even has the legal authority to respond, with the use physical force, coercion, or violence. I would love to be enlightened on this.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

<SNIP> Regulations are attempts to prevent people from committing a bad action against others. Violation of them historically was a civil offense. Recently, that has been changed so that violation of regulations is a crime. <SNIP>

Can you cite your source for that? How did that change come about?

My reply is not an endorsement of @PeterNSteinmetz 's position, but merely to comment on the quoted comments.
I'm grouping laws and regulations together.
Some regulations are intended to prevent people from committing a bad action against others- murder, etc. Also, look up the reason the FDA came into existence, as an outgrowth of the 1906 Pure Food and Drugs act. Selling horse meat as beef, or selling a rose-flavored tonic water as a medicinal cure (unless the disease is scurvy) are certainly bad actions against others. Unfortunately, the greed of people makes me glad these rules are prosecuted as crimes.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

As discussed above, there are regulations with civil penalties and those with criminal penalties. Even the most trivial infraction of a law can result in disastrous levels of violence used - witness the Eric Garner case - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/09/nyregion/eric-garner-case-pantaleo-trial.html.

There are “differences” between the type and level of force used, but isn’t any use or threatened use physical force a form of violence? If you think not, please quote a definition and we can parse whether such use of violence meets it or not.

And more to the point, any violation of a law or regulation without subsequently cooperating with punishment and simply peacefully resisting, can and likely will result, ultimately, in extreme force being used.

What do you think will happen if you violate a regulation, refuse to pay the subsequent administrative fine, have no assets at the bank to seize, and refuse to leave the house you own when they subsequently try and attach it to pay the fine, and tacked on additional fees and levies?

 

[SToL]

Would the people here arguing in favor of having regulations that just seem like a good idea, but for which there is not clear evidence of their ability to prevent a clear and present danger to others, be willing to personally go over with a gun or other weapon and force their hangar neighbor to comply? Perhaps with a group of friends to ensure compliance?

Peter, what you describe is illegal, not to mention just crazy. We have very clear laws in this country about when a person can use, or threaten force, including deadly force, against another. If anyone in your scenario did that, they would have of committed assault, without even having touched said hangar neighbor.

Now, if said hangar neighbor had someone tided up in there hanger and they were assaulting or other wise harming them, then by all means, intervene. But if you're going to bring a gun into the equation, you've just escalated to deadly force, and you better be able to justify it or you will be facing the consequences.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Also, look up the reason the FDA came into existence, as an outgrowth of the 1906 Pure Food and Drugs act. Selling horse meat as beef, or selling a rose-flavored tonic water as a medicinal cure (unless the disease is scurvy) are certainly bad actions against others.

The important question is whether such regulations actually succeed in helping reduce clear and present dangers to others. I would submit that we have seen no clear evidence here that the FAA’s requirement for a 3rd class medical improves the safety of flight and reduces dangers to others.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Now, if said hangar neighbor had someone tided up in there hanger and they were assaulting or other wise harming them, then by all means, intervene. But if you're going to bring a gun into the equation, you've just escalated to deadly force, and you better be able to justify it or you will be facing the consequences.

I basically agree. And what the FAA in many cases is doing with regulations is essentially introducing violence or threat thereof into a situation where there is no clear evidence of a clear and present danger to anyone.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

The important question is whether such regulations actually succeed in helping reduce clear and present dangers to others. I would submit that we have seen no clear evidence here that the FAA’s requirement for a 3rd class medical improves the safety of flight and reduces dangers to others.

Certainly, the FDA rules have helped greatly. As for the FAA's 3rd class medical requirements, one can also argue with equal authority that people with issues have been discouraged from aviation.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Certainly, the FDA rules have helped greatly. As for the FAA's 3rd class medical requirements, one can also argue with equal authority that people with issues have been discouraged from aviation.

Happy to look at any studies you would care to cite regarding the FDA. There are many that disagree on the assertion that the FDA’s approach is effective.

As to the FAA. Much of the thread preceding has been parsing he evidence and debating the assertion that the overall effect has improved the safety of flight. If you have some additional studies or data, please do enlighten us.

 

[SToL]

I basically agree. And what the FAA in many cases is doing with regulations is essentially introducing violence or threat thereof into a situation where there is no clear evidence of a clear and present danger to anyone.

We seem to be going round in circles here. You say: the FAA in many cases is introducing violence or threat thereof.

Please provide one example, so I can respond directly.

 

[Palmpilot]

Accusing the speaker of being disingenuous is a form of an ad hominem attack and as such, a logical fallacy. Also rude in a public forum. I’ll ignore it once here.

Is that a threat of enFORCEment?

I agree that enforcement of all laws and regulations involves violence or threat thereof. That is why, in my view, it is important to make sure that such violence or threat thereof is really appropriate to the situation at hand.

As I noted, there are different levels of violence and threats, some more apparent and/or destructive than others. I suppose one could also say physical coercion instead of violence. But what terminology would you suggest generally to refer to all use of physical force to make people do things they don’t want to do?

My point is that until pressed on the point, you have ONLY mentioned the potential violence inherent in enforcement in relation to laws that you don't like. I think we agree that the burden of proof should be on those who favor restrictions to freedom, but the violence argument appeals to emotion more than to reason.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Happy to look at any studies you would care to cite regarding the FDA. There are many that disagree on the assertion that the FDA’s approach is effective.

As to the FAA. Much of the thread preceding has been parsing he evidence and debating the assertion that the overall effect has improved the safety of flight. If you have some additional studies or data, please do enlighten us.

Just look up the history of the FDA, and the 1903 act I cited. Look up the history of thalidomide. As an example of how they messed up, look up Fen-phen. I work with people who fall within the pharma industry, and I know FDA oversight is needed.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

We seem to be going round in circles here. You say: the FAA in many cases is introducing violence or threat thereof.

Please provide one example, so I can respond directly.

Ok, having a more concrete example is a good idea.

How about we parse this example indictment in another thread -

Chrisman is indeed charged with 18.1001 (2 counts).

What do you think will happen to Chrisman if he stops cooperating with this process in any way and does not respond to subpoenas, fines, notices of forfeiture etc? Just completely peacefully does not cooperate with it in any way.

I think it is a near certainty some people with a lot of guns will show up and take his property against his will. If he doesn’t have bank account they can take, they will come to his house and forcibly remove him. Or forcibly capture him and put him in a cage.

Is there any chance that would not happen? The FAA and the federal prosecutors are just going to leave him alone?

If it is a near certainty that force would ultimately be used in presence of peaceful non-cooperation, then there is a threat of such force being used to ensure compliance. The force does not have to have actually been used for the threat to exist.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Just look up the history of the FDA, and the 1903 act I cited. Look up the history of thalidomide. As an example of how they messed up, look up Fen-phen. I work with people who fall within the pharma industry, and I know FDA oversight is needed.

Actually I know some of the examples you cite here fairly well. The fact that some bad things happened doesn’t imply the regulations have improved safety overall. One has to study this and the correlations more carefully than that to tease out the causative factors. If you have some actual studies happy to look at them.

 

[Palmpilot]

Ok, having a more concrete example is a good idea.

How about we parse this example indictment in another thread -

One point that needs to be made is that enforcement is not necessarily violent. Equating the two is an exaggeration. If the violator uses violence or the threat of violence to RESIST the enforcement, then violence on the part of the enforcers becomes much more likely.

 

[SToL]

Ok, having a more concrete example is a good idea.

How about we parse this example indictment in another thread -

I appreciate the example, however it is very vague and full of speculation.

Let's start with facts.
18.1001 is under US Criminal Code: Title 18: Crimes and Criminal Procedure
18.1001 is NOT a civil matter.

The definition is:
(a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1)falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2)makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3)makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

Those are the facts of law. It is clearly stated what the parameters are and the repercussions of violating the code.

Without speculating, I would say, if you falsify, conceal or cover up, any material fact, or make false, fictitious or fraudulent statements, or writings etc, then you face fines and the possibility of being imprisoned. In almost all circumstances, all of the above will occur in a court of law without anyone ever coming to your house.

As I said in a previous post, fail to appear to state your claim, justify your actions, argue your claim will result in a warrant for your arrest and you will go to jail for failure to appear. You will then be brought before a judge and be charged for the original charge at which time your fate will be reveled.

Now, if you do fail to appear, and you force Law Enforcement to come find and collect you, whether guns are drawn or not, before the fact of it actually happening, is purely speculation and is dependent on many various known and unknown information about you, the level of the crime, and the correct or incorrect actions of the officers.

I personally know of some individuals who falsified documents for a large aviation company, ultimately resulting in the deaths of several people. They were all charged, tried and found guilty through appearing at their assigned court dates. No one ever came to their homes, no one ever threatened them with violence.

It seems to me that you think threatening someone with a fine or jail time, is a threat of violence. I don't understand that rational. Telling the consequences or their actions for a criminal or civil act (i.e. fine or jail time) is not a threat of violence.