Time for FAA Psychiatric Illness Reform

[PeterNSteinmetz]

While you have the right to lobby for changes, likewise others have the right to lobby for the status quo. That includes corporations who have an economic safety interest.

Interesting question about corporations. They do not have natural rights and can’t vote, so that is the argument that they shouldn’t be permitted to lobby for the outcome of voting.

The counterpoint of course being that they have a right to freely express themselves, representing the speech of their stockholders. Presently that is the law of the land.

In any case, I would suggest in the case of aviation medicals that they be permitted to make their own determinations of what is required of their pilots using their property. Might work better to let them and their insurance companies decide on appropriate safety procedures (and hold them legally responsible for all damages caused by use or abuse of their aircraft). That puts the economic incentives more in line with liability and safety.

 

[apr911]

The FAA has increased aeronautical decision making (ADM) training for over the last decade with the goal of increasing safety. Reducing the medical standards for ADD/ADHD is counter productive.

By no means am I saying people with ADD/ADHD should just be allowed to fly without medical review but the FAA says that ADD/ADHD and its treatments are banned because they "may result in cognitive deficits that would make an airman unsafe to perform pilot duties."

If the standard truly is going to be that you might have a cognitive deficit, then by that logic we should all be subjected to cognitive ability and IQ tests because who's to say that you dont have ADD/ADHD but aren't suffering from some cognitive deficit... Maybe dyslexia and dysgraphia should be banned and since so much of what we do requires the ability to process some amount of math, dyscalculia as well.

 

[SToL]

Perhaps a bit of a misunderstanding there. I would consider people stealing other people’s property to be clear and present danger to the rights of the people whose property being stolen.

Seems quite clear to me and a perfect case where enforcement of people’s rights through a law and ultimate threat of physical coercion is clearly called for!

People have a natural right to defend themselves and their families through the use of lethal force if necessary. And the right to defend their property through the use of force in an adjudicated process.

The case of the possible danger from someone flying without a FAA medical certificate is considerably more remote.

Peter, when you started this you used the term, "clear and present danger to others", now you have changed it to "clear and present danger to the rights of the people". Those are two different things! Please stick with an argument so it can be debated accordingly.

As for the theft issue, they occur ever single day without any danger to others. I'm not saying all thefts are not dangerous to others, I'm simply stating that everyday, thefts occur that are in no way dangerous to anyone.

So if I understand your comments correctly, according to you, if someone steals property without endangering others, they should not be punished.

REF your previous comment: So this could be used for things society thinks is bad, but for which there is no clear evidence that it presents a clear and present danger to others",

As for the flying without a medical, that could go either way. It may, or may not pose a danger to others.

 

[wsuffa]

Part of the problem - for this and many othe things involving the government - is that the rules are designed for administrative convenience (easy to administer). Anything that doesn't fit a yes/no mold requires judgement and special handling. And that requires both time and a heck of a lot of expert detail to "paper the case": after all, bureaucrats don't want to be keel-hauled by congress. And they don't have the resources to do it all. Think special issuance is slow now?

The problem for the agency is where to set the bar when many psych issues are on a spectrum. And coordinate, as necessary, with international standards.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Peter, when you started this you used the term, "clear and present danger to others", now you have changed it to "clear and present danger to the rights of the people". Those are two different things! Please stick with an argument so it can be debated accordingly.

Firstly sorry for any confusion. And thank you for the polite request for clarification. I thought that in the context it was clear that clear and present danger to others would apply to both physical injury and any other rights. But happy to clarify and continue the discussion using the clarified terms.

So if I understand your comments correctly, according to you, if someone steals property without endangering others, they should not be punished.

I would have thought my post just prior would clarify this, but no, it is NOT my position that people who steal property without physically endangering others should not be punished. I agree however with the law in Arizona that the mere theft of property is not legal grounds for the immediate use of deadly force by the owner. Rather, such punishment should be administered through appropriate objective channels where all the facts can be heard and adjudicated in due course. There are obvious special conditions such as the burglar fleeing the scene of a crime and refusing to stop when commanded by the police and apparently presenting a danger to the safety of others in the course of said flight.

REF your previous comment: So this could be used for things society thinks is bad, but for which there is no clear evidence that it presents a clear and present danger to others"

In terms of the clarified definitions above, for that hypothetical, I would say that such a procedure could be use for things society thinks are bad, but for which there is no clear evidence that it presents a clear and present danger to the safety or rights of other people. (I can see how this may have caused confusion.)

As for the flying without a medical, that could go either way. It may, or may not pose a danger to others.

Basically I would agree to the extent that I think there is no good evidence that the requirement for a third class medical improves the safety of others or their rights on an aggregate statistical basis.

 

[ProjectInfinity1]

The FAA has increased aeronautical decision making (ADM) training for over the last decade with the goal of increasing safety. Reducing the medical standards for ADD/ADHD is counter productive.

While you have the right to lobby for changes, likewise others have the right to lobby for the status quo. That includes corporations who have an economic safety interest.

So let me ask, would you rather have a perspective pilot who is open and honest with his/her medical issues, including ADHD, depression ect and is receiving treatment? Or would you rather them lie and bottle it up?

Because I’ve been told by two pilots if I ever want to take the left seat, to lie on my medical. We know people are flying regardless and are just underground, but in the persuit of safety, the FAA drives pilots underground, letting issues go untreated for fear of losing one’s medical.

They actually make the skys less safe, which in a gallows’s humor take is so ridiculous I can’t help but laugh at the stupidity.

 

[wsuffa]

So let me ask, would you rather have a perspective pilot who is open and honest with his/her medical issues, including ADHD, depression ect and is receiving treatment? Or would you rather them lie and bottle it up?

Because I’ve been told by two pilots if I ever want to take the left seat, to lie on my medical. We know people are flying regardless and are just underground, but in the persuit of safety, the FAA drives pilots underground, letting issues go untreated for fear of losing one’s medical.

They actually make the skys less safe, which in a gallows’s humor take is so ridiculous I can’t help but laugh at the stupidity.

In the days of electronic medical records, lying on the application is a losing proposition. Aside from the supposed (and as yet unrealized) benefits of making it easier for a treat in doc to see all your records even if it's not your regular doc, electronic records have a law-enforcement benefit.

 

[David Megginson]

What other country has a system where citizens are born with natural inalienable rights and with a constitution that prohibits "their" government from infringing on those rights.

I might consider moving there.

Most OECD countries, and many others. An exception is the U.K., which has an "unwritten" constitution, such as it is (the Magna Carta isn't really a constitution).

 

[Warmi]

Most OECD countries, and many others. An exception is the U.K., which has an "unwritten" constitution, such as it is (the Magna Carta isn't really a constitution).

Most of these have a lot of laws similar to US constitutional amendments but are generally nowhere near as absolute in their application etc ...
For instance freedom of speech is quite universal but tends to be guarded with tons of exceptions - in other words you are free to express yourself unless you make others uncomfortable and what it exactly means is often quite vague ...

 

[Matthew]

I'm just thinking of the logistics -- mental health issues affect different people differently. Can FAA reasonably say, "Anyone with xxx can be certified"?

1) Probably not, unless each individual has shown they are capable of performing within some normal range. How to do that? Basic Med? Or an SI that costs time and money to get the test results needed for an informed decision?

2) Maybe, if FAA takes what they can from their Medical budget and puts it into whatever research is necessary to be confident to some percentage. BUT, then they have the problem of convincing their overlords in congress and the senate, and that's where the real decisions are made.

 

[David Megginson]

Most of these have a lot of laws similar to US constitutional amendments but are generally nowhere near as absolute in their application etc ...
For instance freedom of speech is quite universal but tends to be guarded with tons of exceptions - in other words you are free to express yourself unless you make others uncomfortable and what it exactly means is often quite vague ...

There are limits to free speech in every country, including the US (think libel, extortion, uttering threats, and national-security). Under a Common Law system like we have in both our countries, the rules are deliberately vague, and the courts work out the details over decades and centuries of case law.

Beyond that, we all have different priorities. One thing you put up with in the U.S. that we'd never tolerate in Canada or most Western European countries is random drug testing for routine jobs. It's OK for pro athletes or convicted criminals (and maybe for pilots or heavy-equipment operators, though that's already controversial), but we'd be protesting in the streets if the government let employers force us to take drug tests just to work in an office or store.

 

[Clip4]

So let me ask, would you rather have a perspective pilot who is open and honest with his/her medical issues, including ADHD, depression ect and is receiving treatment? Or would you rather them lie and bottle it up?

Because I’ve been told by two pilots if I ever want to take the left seat, to lie on my medical. We know people are flying regardless and are just underground, but in the persuit of safety, the FAA drives pilots underground, letting issues go untreated for fear of losing one’s medical.

They actually make the skys less safe, which in a gallows’s humor take is so ridiculous I can’t help but laugh at the stupidity.

I would rather have neither, we don’t live in a perfect regulatory world.

There will be a lot the public out cry when it’s reported the FAA is considering changes for ADDADHD medical standards. Rule changes require publication and a comment period.

 

[Warmi]

There are limits to free speech in every country, including the US (think libel, extortion, uttering threats, and national-security). Under a Common Law system like we have in both our countries, the rules are deliberately vague, and the courts work out the details over decades and centuries of case law.

Beyond that, we all have different priorities. One thing you put up with in the U.S. that we'd never tolerate in Canada or most Western European countries is random drug testing for routine jobs. It's OK for pro athletes or convicted criminals (and maybe for pilots or heavy-equipment operators, though that's already controversial), but we'd be protesting in the streets if the government let employers force us to take drug tests just to work in an office or store.

You are mixing concepts here - you are free not to tolerate companies that force you into drug testing by not entering into an employment agreement with them.

 

[David Megginson]

You are mixing concepts here - you are free not to tolerate companies that force you into drug testing by not entering into an employment agreement with them.

That's what I mean by different ideas of freedom. In many other countries, the government guarantees your right to freedom from that kind of privacy invasion as a condition of employment (except in very rare circumstamces).

As for freedom of expression itself, as I mentioned earlier, every government (including the U.S.) places a long list of limits around it. For example, if you utter a violent threar against POTUS, freedom of expression won't protect you from arrest.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

No, my answer is that this is an academic discussion, because the answer already exists. In this country, the legislative, executive and judicial branches decide. That's the bottom line. They legislate, sign legislation into law, and respond to constitutional challenges to laws, respectively. What principle I think should be used is irrelevant. It's already been decided.

Of course I am an academic, so debating abstractions and hypotheticals seems quite normal to me. Indeed, it is much of what academics do for a living. Nonetheless, let's consider from that perspective then.

What do you think are the principles the FAA uses governing and deciding which aviation regulations are currently in place and in use, particularly as regards aeromedical testing issues?

Qualitative answers might be -- they have none, safety at all costs, anything not unduly burdensome, etc.

Or less abstractly with an example (though still hypothetical). Scientists have developed a new genetic test (administered with just a cheek swab) which can identify a subset of the prospective pilot population who will always have great difficulty properly judging the attitude of the aircraft relative to the horizon. When such a person flies, they have a 6 per 100k hours of flight chance of a fatality (thus about 6 times the normal fatal accident rate), which which will involve other people 50% of the time . These people are about 10% of the prospective pilot population.

Does the FAA choose to require this test as part of the medical application and deny issuance of a certificate if the person tests positive? More importantly, what guiding principles and reasoning do they use to make that decision?

 

[Clip4]

Interesting question about corporations. They do not have natural rights and can’t vote, so that is the argument that they shouldn’t be permitted to lobby for the outcome of voting.

The counterpoint of course being that they have a right to freely express themselves, representing the speech of their stockholders. Presently that is the law of the land.

In any case, I would suggest in the case of aviation medicals that they be permitted to make their own determinations of what is required of their pilots using their property. Might work better to let them and their insurance companies decide on appropriate safety procedures (and hold them legally responsible for all damages caused by use or abuse of their aircraft). That puts the economic incentives more in line with liability and safety.

I agree, but the courts have ruled corporations are people who have the right of free speech and money is speech.

 

[David Megginson]

I agree, but the courts have ruled corporations are people who have the right of free speech and money is speech.

I can't help but think that the U.S. courts mixed up the concept of legal "persons" and "people".

Corporations are legal persons: they can sign contracts, own assets, be sued, etc.

Corporations are not people, because they're not human, so international agreements like the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights or national constitutional human rights should not apply to them. Their only rights are around business activities.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

I can't help but think that the U.S. courts mixed up the concept of legal "persons" and "people".

Corporations are legal persons: they can sign contracts, own assets, be sued, etc.

Corporations are not people, because they're not human, so international agreements like the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights or national constitutional human rights should not apply to them. Their only rights are around business activities.

However, corporations are owned by, and exist to benefit, people.

 

[David Megginson]

However, corporations are owned by, and exist to benefit, people.

So are bicycles and pickup trucks, but they don't have human rights either.

 

[Half Fast]

So are bicycles and pickup trucks, but they don't have human rights either.

But corporations are assemblies of people. Referring to the first amendment,

"...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances..."​

People have the right to assemble into a corporation and use that collective voice to petition the government. To deny certain rights to a corporation is to deny people a right that is protected by the first amendment.

 

[Palmpilot]

But corporations are assemblies of people. Referring to the first amendment,

"...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances..."​

People have the right to assemble into a corporation and use that collective voice to petition the government. To deny certain rights to a corporation is to deny people a right that is protected by the first amendment.

The same can be said of unions, by the way. Some folks seem to forget that.

 

[Half Fast]

The same can be said of unions, by the way. Some folks seem to forget that.

Of course, and I'd imagine most unions are themselves incorporated.

 

[Half Fast]

Nah. You're reading something into it that isn't there. The first corporation wasn't established in this country until 30 years after the signing of the constitution. I'm guessing you're an originalist.

Irrelevant. Corporations are just another means of assembly. There were no such things as radio, telephones, photography, etc., etc., at the time the constitution was signed, yet the constitution protects the fundamental right regardless of the means by which it is exercised.

 

[David Megginson]

But corporations are assemblies of people. Referring to the first amendment,

"...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances..."​

People have the right to assemble into a corporation and use that collective voice to petition the government. To deny certain rights to a corporation is to deny people a right that is protected by the first amendment.

Actually, no, they're not assemblies; they're jointly-owned assets like a timeshare cottage or an airplane partnership. The big difference is that the corporation vehicle limits the liability of the shareholders to the value of their equity (in most cases).

A shareholder meeting is an assembly, and at that, the shareholders (who are human) have full first-amendment rights as individuals.

 

[David Megginson]

Irrelevant. Corporations are just another means of assembly. There were no such things as radio, telephones, photography, etc., etc., at the time the constitution was signed, yet the constitution protects the fundamental right regardless of the means by which it is exercised.

Radios, telephones, and cameras don't their own freedom-of-expression rights either, any more than pens and printing presses that existed in 1791 had their own freedom-of-expression rights. They're not human; they were/are just tools that humans use to express themselves.

 

[Half Fast]

Radios, telephones, and cameras don't their own freedom-of-expression rights either, any more than pens and printing presses that existed in 1791 had their own freedom-of-expression rights. They're not human; they were/are just tools that humans use to express themselves.

They are means of expression, so human expression using them is protected.

Corporations are means of assembling and organizing human activity, so human assembly and expression using them is protected. Views expressed by an organization are merely the collective views of the individuals comprising it. Just as a pen or printing press has no mind and is directed by the human user, corporations are directed by the minds of the individuals controlling them.

 

[Half Fast]

Fail. Corporations are a legal person, not a natural person, i.e. the "people" as referred to in the constitution. Again, this is not semantics.

The law as told by someone who slept at a Holiday Inn last night...

Fail. Corporations are legal persons because they are formed by natural persons exercising their rights. They are merely a mechanism, just as a pen is a mechanism with which rights can be exercised.

Ending here. This is far afield for this subforum, largely irrelevant to the thread, and is about to devolve into an unallowable political discussion.