Why the FAA is so tough on alcoholics...

denverpilot said:
Just like the duuuude who smokes a nightly joint isn’t really a real problem, but the talk show host was adamant that one was better than the other.

That’s all I was sayin.

FAA ain’t gonna like either one. Getting impaired regularly is getting impaired regularly — once you’re on their radar for whatever reason.

But I will definitely say that I’ve met a whooooole lot more people in denial that they have a drinking problem, than other stuff, legal or not, because society “likes” alcohol.

Tell a neighbor you drink daily they’ll think nothing of it. Tell them you eat psychedelic mushrooms daily, you’re a wacko. Ha. Same desire to be impaired.

Piles of alchys in my family, and one dead of suicide from it. I know all about their excuses. That talk show host is probably polishing off a bottle a night. Not two official 8 Oz glasses.

Been there done that, watched that particular denial chit-show. More than once.

Even have my own vices I make excuses for. They’re fully legal and FAA approved. LOL. Lucky me.

Off to go refill the caffeine... ha.
Click to expand...

I have alcoholics in my family, which is probably why I'm so sensitive to the "any drinking is bad" line of reasoning you were supporting. There is no medical basis for that statement. Yes, alcoholics shouldn't drink. Absolutely agreed. And drug addicts shouldn't take opioids. But to state that someone drinking a glass of wine with dinner every night or taking oxy after a knee surgery are engaging in "getting impaired" or "Normalization of deviance" is, at best, misleading and, at worst, vilifying normal healthy behavior.

Amusingly, given your personal example, I'm extraordinarily caffeine sensitive. So there almost isn't a safe dose for me. But I'm not out here saying that people consuming typical amounts are engaging in normalization of deviance because *I* can't tolerate it.
 
Last edited:
Let'sgoflying! said:
jeez, plastered well before 9:00am - relationship problems? Impending business failure?
Click to expand...

This is just how some alcoholics are. I have a good friend who he and his wife are functioning alcoholics. My friend has cut down significantly, but would normally start drinking after his coffee in the morning, continuing all day. His wife would consumer most of her alcohol first thing in the morning, finishing before 11 AM.

Big difference between those people and someone who has a glass of wine at dinner.
 
Ted said:
This is just how some alcoholics are. I have a good friend who he and his wife are functioning alcoholics. My friend has cut down significantly, but would normally start drinking after his coffee in the morning, continuing all day. His wife would consumer most of her alcohol first thing in the morning, finishing before 11 AM.

Big difference between those people and someone who has a glass of wine at dinner.
Click to expand...

I know people like this too, they function very well until they don't. Usually takes years and years for the spiral to start, when it does, it's ugly.
 
PaulS said:
I know people like this too, they function very well until they don't. Usually takes years and years for the spiral to start, when it does, it's ugly.
Click to expand...

Without going into details, "functioning very well" would be a bit of an overstatement of these friends. But yes, I agree.
 
tspear said:
Curious, I have an uncle who is an alcoholic. Except for one very long month when he relapsed almost a decade ago, he has been sober for almost thirty years.
He says, if you are a confirmed alcoholic and you ever have a single drink and cannot stop drinking. Then you never recover, and will always be an alcoholic.
Why would the FAA ever think someone could exit HIMS for such a condition?

Tim
Click to expand...
You can't exit HIMS for such a condition anymore, it's a lifetime of monitoring.
 
MalibuJim said:
You can't exit HIMS for such a condition anymore, it's a lifetime of monitoring.
Click to expand...

That is now. But per earlier in the thread, the FAA at one point did allow people to exit. I am just unsure why they ever would have.

Tim
 
tspear said:
That is now. But per earlier in the thread, the FAA at one point did allow people to exit. I am just unsure why they ever would have.

Tim
Click to expand...
I don’t understand why they always need to monitor. They have cast a big net and are catching a lot of fish that shouldn’t be caught. If the system wasn’t broken and corrupted there would be no need for such draconian measures.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I don’t understand why they always need to monitor. They have cast a big net and are catching a lot of fish that shouldn’t be caught. If the system wasn’t broken and corrupted there would be no need for such draconian measures.
Click to expand...

For certain conditions, ongoing monitoring to me makes sense and should be required. Alcoholism is one such condition. You can get treatment, but can never be cured. This has been known for decades.
Per what others have said, the FAA now treats Alcoholism as a lifelong condition which it is. It never made sense to me that the FAA had a concept of graduating out of HIMS for an incurable condition.
On the other side, some forms of depression are "curable" and you can "graduate" from the FAA HIMS program.

Tim
 
tspear said:
For certain conditions, ongoing monitoring to me makes sense and should be required. Alcoholism is one such condition. You can get treatment, but can never be cured. This has been known for decades.
Per what others have said, the FAA now treats Alcoholism as a lifelong condition which it is. It never made sense to me that the FAA had a concept of graduating out of HIMS for an incurable condition.
On the other side, some forms of depression are "curable" and you can "graduate" from the FAA HIMS program.

Tim
Click to expand...


But, you have the option to go to Basic Med and not be monitored at all. I suspect many will do just that. The FAA seems to have no concept of what reactions their actions will cause.
 
tspear said:
For certain conditions, ongoing monitoring to me makes sense and should be required. Alcoholism is one such condition. You can get treatment, but can never be cured. This has been known for decades.
Per what others have said, the FAA now treats Alcoholism as a lifelong condition which it is. It never made sense to me that the FAA had a concept of graduating out of HIMS for an incurable condition.
On the other side, some forms of depression are "curable" and you can "graduate" from the FAA HIMS program.

Tim
Click to expand...
That I will agree with. How the FAA decides who is an alcoholic I don’t agree with at all.
 
That’s it... it’s lifetime monitoring for the NON ALCOHOLICS in the program. I know more of them, than not.

have you studied the natural recovery rate for “alcoholism”? Have you studied the odds of relapse once three years (the original “sentence”) of abstinence is attained? It’s the same as the rate of “alcoholism” presenting in the general public. So there really is no ADDITIONAL risk for releasing people. The FAA has always kept people in, who they thought needed it.

What a strange concept, let the professionals monitoring an individual decide rather than a policy of medical “treatment”.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
That I will agree with. How the FAA decides who is an alcoholic I don’t agree with at all.
Click to expand...
.

Agreed ..... I am 69 and did not drink much my whole life .... maybe once every 4 - 6 months or so .... and when I did I would get a 12 pack of beer , sit around a campfire , and drink the whole thing .... I was told I was an alcoholic because a "normal social drinker" would only have 2 or 3 and go home.
 
A Martin said:
.

Agreed ..... I am 69 and did not drink much my whole life .... maybe once every 4 - 6 months or so .... and when I did I would get a 12 pack of beer , sit around a campfire , and drink the whole thing .... I was told I was an alcoholic because a "normal social drinker" would only have 2 or 3 and go home.
Click to expand...

there are some special malleable "definitions" of alcoholicism
 
Tools said:
That’s it... it’s lifetime monitoring for the NON ALCOHOLICS in the program. I know more of them, than not.

have you studied the natural recovery rate for “alcoholism”? Have you studied the odds of relapse once three years (the original “sentence”) of abstinence is attained? It’s the same as the rate of “alcoholism” presenting in the general public. So there really is no ADDITIONAL risk for releasing people. The FAA has always kept people in, who they thought needed it.

What a strange concept, let the professionals monitoring an individual decide rather than a policy of medical “treatment”.
Click to expand...
Ah, medical treatment. Where the patients lie to their doctor.
 
Tools said:
That’s it... it’s lifetime monitoring for the NON ALCOHOLICS in the program. I know more of them, than not.

have you studied the natural recovery rate for “alcoholism”? Have you studied the odds of relapse once three years (the original “sentence”) of abstinence is attained? It’s the same as the rate of “alcoholism” presenting in the general public. So there really is no ADDITIONAL risk for releasing people. The FAA has always kept people in, who they thought needed it.

What a strange concept, let the professionals monitoring an individual decide rather than a policy of medical “treatment”.
Click to expand...
So I suppose we should just abolish the medical. I mean is an untreated Lyle Prouse actually okay on the flight deck?
 
A Martin said:
Such as ?????
Click to expand...

In this case 'binge drinking'. Older DSM definitions of binge-drinking would have included your 12 pack at the campfire. IIrc it had an arbitrary number of 5 drink equivalents to define abnormal use.

The more recent revision requires that the alcohol use has some kind of adverse consequence.

A maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by 2 or more of the following, occurring at any time in the same 12-month period:


That threshold criterion eliminates occasional social use, even if the amount consumed may be significant. The only distress a 12 pack over the course of an evening would create is to my bladder.
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
That threshold criterion eliminates occasional social use, even if the amount consumed may be significant. The only distress a 12 pack over the course of an evening would create is to my bladder.
Click to expand...
I enjoy a beer or three on a Friday night or a few Scotches sitting by the fire but a 12 pack over the course of an evening would have me on my knees praying to the porcelain god come morning.
 
Dana said:
I enjoy a beer or three on a Friday night or a few Scotches sitting by the fire but a 12 pack over the course of an evening would have me on my knees praying to the porcelain god come morning.
Click to expand...
Thank you for sharing your personal experience. Was there something else you were trying to say or just sharing?
 
tspear said:
For certain conditions, ongoing monitoring to me makes sense and should be required. Alcoholism is one such condition. You can get treatment, but can never be cured. This has been known for decades.
Click to expand...

This is quite a blanket statement and not correct. I personally know a few that have been cured of the demon of alcohol but I'm not at liberty to elaborate any further.

But to be sure it is a grievous condition that has ruined many people ...
 
bbchien said:
So I suppose we should just abolish the medical. I mean is an untreated Lyle Prouse actually okay on the flight deck?
Click to expand...

Absolutely for non-commercial flying...if you are doing this for profit and people depend on your skills then sure , be as tough as you want.
Pretty much like in every other industry ...
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Straw
Click to expand...
Yes but everyone here can *****, Congress gave the sky to FAA so it is what it is. Jus’ bit—hin, nothing more. They can set the bar as they see fit.

So, drinking is sorta like landing at 1.3 Vso. nowhere does it say you have to do that, but if you don’t eventually you get punished. Same thing as to to being sober and to it-
 
Well I am strict too - and EtOH issues are an issue because of what cognitive issues pilots can have - all you have to do is put into simulators and see what happens even with one drink compared to no drinking. Plus, usually when you have an accident - it is not just you - it can involve many others too. Also, think of this - the FAA is Responsible for the SAFETY of the airspace - and think of this - Aviation Medicine involves taking care of 'well people' in an abnormal environment - where are 'regular' medicine involves taking care 'sick' people in a normal environment - so you do not want to add to the issue with EtOH - and by the way - BE CAREFUL of Gummy Bears that contain CBD - remember they STILL can contain THC and if you pop positive on a flight line for that - say goodbye to your medical certificate at least for the time being - because trying to explain THC can be difficult.
 
Daleandee said:
This is quite a blanket statement and not correct. I personally know a few that have been cured of the demon of alcohol but I'm not at liberty to elaborate any further.

But to be sure it is a grievous condition that has ruined many people ...
Click to expand...
I personally know of two who would most certainly have met the criteria for being alcohol dependent/abusers. Both are now past it; they know why they were abusing it, they know what the triggers were (and could be); they know what their limits and tendencies are. Both are able to drink socially and not fall off the cliff. And that's all I'm going to say about that.

Of course I also know and have known a couple of addicts (alcohol and other substances) who never did or never will get past it, other than when they eventually died.
 
bbchien said:
Yes but everyone here can *****, Congress gave the sky to FAA so it is what it is. Jus’ bit—hin, nothing more. They can set the bar as they see fit.

So, drinking is sorta like landing at 1.3 Vso. nowhere does it say you have to do that, but if you don’t eventually you get punished. Same thing as to to being sober and to it-
Click to expand...
You can sure look at it that way but I don’t just ***** here. I write letters and make phone calls to my rep as well. I doubt it will make a difference but that’s how a representative republic is supposed to work.
Just because it is the way it is does not mean it’s right.
 
Well it does work, at least for alcohol. Sometimes IMO the agency is over the top, but we have not had a single in air event with an intoxicated pilot.

.....write you congresscritter....the Liason then merely confirms that proper process is being followed and it’s sloooow because, “Well Senator you did not appropriate sufficient funds for the mission....”
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top