Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Medical Topics' started by Frankmarsh5, Oct 9, 2021.
I thought it was "No smoking within 8 hours of flight, no drinking within 50 feet of the aircraft."
A six pack or a couple cocktails for a healthy normal sized person isn’t a large amount of alcohol according to most of the world.
I get it, I don’t really drink much, but I am a social person and notice things, .16 is a few cocktails during a dinner or 3-4hrs at the bar with friend and a drink every .5, which is how most people drink, .08 isn’t a number from a medical study it was from politicians, .16 is more inline with the average person going out with friends, like the guy who started this thread and was taking a Uber home.
While I fully disagree that if you’re not knocked out at .16 you’re a alcoholic, let alone .08 as you said earlier, I do not understand the faas unfortunate view and I hope the faa doesn’t victimize that poor guy, I do understand until we get some congressional intervention at the faa, it is what it is.
I will forward a link to this to my elected officals, I don’t think the average American would support, or feel safer, having the faa take this guys career for going out with friends, taking a Uber as a responsible person only to get stabbed by a crazy person. I think we should be able to expect more common sense from the faa
Six beers, or 6 shots is a lot of alchohol to consume in an hour, which is how fast you have to drink it to get a .16. Light drinkers do not have 6 beers with a meal.
It would be better for the OP if you didn't do that, forward a link to this to my elected officials, he requested a few days ago that this thread be deleted as he laid a pretty unique situation out for all to see.
Your assertion has already been disproved.
No, it hasn’t. You are still ignoring the fact that you metabolize over time. Unless you slam 6 shots, you won’t have a .16 and slamming 6 shots is not light drinking.
Ok. And we'll also ignore the fact that you previously said it would take 12 beers in an hour.
I amended that statement long ago. But 6 shots spread out to reasonable light drinking standards would not give you a .16. Only if you drink them quickly, which is not light drinking.
I can respect that
Honestly this thread should be deleted, especially if the OP requested it. Surprised the mods haven't respected this.
you are flat out wrong here, unless you weigh like 75 lbs. At 200 lbs, 6 shots in a 1 hour period gets you to .16. If that’s casual drinking with friends, you either already have an alcohol problem or you soon will.
Do you really expect a politician to read what’s in this thread and say “gee, the FAA is being too hard on alcoholics. Let’s make them stop”? If anything, they’re more likely to tighten up the rules than they are to relax them.
They only delete things here that violate the TOS. You post something and later want it removed it’s not all that common to be honored. There is also no way to delete your account. It’s like the mark of the beast. Forever.
None of this matters. The congress gave the skies to the agency to stop alcoholism in the sky and that’s what we’ve got.
there’s lots of data out there that 0.16 and driving isn’t on average just a little drinking. Just about every court in the land will put an ignition interlock in your list of requirements at over 0.15.
They’ve see the carnage.
ps..you can drink all you want at home. But it becomes abuse when you leave the home. And alcohol isn’t the greatest for control...and folk leave the home....and that set us up....
The OP wasn't driving. In fact, he had taken the steps necessary to assure he wouldn't be driving. That is absolutely the kind of behavior I want in a pilot. What do I care if he flies wingsuits on weekends, which is sure as hell a lot more dangerous than partying with friends and taking an uber, so long as he's being a good pilot on week days?
That's just false. This guy wasn't driving. He had arranged an uber. If he had been drinking at home, instead of a bar, and his house was robbed while he was a .16 into the evening he would have the same exact problem as he does today.
The FAA should stick to behaviors that endanger flight. I'm fine with drink driving being on that list as it's showing a disregard for the safety of others. I'm not fine with putting this guy through HIMS when he had taken the steps assure he wasn't a risk to others. And, if we're going to say that drink driving is in the wheel house of the FAA for that reason, then there should be a lot of other things also. Multiple speeding tickets is at least as good an indicator of someone willing to play fast and loose with safety as drink driving. Misdemeanor assault, if we're going to use the FAA approach to booze, should be a lifetime of anger management classes.
Their focus on booze is at once too much, and also not enough. They aren't serious about the safety aspect of this, they are serious about the CYA aspect and a culture that is irrational when it comes to danger and puritanical when it comes to booze.
(and, I'll remind the gentle reader again that I'm a teetotaler, so I have no dog in this hunt except that I think rules/laws should be just and founded in reality.)
I noticed those errors too
Seems he’s a AME, he should have a attention to detail, noting the many mentions that the poster wasn’t driving, and even have a Uber
By chance does that doctor make money on the hims program?
You clearly said you have no conflict of interest since you don’t drink, I always get a Uber if I go out with friends, the doctor didn’t mention if he was one of the ones who gets money from people the FAA forces into the hims program.
A few years ago while I was in college I had some very good professors, they pointing out conflicts of interest in debates, the people who were upfront if they had personal benefit to one position in a debate, and those who wouldn’t make mention of the gains they might see with a position they are supporting.
I like how you pointed out you had no gain one way or another, I feel that’s important in having a honest discussion
I'm very sure he gets no benefit from HIMS programs. I'm absolutely certain that he advocates on behalf of airmen every single day and solves a lot of problems.
I just disagree with the FAA on this one, and him *if* he agrees with the FAAs position. But since he mostly just says "these are the FAA rules", it's possible that he also wishes some of them were different.
Dr Chien is a HIMS ame so I would say that benefits him. But he is also one of the good HIMS Ames who does what ever he can to help people get there medical certificates.
There are a number of HIMS Ames that are only in it for the money and charge around $500/hr and bill by the minute. These are the guys to avoid.
Bruce did my medical a few years ago. Based on what little he charged me, I can assure you that he would make more money if he dropped his fees altogether and put a "Tips" jar on his desk.
Dr. Bruce is retired and doing AME work to help airmen with difficult medicals. But that also means he has no financial reason to tolerate BS and he can be choosey about who he helps.
I'm just telling you how the FAA structures alcohol consumption. it was just too bad he didn't get away with it, 'cause of some dude with a knife. I'm not telling you right or wrong, just how it is.
I know the guy wasn't driving but the definiton of abuse is use of alcohol in any situation which might create a danger" Betcha didn't know that. And its the second recorded behavior that makes it abuse.
Thus the comment about the only way to really drink is to do it at home. You really need to read better.
orig. petitioner for the ON SSRI program.
I’m pretty sure any HIMS AME benefits from the program, financially. Definitely a conflict of interest.
I’d still argue getting stabbed because you’re drunk isn’t abuse or a “physically hazardous situation”. What if I got drunk at home and was robbed? Or fell down the stairs? Would that be “abuse”?
Try actually reading his post.
Read it again. He answered your question specifically.
Let’s see if he can find the definition of abuse and understand it.....in 67.307.
§ 67.307 Mental.
Mental standards for a third-class airman medical certificate are:
(a) No established medical history or clinical diagnosis of any of the following:
(4) Substance dependence, except where there is established clinical evidence, satisfactory to the Federal Air Surgeon, of recovery, including sustained total abstinence from the substance(s) for not less than the preceding 2 years. As used in this section -
(i) “Substance” includes: alcohol; other sedatives and hypnotics; anxiolytics; opioids; central nervous system stimulants such as cocaine, amphetamines, and similarly acting sympathomimetics; hallucinogens; phencyclidine or similarly acting arylcyclohexylamines; cannabis; inhalants; and other psychoactive drugs and chemicals; and
(ii) “Substance dependence” means a condition in which a person is dependent on a substance, other than tobacco or ordinary xanthine-containing (e.g., caffeine) beverages, as evidenced by -
(A) Increased tolerance;
(B) Manifestation of withdrawal symptoms;
(C) Impaired control of use; or
(D) Continued use despite damage to physical health or impairment of social, personal, or occupational functioning.
(b) No substance abuse within the preceding 2 years defined as:
(1) Use of a substance in a situation in which that use was physically hazardous, if there has been at any other time an instance of the use of a substance also in a situation in which that use was physically hazardous;
(2) A verified positive drug test result, an alcohol test result of 0.04 or greater alcohol concentration, or a refusal to submit to a drug or alcohol test required by the U.S. Department of Transportation or an agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation; or
Man, there’s all sorts of ways that getting drunk and stabbed, punched, shot, tattooed, or videoed at the wrong time can bung up a guy’s medical based on the actual rules. It sucks that the OP may end up on the wrong side of a clipboard somewhere, but his letter from the FAA did encourage complete abstinence, and they make the rules.
So if a female ended up in a hospital because she was sexually assaulted while intoxicated, she’d be forced into HIMS?
Did she already have an SI for a previous alcohol event which strongly encourage abstinence? It’s ok that you don’t like the FAA’s rules, but you still have to operate within them or face the consequences if you end up under their microscope.
The point isn’t how the FAA finds out a pilot has an alcohol problem. The FAA has to respond in the same way to abuse of alcohol regardless of how the story comes out.
Hopefully the OP finds a way to hide this then. This isn’t a self reporting event Imo. I’d provide the least amount of paperwork possible if I were him.
He’s under no legal obligation to report it and it’s quite unlikely the FAA will discover it through this incident. If the OP has at least 0.15 common sense content in his brain, he will give up alcohol totally from now on. For him, it’s kryptonite.
Yeah. For what it’s worth, I quit drinking myself. It’s not with it. I always caution new pilots to the industry as well, drinking even in moderation, can cause adverse problems. I’ve seen “1 beer just prior to 8 hours” turn into showing up at report time intoxicated. With that being said, I don’t agree with the FAAs approach 95% of the time.
Not sure if that's a great plan but I do think that everyone reading this thread can learn from this.
Earlier I mentioned something that would help a lot of folks if they would consider it. "Better choices = better results." It's not victim blaming it's about not putting yourself in a position to be a victim i.e. leading a proactive life instead of a reactive one. It's about taking personal responsibility for the results of the choices we make. Thinking ahead, situational awareness, etc., ... those traits that pilots are supposed to have engrained in their psyche.
A bit off the topic is a story from AOPA about a pilot that thought something not reported would never be found out. At this point his certificate is revoked for 90 days:
I often disagree with the FAA's approach to medical stuff, too, but I realize that they are sometimes at odds with the larger medical community because their purpose is different. The medical community is tasked with diagnosing people for the purpose of providing effective treatment. The FAA, though, does not treat patients. The FAA is tasked with diagnosing people for the purpose of keeping dangerous conditions out of the cockpit.
That necessarily leads to the FAA using different definitions and thresholds than are accepted by physicians for the purpose of treatment.
I can’t find anywhere in the regs where this is a required event. Honestly if I accidentally ingested an illegal substance I’d call in sick until it’s out of my system. With that being said an positive test is a required report and an air carrier will report it to the FAA Heck; what if he didn’t even know what his BAC was?!
It's not my call or my business if he reports it and I don't have an opinion either way. I'd look forward to see what I could do to prevent such things in the future.
As far as knowing his BAC that's his business also. If my livelihood depended on maintaining a certificate and the required medical I'd be very diligent about protecting it and following closely anything that might jeopardize it that might be contained in a medical record after something like this. That a long way of saying, yes, I believe he should know his BAC after this event.
Keithlewis1900, I resent having my motives impuned. It's the "impune the messenger" response and is why I left this board as a moderator. Look me up, I'm user #5.
I am glad to see however that you can read. You've made a great start with just 31 messages.
I am here to tell you "it is what it is". Like I have said in other strings, nobody tells you that you must land at 1.3 Vso, or from Vref, but if you don't you will get punished. Similarly, if you wander out of the home non-sober, you will eventually get punished.
I answering the likes of you saves even one guy, it's worth your abuse. your modus, to "attack the messenger" if you don't like the message, truly sucks. So you stay sober, now.
Prevention would probably be staying sober for life. Personally, I’ve never woken up and thought “man, what a great night of drinking”. Guess I’ll put some HIMS AMEs out of business with my attitude
I have a feeling that you’ll do all sorts of amazing, head shaking things with your attitude. I mean heck- it’s already impressed a lot of pilots around here.
Officer: Sir, do you know how fast you were going?
Pilot: No, and I have no idea what my BAC is, either!
Officer: In that case, we don’t have to report it, then. Have a great night. Drive safely.
I actually know a gal to whom this happened. So should she, no. Did she, yes.
No previous anything.
1.3vso (from what I know about fixed wing) is based on science and math.
I don’t think anyone said anything bad about you, as for me, I asked if you made money with the HIMs people, I am curious the yearly amount a doctor makes off the airman without hims compared to a hims airman, this isn’t a insult to you, as you said it is what it is, and the numbers are what the numbers are. Why would you take offense if someone asked the obvious question as to if you had any financial gain on a subject, they ask jurors questions to make sure they won’t favor one side for the same reason, my contract where I work it even asked if I had a interest in the competitors.
After falling into this post, I think the FAA medical really needs some reform, I think the FAA is spending their limited resources going after people who don’t have a real medical problem, taking time away from the airmen who have a real doc gave them a diagnosis type problem.
I’m not going to link this post out of respect to the poster who started it, however I would like to reach out to those who have influence over the FAA, who are the elected representatives who have oversight over the FAA and the medical branch?