Basicmed findings

D

dp342b

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jan 31, 2026
Messages
43
Display Name
Derek
I recently read a report from the FAA to congress about the progress of Basicmed. The report showed that there is no statistical or significant difference in Basicmed versus any class of medical. Imo the FAA really needs to get their head out of their a**es and get on board with the rest of the world. Everyone I talk to says the faa is the biggest joke ever. I'm starting to see that. I get it... accidents happen but that doesn't mean you need to punish everyone who wants a medical. Seems like the FAA would rather have 100% perfect people.

Almost none of the accidents were caused by a medical problem or using a medication improperly. They were caused from weather or mechanical problems. After the fatal accidents they took tox screens and found the meds in their systems, which in turn they're saying "you can't be on this med cause of this and that."

The doctors that clear people for Basicmed, "in the eyes of the FAA" don't know what they're talking about because they don't have aerospace medical expertise. Well most the doctors I know are pilots and actually do know something about aerospace medicine.

Just trying to get everyone's take on it. It's very frustrating when the ame says you gotta jump through hoops to get your medical when another doctor says you're fine and clears you for Basicmed.

Also should point out that I have a CDL with HAZMAT endorsements. Also have my passenger endorsement. I can haul anything from flammable liquids to radioactive materials on the nation's public highway system. I can also drive your kids to school on the school bus. The doctors say I'm fine to do those things. My DOT medical form is from the DOT. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the DOT oversee the FAA?

I can do all these things, but can't get a medical cause the FAA says my meds might cause a problem. (Even tho they don't.) I've been on them for years... no problem.
 
Last edited:
I hear this all the time. HAZMAT endorsements are not about the future, they are about the current moment. Has nothing to do with what FAA is charged by congress to do. Pardon me but these are different missions all created by Congress. If you wnat to change it you gotta change it there.

Remember the report to congress on BASIC EXCLUDED the experience of BASIC (meaning less the of excluded guys who have to clear a third class, once). So your commentary makes no sense. You could only make that valid assertion had you been in that database and hundreds like you.

Congress chose for ONE round of vetting. And that's today, in America.
 
For what it's worth.

Murder in a 172, Shewmaker, John, eBook - Amazon.com

Murder in a 172 - Kindle edition by Shewmaker, John. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading Murder in a 172.
www.amazon.com

Flying Under The Weather: Anecdotes from Fourteen Years of Practicing Aviation Medicine, Shewmaker, John, eBook - Amazon.com

Flying Under The Weather: Anecdotes from Fourteen Years of Practicing Aviation Medicine - Kindle edition by Shewmaker, John. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading Flying Under The...
www.amazon.com

Head in the Sand, Death in the Clouds, Shewmaker, John, eBook - Amazon.com

Head in the Sand, Death in the Clouds - Kindle edition by Shewmaker, John. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading Head in the Sand, Death in the Clouds.
www.amazon.com
 
dp342b said:
I recently read a report from the FAA to congress about the progress of Basicmed. The report showed that there is no statistical or significant difference in Basicmed versus any class of medical. Imo the FAA really needs to get their head out of their a**es and get on board with the rest of the world. Everyone I talk to says the faa is the biggest joke ever. I'm starting to see that. I get it... accidents happen but that doesn't mean you need to punish everyone who wants a medical. Seems like the FAA would rather have 100% perfect people.
Click to expand...
You must have no knowledge of other Civilian Aviation Authorities or the rules that non-US GA pilots have to put up with if you think the FAA is the biggest joke. Are they perfect? Far from it but compared to their peers, we've got it easy. No debate.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
What meds, dp?
Click to expand...
He's previously posted about being on Chantix and having suicidal ideation. So maybe not the meds that's the issue, but it'd be neat to have a clearer post.

D

Thread 'Use of Chantix'

What are your thoughts of the FAA authorizing Chantix? Even when the medications side effects cause depression and more seriously SUICIDAL THOUGHTS!!!!

"Ya were gonna let you be on chantix so you can quit smoking... but if you have suicidal thoughts, we're gonna yank your medical."
 
dp342b said:
The report showed that there is no statistical or significant difference in Basicmed versus any class of medical. Imo the FAA really needs to get their head out of their a**es and get on board with the rest of the world. E
Click to expand...
The most not logical conclusion I could come up with from your post is that you think BasicMed should go away and everyone should be required to get a medical certificate.
 
Lindberg said:
He's previously posted about being on Chantix and having suicidal ideation. So maybe not the meds that's the issue, but it'd be neat to have a clearer post.

D

Thread 'Use of Chantix'

What are your thoughts of the FAA authorizing Chantix? Even when the medications side effects cause depression and more seriously SUICIDAL THOUGHTS!!!!

"Ya were gonna let you be on chantix so you can quit smoking... but if you have suicidal thoughts, we're gonna yank your medical."
Click to expand...
I've tried chantix before... it didn't help me quit smoking and it didn't give me the suicidal thoughts. But one of the listed side effects of chantix is suicidal ideation or thoughts. It's rare but it's still listed. Actually a hypnosis while you sleep video on YouTube help me quit. The nights of that and quit cold turkey. Very little withdrawl.
 
dp342b said:
I recently read a report from the FAA to congress about the progress of Basicmed. The report showed that there is no statistical or significant difference in Basicmed versus any class of medical. Imo the FAA really needs to get their head out of their a**es and get on board with the rest of the world. Everyone I talk to says the faa is the biggest joke ever. I'm starting to see that. I get it... accidents happen but that doesn't mean you need to punish everyone who wants a medical. Seems like the FAA would rather have 100% perfect people.

Almost none of the accidents were caused by a medical problem or using a medication improperly. They were caused from weather or mechanical problems. After the fatal accidents they took tox screens and found the meds in their systems, which in turn they're saying "you can't be on this med cause of this and that."

The doctors that clear people for Basicmed, "in the eyes of the FAA" don't know what they're talking about because they don't have aerospace medical expertise. Well most the doctors I know are pilots and actually do know something about aerospace medicine.

Just trying to get everyone's take on it. It's very frustrating when the ame says you gotta jump through hoops to get your medical when another doctor says you're fine and clears you for Basicmed.

Also should point out that I have a CDL with HAZMAT endorsements. Also have my passenger endorsement. I can haul anything from flammable liquids to radioactive materials on the nation's public highway system. I can also drive your kids to school on the school bus. The doctors say I'm fine to do those things. My DOT medical form is from the DOT. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the DOT oversee the FAA?

I can do all these things, but can't get a medical cause the FAA says my meds might cause a problem. (Even tho they don't.) I've been on them for years... no problem.
Click to expand...
I suppose everyone is welcome to their own opinion, but if you are comparing the medical requirements of driving a tractor trailer rig to a flying airplane, you are missing a lot of the medical knowledge associated with flying. Basic med works because the FAA has already weeded a lot of medical issues long before the pilot gets to basic med.

The FAA really doesn’t give a crap about you. They are protecting the unsuspecting passengers you load in the plane, the folks on the ground and the other pilots operating near you.

Having been in the flight instruction world a long time and worked with over 1000 students in both ground and flight instruction, the FAA is playing an important role weeding people out. I cringe when some people opt for light sport to avoid the FAA process. Many have medical conditions that are disqualifying in my experience.
 
dp342b said:
I've tried chantix before... it didn't help me quit smoking and it didn't give me the suicidal thoughts. But one of the listed side effects of chantix is suicidal ideation or thoughts. It's rare but it's still listed. Actually a hypnosis while you sleep video on YouTube help me quit. The nights of that and quit cold turkey. Very little withdrawl.
Click to expand...
Cool. Do you want to tell us what the OP is about, or should we keep guessing?
 
dp342b said:
I recently read a report from the FAA to congress about the progress of Basicmed. The report showed that there is no statistical or significant difference in Basicmed versus any class of medical. Imo the FAA really needs to get their head out of their a**es and get on board with the rest of the world. Everyone I talk to says the faa is the biggest joke ever. I'm starting to see that. I get it... accidents happen but that doesn't mean you need to punish everyone who wants a medical. Seems like the FAA would rather have 100% perfect people.

Almost none of the accidents were caused by a medical problem or using a medication improperly. They were caused from weather or mechanical problems. After the fatal accidents they took tox screens and found the meds in their systems, which in turn they're saying "you can't be on this med cause of this and that."

The doctors that clear people for Basicmed, "in the eyes of the FAA" don't know what they're talking about because they don't have aerospace medical expertise. Well most the doctors I know are pilots and actually do know something about aerospace medicine.

Just trying to get everyone's take on it. It's very frustrating when the ame says you gotta jump through hoops to get your medical when another doctor says you're fine and clears you for Basicmed.

Also should point out that I have a CDL with HAZMAT endorsements. Also have my passenger endorsement. I can haul anything from flammable liquids to radioactive materials on the nation's public highway system. I can also drive your kids to school on the school bus. The doctors say I'm fine to do those things. My DOT medical form is from the DOT. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the DOT oversee the FAA?

I can do all these things, but can't get a medical cause the FAA says my meds might cause a problem. (Even tho they don't.) I've been on them for years... no problem.
Click to expand...
I suppose everyone is welcome to their own opinion, but if you are comparing the medical requirements of driving a tractor trailer rig to a flying airplane, you are missing a lot of the medical knowledge associated with flying.

Basic med works because the FAA has already weeded a lot of medical issues long before the pilot gets to basic med.

The FAA really doesn’t give a crap about you. They are protecting the unsuspecting passengers you load in the plane, the folks on the ground and the other pilots operating near you.
 
Clip4 said:
the FAA is playing an important role weeding people out. I cringe when some people opt for light sport to avoid the FAA process. Many have medical conditions that are disqualifying in my experience.
Click to expand...
Yet the record shows no difference in the rate of accidents due to medical problems for sport pilots vs. pilots with a class 3 medical.
 
Lindberg said:
Cool. Do you want to tell us what the OP is about, or should we keep guessing?
Click to expand...
I'll try and summarize it for you bud... the point i was trying to make is that the statistics show no difference in accidents between BM and a 3rd class medical. It sounds like the FAA didn't want BM, but congress stepped in and shoved it down the FAAs throat and ordered them to do it. And now that it's been around for 9ish years, what's the FAA doing to improve the process of getting a 3rd, 2nd, or 1st class medical? Dragging their feet.
 
MauleSkinner said:
The most not logical conclusion I could come up with from your post is that you think BasicMed should go away and everyone should be required to get a medical certificate.
Click to expand...
I'm all for BM... but i think the FAAs way of doing things are a little too extreme in my opinion. Think of the special issuance process, who in their right mind would go get a medical just to find out their being deferred for a medical condition they "might" have? Then tell them they gotta spend thousands of dollars in follow ups with HIMS AMEs, specialists, etc? Just for the forms to be sent into the FAA for a "possible" issuance? The FAA should start trusting their AMEs with their medical expertise. The AME is the one who sees the applicant. The FAA decides based off statistics, not the individual.
 
Clip4 said:
I suppose everyone is welcome to their own opinion, but if you are comparing the medical requirements of driving a tractor trailer rig to a flying airplane, you are missing a lot of the medical knowledge associated with flying. Basic med works because the FAA has already weeded a lot of medical issues long before the pilot gets to basic med.

The FAA really doesn’t give a crap about you. They are protecting the unsuspecting passengers you load in the plane, the folks on the ground and the other pilots operating near you.

Having been in the flight instruction world a long time and worked with over 1000 students in both ground and flight instruction, the FAA is playing an important role weeding people out. I cringe when some people opt for light sport to avoid the FAA process. Many have medical conditions that are disqualifying in my experience.
Click to expand...
How many of those 1000s of students were denied or deferred because of something? I bet you saw the student in person and didn't think anything was wrong with them.
 
Clip4 said:
I suppose everyone is welcome to their own opinion, but if you are comparing the medical requirements of driving a tractor trailer rig to a flying airplane, you are missing a lot of the medical knowledge associated with flying.

Basic med works because the FAA has already weeded a lot of medical issues long before the pilot gets to basic med.

The FAA really doesn’t give a crap about you. They are protecting the unsuspecting passengers you load in the plane, the folks on the ground and the other pilots operating near you.
Click to expand...
Yet the DOT (which oversees the FAA btw) trusts me enough to be driving an 80,000 pound rig doing 80 in the hammer lane passing your family in a minivan doing 50. Make that make sense.
 
dp342b said:
Yet the DOT (which oversees the FAA btw) trusts me enough to be driving an 80,000 pound rig doing 80 in the hammer lane passing your family in a minivan doing 50. Make that make sense.
Click to expand...

With a nod to my AI assistant and some editing ...

Pilots are held to a higher medical standard mainly because regulators see the consequences and recoverability of an in‑flight medical event as fundamentally different from one on the road, even though both roles are high risk.

1. Chance to “pull over” vs. no escape
A truck or school bus driver who becomes dizzy, has chest pain, or briefly blacks out still has at least a theoretical option to brake, coast to a stop, or scrub speed by hitting a guardrail or shoulder; surrounding traffic, friction, and road design all help limit energy before impact. Vehicles have seat belts, airbags, and many newer vehicles have collision avoidance systems also.

A pilot who has a sudden stroke, heart attack, seizure, or loss of consciousness in a small airplane often has no meaningful way to “pull over in the sky.” Once control is lost, the aircraft can rapidly depart controlled flight, and both altitude and speed can convert directly into destructive energy with almost no passive protection.

2. Error margins and time to react
On the road, there are more built‑in margins: low altitudes, slower speeds, frequent stopping, and other drivers who can react and avoid a swerving vehicle. Even a serious mistake can sometimes be corrected in seconds.

In the air, especially close to the ground (takeoff, climb, approach, landing), a few seconds of incapacitation can exceed the entire margin between controlled flight and unrecoverable impact. There is far less time for another pilot (if there is one) or automation to recognize and fix the problem.

3. System design: engineering vs. human
Consider how school bus and big rig safety relies heavily on vehicle design and infrastructure: highly visible buses, compartmentalized seating, lower center of gravity, rigid bodies, and strict routing make crashes relatively survivable, so the system assumes some human imperfection and cushions it.

General aviation, especially in small aircraft, has less crash energy management, less structure around occupants, and no “buffer” like a wide shoulder or median; the system design assumes a higher level of continuous human performance from the pilot to remain safe.

4. Regulatory philosophy and culture
Aviation regulation is built on a “one catastrophic failure is too many” mindset, so it tends to be conservative: if a medical condition could cause sudden incapacitation, the default is often to restrict or tightly control flying privileges or require specialist reports and follow‑up.

Ground transport regulation, including school buses and commercial driving, balances safety with the reality that millions of people must drive to keep society functioning, so the standards are still strict but more tolerant of chronic, stable conditions as long as basic function is preserved.

ETA: The FAA doesn't have a near perfect system but they do get pretty amazing safety results overall. Could it be better? Sure. So if you want to see change then as @Brad Z noted above ... :dunno:
 
Daleandee said:
With a nod to my AI assistant and some editing ...

Pilots are held to a higher medical standard mainly because regulators see the consequences and recoverability of an in‑flight medical event as fundamentally different from one on the road, even though both roles are high risk.

1. Chance to “pull over” vs. no escape
A truck or school bus driver who becomes dizzy, has chest pain, or briefly blacks out still has at least a theoretical option to brake, coast to a stop, or scrub speed by hitting a guardrail or shoulder; surrounding traffic, friction, and road design all help limit energy before impact. Vehicles have seat belts, airbags, and many newer vehicles have collision avoidance systems also.

A pilot who has a sudden stroke, heart attack, seizure, or loss of consciousness in a small airplane often has no meaningful way to “pull over in the sky.” Once control is lost, the aircraft can rapidly depart controlled flight, and both altitude and speed can convert directly into destructive energy with almost no passive protection.

2. Error margins and time to react
On the road, there are more built‑in margins: low altitudes, slower speeds, frequent stopping, and other drivers who can react and avoid a swerving vehicle. Even a serious mistake can sometimes be corrected in seconds.

In the air, especially close to the ground (takeoff, climb, approach, landing), a few seconds of incapacitation can exceed the entire margin between controlled flight and unrecoverable impact. There is far less time for another pilot (if there is one) or automation to recognize and fix the problem.

3. System design: engineering vs. human
Consider how school bus and big rig safety relies heavily on vehicle design and infrastructure: highly visible buses, compartmentalized seating, lower center of gravity, rigid bodies, and strict routing make crashes relatively survivable, so the system assumes some human imperfection and cushions it.

General aviation, especially in small aircraft, has less crash energy management, less structure around occupants, and no “buffer” like a wide shoulder or median; the system design assumes a higher level of continuous human performance from the pilot to remain safe.

4. Regulatory philosophy and culture
Aviation regulation is built on a “one catastrophic failure is too many” mindset, so it tends to be conservative: if a medical condition could cause sudden incapacitation, the default is often to restrict or tightly control flying privileges or require specialist reports and follow‑up.

Ground transport regulation, including school buses and commercial driving, balances safety with the reality that millions of people must drive to keep society functioning, so the standards are still strict but more tolerant of chronic, stable conditions as long as basic function is preserved.

ETA: The FAA doesn't have a near perfect system but they do get pretty amazing safety results overall. Could it be better? Sure. So if you want to see change then as @Brad Z noted above ... :dunno:
Click to expand...


I would add a couple of other items to this list - (1) flying exposes you to varied G forces, pitch and bank changes. Driving is always under 1G with level attitude. (2) Rapid altitude changes and hypoxia are serious factors in aviation. One can climb from sea level to 14,000 ft in under 30 minutes, even in small pistons. There is no chance anyone driving will get up from sea level to Pikes Peak in such time scales. (3) highways are built with crash barriers (concrete walls, metal guardrails etc..). No such protection in the air.

On the other hand, I would argue that "time-to-react" is worse in driving. You have no ability to take your eyes off the road to write down instructions on a notepad, or program your GPS, which we do all the time in flying. At highway speeds, you have to react within seconds. You are not normally 3 second behind the traffic in front of you. In flying, we teach pilots to take a deep breath and evaluate the situation, and to not act too quickly.
 
Daleandee said:
I'm guessing there's a pretty good story waiting to be told ... ;)
Click to expand...
I've actually told it before. Short version: I got lost on the first leg, then had a com failure on the second leg, which was to a towered airport. No way I was going to deal with light gun signals, so I diverted to an nontowered airport. Between the two, I ended up being late enough to have initial lost aircraft inquiries started on my VFR flight plan. I ran into the FBO after landing where the guy behind the counter, before I could say one word, said, "I'll call the FAA. Call your instructor NOW!"

Anyway, before diverting, I circled well outside the Control Zone (this was before alphabet airspace) and reached under the panel to see if I could shake things into working. Lots of lessons from that flight, but a big one was, "in an airplane, you can't just pull over."

The other big one was, "if I ever become an instructor and a student did that to me, I'd kill them."
 
I re-read this string. The OP would be well advised to jump through the hoops and quaifly once. What a lot of energy spent which could be instead spent on filling the squares before he gets too old to do it.

Railing accomplishes naught.
I never thought the SSRI petition would lead anywhere. But it did.
sign me,
Author.
 
dp342b said:
The FAA should start trusting their AMEs with their medical expertise. The AME is the one who sees the applicant. The FAA decides based off statistics, not the individual.
Click to expand...

Well… the AME should start trusting REAL experts and actual practicing doctors.

Once in a while the AME might be an expert in the appropriate field (as in trusting the opthamalogical opinion of an ophthalmologist AME).

The faa should only be making sure the AME is current and qualified to be an AME. Quit deciding if someone they never met can do something they know little to nothing about, or meets standards that mean nothing to the medical world.

This shouldn’t be hard….
 
sarangan said:
On the other hand, I would argue that "time-to-react" is worse in driving. You have no ability to take your eyes off the road to write down instructions on a notepad, or program your GPS, which we do all the time in flying. At highway speeds, you have to react within seconds. You are not normally 3 second behind the traffic in front of you. In flying, we teach pilots to take a deep breath and evaluate the situation, and to not act too quickly.
Click to expand...

Thinking more in time to react as in tailwheel flying. It takes about a nanosecond to realize the tail going past you on the take-off roll is your own ... :rofl:
 
Daleandee said:
Thinking more in time to react as in tailwheel flying. It takes about a nanosecond to realize the tail going past you on the take-off roll is your own ... :rofl:
Click to expand...
You've really screwed the pooch if you are going tail-first on takeoff.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
You've really screwed the pooch if you are going tail-first on takeoff.
Click to expand...

I've been blessed to not have experienced that yet but I had the famous TW poem in mind: o_O

Taildragger, I hate your guts,
I have the license, ratings and such.
But to make you go straight is driving me nuts.
With hours of teaching and the controls in my clutch.
It takes a little rudder, easy, that's too much.

You see, I learned to fly in a tricycle gear
with one up front and two in the rear.
She was sleek and clean and easy to steer
But this miserable thing with tires and struts
Takes a little rudder, easy, that's too much.

It demands your attention on the take-off roll
or it heads towards Jone's as you pour on the coal.
Gotta hang loose, don't over control.

This wicked little plane is just too much.
With a lot of zigzagging and words obscene
I think I've mastered this slippery machine
It's not that bad if you have the touch
Just a little rudder, easy, that's too much.

I relax for a second and from the corner of my eye,
I suddenly realize with a gasp and a cry
That's my own tail that's going by.
You grounding looping wreck; I hate your guts,
Give a little rudder, Great Scott, THAT'S TOO MUCH.
 
bbchien said:
I re-read this string. The OP would be well advised to jump through the hoops and quaifly once. What a lot of energy spent which could be instead spent on filling the squares before he gets too old to do it.

Railing accomplishes naught.
I never thought the SSRI petition would lead anywhere. But it did.
sign me,
Author.
Click to expand...
curious if u have time to weigh in Doc. I understand the FAA setting up a process of hurdles to overcome if you are applying for a psychiatric or abuse SI? frustratingly backlogged of course but a reasonable goal to protect public safety. My question is how does the FAA justify an application for an SI for mental health then require extensive additional areas of testing and reports having nothing to do with the reason for the SI? Why do those candidates get these substantially increased burdens placed on them they would not need if they didn’t have to answer yes on 18. From a reasoning perspective if u r privvy to that? thank u.
 
Seems like the statistics would support a carve-out -- no medical required for solo flight in any N-reg plane. That'd cover 80+% of flying for most pilot friends I know of. Self included. If I offer a plane ride to a non-flying colleague, most look at me like I invited them to do shrooms while walking upon hot coals.

I love the suggestion to join the FAA if you don't like FAA regulations. That's saltpeter for idealism if I ever heard it. Some force at the tippy-top of that org dragged their heels kicking and screaming and forced congress to force THEM to do anything. And that petulance seems to remain and is woven throughout the org.
 
schmookeeg said:
Seems like the statistics would support a carve-out -- no medical required for solo flight in any N-reg plane.
Click to expand...
How do the statistics about Basic Med support anything with respect to not having a medical?

ETA: Do you mean flying anything solo with Basic Med?
 
Lindberg said:
How do the statistics about Basic Med support anything with respect to not having a medical?

ETA: Do you mean flying anything solo with Basic Med?
Click to expand...

I'm no analyst which might be apparent, but if basic med's accident rate is no different from ALL other classes of medical (which is what I read above), then removing the requirement for ANY medical would solve the accident rate concern (which is apparently proving false) + the "don't kill passengers without a medical" concern, no?

Edit: I see it looked like I was advocating for removing medical from 135/121 which ... while seemingly supported by data, is not something I'm proposing :) The optics on that are hideous to joe public. :)
 
schmookeeg said:
I'm no analyst which might be apparent, but if basic med's accident rate is no different from ALL other classes of medical (which is what I read above), then removing the requirement for ANY medical would solve the accident rate concern (which is apparently proving false) + the "don't kill passengers without a medical" concern, no?

Edit: I see it looked like I was advocating for removing medical from 135/121 which ... while seemingly supported by data, is not something I'm proposing :) The optics on that are hideous to joe public. :)
Click to expand...
If I correctly understand your contention, it's an example of survivorship bias since you're ignoring the gatekeeping function that both Basic Med and Class 3 medicals provide.
 
Lindberg said:
If I correctly understand your contention, it's an example of survivorship bias since you're ignoring the gatekeeping function that both Basic Med and Class 3 medicals provide.
Click to expand...
Fair deuce. I wrote out a few replies and "whatabouts" to this, paused, and disliked them all before hitting send. So I'll sit back down and grumble to myself :)
 
wellknow said:
curious if u have time to weigh in Doc. I understand the FAA setting up a process of hurdles to overcome if you are applying for a psychiatric or abuse SI? frustratingly backlogged of course but a reasonable goal to protect public safety. My question is how does the FAA justify an application for an SI for mental health then require extensive additional areas of testing and reports having nothing to do with the reason for the SI? Why do those candidates get these substantially increased burdens placed on them they would not need if they didn’t have to answer yes on 18. From a reasoning perspective if u r privvy to that? thank u.
Click to expand...
It's really because the defintion of psychiatry is the sum total of an individual's behavior. And you'd be gobsmacked to know that about 20% of cases actually have a secondary diagnosis- e.g. anxiety disorder self treated by weed, ADD secondary to depression or anxiety disorder, or PTSD self treated with alcohol. i see this every week. Time after time.

So FAA's not gonna get caught with their pants down.
 
Half Fast said:
Because enlarging a bureaucracy is the answer?
Click to expand...
Some people like to complain. Some people like to enact change. If you really think “the FAA really needs to get their head out of their a**es” why not come aboard set things straight? If working for a federal agency is beneath you, run for Congress.
 
bbchien said:
It's really because the defintion of psychiatry is the sum total of an individual's behavior. And you'd be gobsmacked to know that about 20% of cases actually have a secondary diagnosis- e.g. anxiety disorder self treated by weed, ADD secondary to depression or anxiety disorder, or PTSD self treated with alcohol. i see this every week. Time after time.

So FAA's not gonna get caught with their pants down.
Click to expand...
That makes sense. Thank you. I had to do 9 min stress test, other complicated heart imaging and multiple sleep apnea tests as all showed different (borderline) level. But as frustrating as it is at least there’s a process. And experts like u who generously give spot on advice on the forum. Super helpful to us struggling to get si’s and waiting.
 
Back
Top