What does the FAA Step Down Plan really mean?
September 20, 2020
The FAA just issued a “Step Down” procedure for HIMS participants. Is this a concession to the objections many HIMS participants have raised about the FAA’s announcement that they would be forced into lifetime monitoring?
Answer: To quote Hertz, “not exactly.” Instead, the memo details a series of steps requiring successively less monitoring, BUT:
(1) The FAA is under no obligation to approve reduced monitoring, meaning that a pilot would be subjected to onerous and invasive monitoring for his or her entire career;
(2) By all reports, any pilot who applies for the step down gets his or her SI date arbitrarily reset; and
(3) That is if the airman even realizes the step down option is available, since the FAA has apparently decided that it is a procedure you don’t need to know about.
Below is the analysis submitted by attorney Joseph LoRusso, whose information can also be found the legal resources section of this site.
MEMORANDUM
RE: FAA Step Down Program
DATE: September 19, 2020
On April 1, 2020, the FAA made the decision to grant a thirteen-year-old request by the NTSB, thus appeasing the Board, which resulted in the institution of lifetime monitoring for all pilots who have been “diagnosed” with substance dependency.[1] At the time, the FAA’s decision to institute lifetime monitoring was just that: a single pronouncement devoid of any guidance regarding how lifetime monitoring would be administered or overseen.
160 days later, on September 8, 2020, the Administration put forth a series of memoranda, which briefly outlined how lifetime monitoring would progress for those currently enrolled in a HIMS program. The Administration’s plan is officially referred to as the “HIMS Step Down Plan.” [2]
Facially, the HIMS Step Down Plan appears to be a concession by the FAA to periodically reduce the objectively strict HIMS requirements in exchange for lifetime monitoring privileges. For example, past Special Issuance Authorizations often required psychiatric visits every six months. The HIMS Step Down Program drops that requirement after one (1) year of monitoring. Just like the psychiatric visits, other traditional requirements are reduced or removed as the airman progresses through the program until he or she has completed seven (7) years of monitoring. At that time, the airman should only be subjected to the monitoring requirements of a HIMS AME who is chosen by the airman.
Practically, however, there are still many questions about the Program that require answers. Most notably, the FAA describes the HIMS Step Down Program as “nominal” and only represents an “uncomplicated progression of recovery.”[3] As a result, the plan “may be modified on a case-by-case” basis.[4] The obvious questions that follows are: 1) who has discretion to determine what constitutes a complicated progression of recovery; and 2) who has the ability to modify the airman’s plan?
It should also be noted that although such a plan may be modified, the Administration makes it quite clear in its guidance that it may only be modified to provide additional monitoring requirements and, cannot, in any way, be modified to reduce requirements for pilots, due to the fact that, “Requests for ‘early’ Step Down will not be considered.” [5]
Another issue that I find to be troubling is to whom these memoranda where addressed or, more accurately, to whom they were not addressed. The memorandum which specifically details the HIMS Step Down Program was addressed to AAM-200, AMCD, and Regional Flight Surgeons. The memorandum which discussed the implementation of the Program also added HIMS AMEs to that list of recipients. Neither memorandum was addressed to pilots in the program or the pilot community at large.
Are we to assume from this that pilots cannot be privy to the Administration’s “care” and oversight plan, which is disguised as a gentle monitoring program? Based on the Administration’s careful dissemination of this new Program, we are left to presume that the FAA intends to send the message that pilots are not meant to be made aware of the Program, as the Administration’s implementation of the same requires a HIMS AME (as opposed to the airman, as has occurred in the past) to specifically request a new Special Issuance Authorization that aligns with the plan. Consequently, if a HIMS AME fails to disseminate the memoranda to his or her airmen, the pilot would not be afforded the benefit of reduction in monitoring requirements that the Program theoretically provides. Again, we are left to assume that not all pilots will be given access to this Program.
In summation, while those of us in the industry are encouraged to see some guidance in response to the FAA’s legally questionable implementation of lifetime monitoring, I am leery to say the least, based on the foregoing. Unfortunately, if the FAA is set on placating the NTSB, we are forced to rely on time to expose the benefits and shortcomings of the HIMS Step Down Plan.
[1] This alone is problematic, as substance dependency no longer exists in a clinical setting and, therefore, cannot be diagnosed.
[2] The FAA developed the HIMS Step Down Plan “in consultation with the airline HIMS chairs.” The plan ostensibly and practically fails to provide consideration for those Part 91 pilots and Part 135 who are held to HIMS standards of “care and treatment” but are not afforded the same financial support as Part 121 HIMS pilots. See Footnote 3.
[3] August 17, 2020 (Revised to September 8, 2020) Memo from Penny M. Giovanetti to AAM-200, AMCD, Regional Flight Surgeons re HIMS Step Down Plan.
[4] Id.
[5] This mirrors one of the issues with the HIMS Program itself, as the plan fails to consider the clinical degrees of severity associated with a diagnosis of a substance use disorder.
September 20, 2020
The FAA just issued a “Step Down” procedure for HIMS participants. Is this a concession to the objections many HIMS participants have raised about the FAA’s announcement that they would be forced into lifetime monitoring?
Answer: To quote Hertz, “not exactly.” Instead, the memo details a series of steps requiring successively less monitoring, BUT:
(1) The FAA is under no obligation to approve reduced monitoring, meaning that a pilot would be subjected to onerous and invasive monitoring for his or her entire career;
(2) By all reports, any pilot who applies for the step down gets his or her SI date arbitrarily reset; and
(3) That is if the airman even realizes the step down option is available, since the FAA has apparently decided that it is a procedure you don’t need to know about.
Below is the analysis submitted by attorney Joseph LoRusso, whose information can also be found the legal resources section of this site.
MEMORANDUM
RE: FAA Step Down Program
DATE: September 19, 2020
On April 1, 2020, the FAA made the decision to grant a thirteen-year-old request by the NTSB, thus appeasing the Board, which resulted in the institution of lifetime monitoring for all pilots who have been “diagnosed” with substance dependency.[1] At the time, the FAA’s decision to institute lifetime monitoring was just that: a single pronouncement devoid of any guidance regarding how lifetime monitoring would be administered or overseen.
160 days later, on September 8, 2020, the Administration put forth a series of memoranda, which briefly outlined how lifetime monitoring would progress for those currently enrolled in a HIMS program. The Administration’s plan is officially referred to as the “HIMS Step Down Plan.” [2]
Facially, the HIMS Step Down Plan appears to be a concession by the FAA to periodically reduce the objectively strict HIMS requirements in exchange for lifetime monitoring privileges. For example, past Special Issuance Authorizations often required psychiatric visits every six months. The HIMS Step Down Program drops that requirement after one (1) year of monitoring. Just like the psychiatric visits, other traditional requirements are reduced or removed as the airman progresses through the program until he or she has completed seven (7) years of monitoring. At that time, the airman should only be subjected to the monitoring requirements of a HIMS AME who is chosen by the airman.
Practically, however, there are still many questions about the Program that require answers. Most notably, the FAA describes the HIMS Step Down Program as “nominal” and only represents an “uncomplicated progression of recovery.”[3] As a result, the plan “may be modified on a case-by-case” basis.[4] The obvious questions that follows are: 1) who has discretion to determine what constitutes a complicated progression of recovery; and 2) who has the ability to modify the airman’s plan?
It should also be noted that although such a plan may be modified, the Administration makes it quite clear in its guidance that it may only be modified to provide additional monitoring requirements and, cannot, in any way, be modified to reduce requirements for pilots, due to the fact that, “Requests for ‘early’ Step Down will not be considered.” [5]
Another issue that I find to be troubling is to whom these memoranda where addressed or, more accurately, to whom they were not addressed. The memorandum which specifically details the HIMS Step Down Program was addressed to AAM-200, AMCD, and Regional Flight Surgeons. The memorandum which discussed the implementation of the Program also added HIMS AMEs to that list of recipients. Neither memorandum was addressed to pilots in the program or the pilot community at large.
Are we to assume from this that pilots cannot be privy to the Administration’s “care” and oversight plan, which is disguised as a gentle monitoring program? Based on the Administration’s careful dissemination of this new Program, we are left to presume that the FAA intends to send the message that pilots are not meant to be made aware of the Program, as the Administration’s implementation of the same requires a HIMS AME (as opposed to the airman, as has occurred in the past) to specifically request a new Special Issuance Authorization that aligns with the plan. Consequently, if a HIMS AME fails to disseminate the memoranda to his or her airmen, the pilot would not be afforded the benefit of reduction in monitoring requirements that the Program theoretically provides. Again, we are left to assume that not all pilots will be given access to this Program.
In summation, while those of us in the industry are encouraged to see some guidance in response to the FAA’s legally questionable implementation of lifetime monitoring, I am leery to say the least, based on the foregoing. Unfortunately, if the FAA is set on placating the NTSB, we are forced to rely on time to expose the benefits and shortcomings of the HIMS Step Down Plan.
[1] This alone is problematic, as substance dependency no longer exists in a clinical setting and, therefore, cannot be diagnosed.
[2] The FAA developed the HIMS Step Down Plan “in consultation with the airline HIMS chairs.” The plan ostensibly and practically fails to provide consideration for those Part 91 pilots and Part 135 who are held to HIMS standards of “care and treatment” but are not afforded the same financial support as Part 121 HIMS pilots. See Footnote 3.
[3] August 17, 2020 (Revised to September 8, 2020) Memo from Penny M. Giovanetti to AAM-200, AMCD, Regional Flight Surgeons re HIMS Step Down Plan.
[4] Id.
[5] This mirrors one of the issues with the HIMS Program itself, as the plan fails to consider the clinical degrees of severity associated with a diagnosis of a substance use disorder.
