H
HopefulAnonymous
Guest
As someone with 2 MIPs, both >10 years ago, I'm hopeful that the aeromedical working group that's likely to be organized as a result of the current FAA reauthorization bill will recommend that aeromedical takes a more sensible policy approach towards MIPs and other minor disorderly offenses like non-vehicle related public alcohol consumption, versus automatically throwing individuals with 2 MIPs into the abuse diagnosis (or into the dependency diagnosis, with corresponding lifetime HIMS time and financial commitments + monitoring, if they've ever consumed alcohol after the "abuse").
Current aeromedical policy that treats these offenses exactly the same as DUIs for the purpose of automatic regulatory abuse diagnosis seems to be incongruent with the spirit and, arguably, the letter of 67.1/2/307(b)(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." The current FAA interpretation of “alcohol events” – much broader than DUIs/OWIs - ("ANY two is automatic abuse, any use thereafter is dependency") seems like an overly broad interpretation of this language.
To make matters worse, there is significant inconsistency in how each state handles MIPs - some would require a positive response to 18(v), some positive to 18(w), and some are completely unreportable "infractions," so two individuals with the same factual case history could be find themselves somewhere between (1) an unrestricted in-office issuance or (2) a deferral, 12-18+ month wait on the bureaucracy, and lifetime monitoring with massive associated costs and required non-flying time commitments.
Even beyond interpretation of 67.[1/2/3]07, the regs themselves are dated. Current administrative diagnoses of abuse and dependency are 30 years behind modern medicine, as this recent AOPA blog highlights.
It seems like many of the HIMS AMEs, FAA employees, and other stakeholders close to these issues recognize the challenges in the current system. I'm hopeful that we're making slow progress towards a more sensible approach, and would ask that the senior AMEs and other stakeholders who frequent these forums can help influence policy changes for the better.
Current aeromedical policy that treats these offenses exactly the same as DUIs for the purpose of automatic regulatory abuse diagnosis seems to be incongruent with the spirit and, arguably, the letter of 67.1/2/307(b)(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." The current FAA interpretation of “alcohol events” – much broader than DUIs/OWIs - ("ANY two is automatic abuse, any use thereafter is dependency") seems like an overly broad interpretation of this language.
To make matters worse, there is significant inconsistency in how each state handles MIPs - some would require a positive response to 18(v), some positive to 18(w), and some are completely unreportable "infractions," so two individuals with the same factual case history could be find themselves somewhere between (1) an unrestricted in-office issuance or (2) a deferral, 12-18+ month wait on the bureaucracy, and lifetime monitoring with massive associated costs and required non-flying time commitments.
Even beyond interpretation of 67.[1/2/3]07, the regs themselves are dated. Current administrative diagnoses of abuse and dependency are 30 years behind modern medicine, as this recent AOPA blog highlights.
It seems like many of the HIMS AMEs, FAA employees, and other stakeholders close to these issues recognize the challenges in the current system. I'm hopeful that we're making slow progress towards a more sensible approach, and would ask that the senior AMEs and other stakeholders who frequent these forums can help influence policy changes for the better.
