Taking medical w history of banned drugs

D

dennyleeb

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
733
Display Name
Display name:
7DeltaBravo
My buddy is getting ready to take his medical so he can solo and was concerned that his doctor gave him anti-anxiety drugs a few years ago. The rx he took is on the list of drugs you can not take. What should he do if he has not taken them in two years. Should he report having took them? I don't see how they can look it up without a "kasper" report but how many years do they go back?

Thanks
 
There isn't any requirement to report legal drugs you are no longer taking. However, there is a requirement to answer truthfully all the questions in block 18 and explain any "yes" answers. In addition, if he was taking them within the last two years, that suggests he has had visits to a medical professional within the last three years, and that, too,will have to be explained including the reasons for the visits. So, the question is what medical condition led to the prescribing of those drugs and those visits? That will be the driver in what happens.
 
Well you can always lie.You have to lie on 18m (mental illness, yes, anxiety disorders, depression, PTSD, are mental issues)...."have you EVER..." not "are you now....".

Sigh. That works until you have a reason for them to look (FAR violation, accident, incident) then you lose your pilot ticket.

HE needs a letter from the doc who wrote the Rx, that means most likely he has to "actually make an appointment" saying that he is well recovered, has no need of further treatment. Now the trick is the doc has to pick a "transitory diagnosis" e.g, adjustment rxn, and he has to be clear about it. If he isn't up to that task, then the fallback is to see a board certified psychologist/or psychiatrist, and get his assessment.

But, your "friend" can do whatever he wants.

Lying is unbelievably common, and about 20% of what I do is get testimony that reverses the lie and qualifies the airman. A heckof a business in which to be. I recently untangled (get this), a chief pilot for a major airline company, who had lied for 27 years. Legal circumstances were such that the opposition was about to out this airman, and so EVERYTHING was at risk.

We got the condition disclosed, the sins forgiven and so a/m no longer had to live in constant fear.
 
Last edited:
The "friend" thing comes up around here a bunch huh. Luckily it is just a friend, I have a few more years before I have to worry about mine again, god willing
 
DavidWhite said:
I would imagine they probably go back through your last medical.

Not too long ago they had a guy crash an R44 who was on 3 no fly drugs. IIRC it was 2 anti depressants and one of the sleep aids.
Click to expand...

Yeah the drugs were the least of his problems. Going Vfr into IMc and not rated if I am thinking about the guy in georgia.
 
DavidWhite said:
I would imagine they probably go back through your last medical.

Not too long ago they had a guy crash an R44 who was on 3 no fly drugs. IIRC it was 2 anti depressants and one of the sleep aids.
Click to expand...

None of which caused him to go Vfr into IMc if I remember
 
All kinds of things seem like reasonable ideas when you're stoned or drunk.
 
DaleB said:
All kinds of things seem like reasonable ideas when you're stoned or drunk.
Click to expand...

he was neither, as i remember

here it is


NTSB Identification: ERA10FA403
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Monday, August 02, 2010 in Blairsville, GA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 02/06/2012
Aircraft: ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY R44 II, registration: N34JS
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
The non-instrument-rated private pilot departed on a multi-leg cross-country trip without obtaining a weather briefing or filing a flight plan. Prior to the flight, the pilot asked a friend, a commercial helicopter operator, to accompany him on the trip, as the pilot had never flown over mountainous terrain. The friend could not accompany him due to a prior commitment and tried to dissuade the pilot from going because he thought the pilot needed mountain flying experience, but the pilot insisted on making the flight. When the helicopter failed to arrive at its destination, an alert notice was issued. The helicopter was located by aerial search in mountainous terrain 4 days after the accident. Examination of satellite images revealed that the wreckage was located in a box canyon and that the wreckage path was oriented opposite the intended route of flight. An AIRMET advisory for instrument meteorological conditions and mountain obscuration were current for the route of flight and the crash site. Satellite images from over the accident site around the time of the accident depicted an area of low stratiform clouds that extended over the area. Examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of pre-impact mechanical malfunction, and the damage was consistent with controlled flight into terrain.

Post mortem examinations and testing revealed heart disease and the use of amphetamine and anti-depressant medications. At least two of the medications that the pilot was taking are not permitted by the Federal Aviation Administration for use while flying, but he did not report them. However, it could not be determined whether the pilot's heart disease or his use of unapproved medications posed a significant risk to flight safety.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The non-instrument-rated pilot's continued visual flight into instrument meteorological conditions, which resulted in controlled flight into terrain.
 
Last edited:
The NTSB didn't have enough evidence to say it was a probable cause. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to believe those drugs may have interfered with his ability to make wise and timely decisions, and there is no way anyone can say with any reasonable certainty that the drugs were not a contributing factor. For most of us, flying takes pretty much all the brain power we've got, so taking anything which renders us anything less than fully functional is adding unnecessarily to the risk.
 
Ron Levy said:
The NTSB didn't have enough evidence to say it was a probable cause. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to believe those drugs may have interfered with his ability to make wise and timely decisions, and there is no way anyone can say with any reasonable certainty that the drugs were not a contributing factor. For most of us, flying takes pretty much all the brain power we've got, so taking anything which renders us anything less than fully functional is adding unnecessarily to the risk.
Click to expand...

Nobody including the NTSB can say they were a contributing factor. As they stated. Lets not forget amphetamine was given to pilots on long missions to keep them alert. (not to get them high) And although we do not know which anti-depressants he was on, very few of them are going to cloud your judgement to the extent we saw here. Two different views I guess. My point is I think this guy just had very poor judgement.
 
dennyleeb said:
Nobody including the NTSB can say they were a contributing factor. As they stated. Lets not forget amphetamine was given to pilots on long missions to keep them alert. (not to get them high) And although we do not know which anti-depressants he was on, very few of them are going to cloud your judgement to the extent we saw here. Two different views I guess. My point is I think this guy just had very poor judgement.
Click to expand...
AS I have warned on this and on the "red" board, the agency is moving to eliminate pilots with "very poor judgement". The string (over there) about the IR pilot who busted on departure is a good example of the SPRM issues over which over "no single issue" the examiner can issue a pink slip.

The warnings have largely fallen on deaf ears, however.

Actually it's not the four meds listed in the SSRI protocol (which I partly wrote). It's the judgement of the illness that underlies the meds- whcih is why all the cognitive testing is reuqired if you're going to legally fly on one of them (dollars, dollars, dollars).

Dennyleeb is correct- but the bad judgement came from the underlying disorder that was being treated.
 
bbchien said:
Lying is unbelievably common, and about 20% of what I do is get testimony that reverses the lie and qualifies the airman.
Click to expand...

I don't know of anyone now who recommends lying, but we older pilots are aware that 20-30 - 40 years ago, instructors not uncommonly discussed the possibility that students "fudge" on their medical applications, especially for something in what was considered a "gray" area or was in the past. I suppose there are still people around who are looking over their shoulder at what they thought was no big deal on a 1960's or 70's medical and now is.

"Uh, no, I never lied about that. Maybe I didn't recall every doctor's visit, but I surely didn't mean to mislead anyone."

How many people have we heard of who got into the military because they lied about their age, did something to get them past a weight or height test, or got a "wink" from the induction center doc? No one holds that against them.

Society has a habit of changing - look at attitudes toward smoking. Once it was expected, now it's condemned. And look at running red lights - once it was never done, now you'd better expect it. Society and government aren't always on the same sheet of music.

Have we all gotten religion? A fair amount of the discussion about Sport Pilot is how many angels can dance on the pin of that medical issue.
 
And the talk in the FSDOs is about how they will NEVER ever give up the thrid class.

So who do you think is going to win? Certainly not AOPA/EAA. Our best approach is to use the current overload situation to induce AAM-1 to allow the guys in the field to "help him out"......

Macrolight sport (that's what I call 180 hp, 2,500, day VFR 2 up) with the state CDL. See, that gets the liability out of the Federal Government and partially solves "light sport double jeopardy".
 
bbchien said:
And the talk in the FSDOs is about how they will NEVER ever give up the thrid class.

So who do you think is going to win? Certainly not AOPA/EAA. Our best approach is to use the current overload situation to induce AAM-1 to allow the guys in the field to "help him out"......

Macrolight sport (that's what I call 180 hp, 2,500, day VFR 2 up) with the state CDL. See, that gets the liability out of the Federal Government and partially solves "light sport double jeopardy".
Click to expand...

That makes sense. You're a lot more likely to kill an innocent bystander or a bus load of pax by suddenly croaking behind the wheel of an 18 wheeler or greyhound bus on I-40 than you are flying a skyhawk anyway.
 
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