Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Medical Topics' started by ProjectInfinity1, May 12, 2019.
I'm guessing that the mention of owning a grenade launcher and a machine gun got their attention.
None of which addresses what I said.
I don’t know how they exactly got my info, but it wouldn’t have been hard, I don’t regularly use a VPN. It’s one of those things that’s so stupid it’s hard to believe. I myself didn’t believe at first. He showed me his badge but I don’t know what the hell to look for or tell a fake from a legit. It was only when I saw “pre1986 MG’s,Grenade launcher” on the back of a piece of paper that I knew he was legit.
I can’t blame them because when someone is taking Machine Guns, DD’s and other crazy stuff with a history as I had written, it really isn’t that crazy and in hind sight I’m surprised I hadn’t gotten a knock over things like NFA legal pipe bomb discussions.
However once he realized that I knew what I was talking about, and have spoken to the ATF’s NFA branch multiple times, someone who’s a threat isn’t going to send a 200 dollar tax, send two sets of finger prints, a passport photo, Notify their chief law enforcement officer, engrave the item in question upon creation, and wait for approval just for a novelty Molotov cocktail.
Don’t own a machine gun, would like to, however do to the ban which was attached to the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986 (Also known as the Hughes Amendment) banned the new manufacturer of machine guns.
Those manufacturered and registered before the Act was signed into law were grandfathered in. As a result MG prices have skyrocketed in the last 33 years. An M16 which costs a police department 750 dollars for a base model with select fire capability starts at 19,000 dollars on the civilian market (and those are just conversions, real colt factory guns pre86 are between 26-30k). Entry level MG’s start in the neighborhood of 6-6,500. Plus 200 in a exercise tax.
Well. I don’t think it’s how you posted or the context of what you posted. I think it’s honestly what you posted. Just the basic facts of your post.
I’ve tried to commit suicide.
I’ve been committed
I’m currently medicated
My meds don’t work all that well
I love guns and have a fair amount of them including ones that required background checks by the atf and are classified as destructive devices.
Then you express disappointment that you have barriers to entry at a time when there is a pilot shortage ...
Well look here there has never been nor will there ever be a demand for recreational pilots.
If there is no demand there can be no shortage.
There is, however, a demand for professional pilots. It just so happens there is currently more demand than supply. Hence a shortage.
So the conclusion of many readers to your post would be you want to be a professional pilot.
Furthermore with your stated medical history you would be disqualified from owning firearms. But it requires you to disclose the medical condition. There is currently no way that I am aware of for the people doing back ground checks to find out you lied.
Your assertion that you’ve never lied to any agency to own your firearms is directly contradictory to the story you tell. You lied to someone... might be us or it might be to your local LEO/ATF. No way for me to know but you are assuredly telling a tall tale to someone.
I wish you well and I’m glad you are not flying. I’m especially glad you’ll never ever even come close to being paid to fly.
I have two kids with ADHD. One expressed some interest in flying, so we chased down FAA Medical to find out the requirements. One of the questions we had was how the FAA determines the drugs allowed. The answer, while not definitive does make sense. The FAA goes to the FDA and looks at known side effects first. If there are negative side effects (hallucination, random falling asleep...) the med is basically banned. Once the med has some history, the FAA will consider a re-evaluation. It was a rather interesting discussion. Too bad my kids have decided not to pursue aviation, although they have both been off the drugs for years.
This is what you clearly don't understand. The FAA owns the ball, the court, and writes the rules. You abide or you don't fly. If you honestly think you're issuing the FAA an ultimatum than I would submit you have more mental issues than you're letting on.
This is a classic "if you see something say something" case..
That is a common symptom of ADHD.
There is a path. The current path as defined in the first response by Dr. Bruce is a ten year process.
I honestly didn’t look at it from that perspective with regards to the point you made about the current pilot shortage. Let me be clear I am NOT looking for a 1st or 2nd class certification. I’m just trying to get my PPL and a SI of medical. However obviously the FAA is on the more conservative side when it comes to pilot health and aviation.
I’ve tried to commit suicide. January 9th 2018
I’ve been committed-Under threat of involuntary commitment I signed the voluntary papers. (I did not lie on the 4473 as the definition of “Mental Defective” as written under the GCA of 1968 ONLY includes involuntary commitment/by a court order. Neither of which occurred and does NOT apply to voluntary admissions.
I’m currently medicated Yes.
My meds don’t work all that well. Yes.
I love guns and have a fair amount of them including ones that required background checks by the atf and are classified as destructive devices.
Correct. In hind sight when you read all of that, anyone would have numerous red flags going off.
However what my intention in both expressing here, and griping about the FAA, is sometimes things are more complex than they seem.
Why did I attempt suicide? I’m agnostic, and I’m also a nihilist. (One may be religious and that’s ok, personally I don’t believe, but it is not for me to judge.) When we wake up in the morning, go through our routine, go to work, sprinkle in a few hours of socializing, eating, relaxing. Then start it all again the next day.
Obviously it’s an oversimplification and it varies for everyone, however we are a small rock which developed live over millions of years. We are here for a remarkably short time on the cosmic scale. And while many will say so “make the most of it” I return with, “well what’s the point?”.
It’s essentially a prolonged exestental crisis. Where firearms, miltary/political history, and aviation come in is keeping focused on what I’m doing today, tomorrow, next week, next month, and this year. Rather than looking forward at death 60-65 years from now.
I’ll reiterate, I am NOT a threat. My entire point is for what my current job/and passion is (NFA Firearms), it’s semi laughable that SI for class three, is off the table completely. Due to current regulations it would be near pointless to try and work with a HIMS AME and reason with the FAA. It would end up having to go to Fed Flight Surgeon on appeal.
You think you are not a threat. Therefore you don’t understand why the barriers exist or think you understand and feel like reform is warranted. In your position that might all seem reasonable. I’m not in your position.
While my tone may be harsh I am not trying to be. Rather direct and honest is the intent. I truly do wish you well.
The way I look at it, why not enjoy ourselves for the time we're here? I can't think of any reason not to.
I’d be 30 which isn’t too bad. It’s certainly a long term solution if a short term solution can not be found. If that is the case, I have no idea if there are any glider schools nearby, but it may very well be both a good substitute to an aviation “fix” and aswell at the end of said ten years show the FAA, “I essentially flew an unpowered kite with a seat in it and survived, can I please get an SI cert so I can bloody fly a Piper 160 now?”
I appreciate what your saying, when I mean reform, essentially what I’m asking for is not a blanket “No” on the FAA’s part, but a “probably No, however there is a path” (even if that path is a complete pain in the ass.)
I understand given German Wings, Egypt Air, ect. the reason why the policies are implemented. It’s just I need to be able to demonstrate and show the FAA, “That isn’t me”. And it would be a hell of a lot easier for pilots who currently have cert but are suffering in the shadows, paying out of pocket to have off the record time with a Doc. Unless it’s debilitating, everyone should ask themselves, “would I suck it up/tough it out?” Be mild anxiety/depression, ect rather than deal with the FAA? Obviously if it’s severe enough, however I’m referring to if your still able to function but still don’t feel quite “right”?
It comes down to does everyone practice what they preach? While health comes before flight, if it was to threaten one’s ability to fly, how many wouldn’t say anything? The current regs do a lot of good, yet they can and do go a bit overboard sometimes.
Hence my hobbies, family/friends, and work, which help keep me grounded. (Pun intended :S )
Not to make light of your situation. I'm sorry but anytime I hear someone mention ADHD, this is what goes through my mind...
South Park - Parents of children with ADD - YouTube
That’s terrible... It all seriousness it’s kind of $h!t, I think there is a problem of over diagnosis, however a large swath is due to better screening/diagnostic testing. Problem is teachers and GP’s are not qualified to make a diagnosis... rather what should happen is that a teacher or GP makes an observation, after which is referred out to a psychologist. A pediatrician shouldn’t be prescribing Adderall in most cases. Personally I’ve taken a few doses but very quickly discontinued as it caused major headaches/agitation.
Also P.S. South Park tends to be comedy gold
the doctrine of equal opportunity offenders haha.
I'm surprised no one has brought up ultralights. No license, no medical. Still get a really good aviation fix, since most of these are closer to what the birds do than I. Lots of these aircraft are wind in your hair kind of deals, and look like loads of fun. Cheap too, in the scheme of things.
Actually a better "substitute" than you may think.
Remember that the family of gliders includes motor gliders, basically single engine airplanes with really really good glide ratios. No medical certificate required to fly something like this:
I’d consider LSA especially with the upcoming weight increase. However I don’t believe I can fly while knowingly with a disqualifiying condition. It would be an amazing statement to the FAA logging a few thousand hours in the next 10 years saying I’ve flone LSA for this long safely, can I bloody fly with an SI now! haha
If the FAA had wanted that to be the standard, they could have written the regulation that way. They didn't.
Compare 61.53(a) to 61.53(b):
Psychiatrist not psychologist. A psychologist cannot prescribe anything.
Your correct, I always get them mixed up. o_o
I see what your saying. I was under the impression that one had to follow FAA medical guidelines to determine on what is and is not allowed to fly of while that person is flying LSA without a medical.
Please correct me if my interpretation is off, but “knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that would make the person unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner.” Doesn’t necessarily mean a disqualifying condition, but rather it’s the pilots responsibility to determine if they’re condition is unsafe to fly? I.E. Someone with attention deficit disorder may do so under LSA, even though it’s a known disqualification to the FAA?
It seems rather contradictory however LSA is law vs FAA internal policy and thus the FAA can’t really do much?
I’m shocked all of this isn’t a regular problem within the aviation community!
You aren't listening. You aren't disqualified in any way from flying ultralights. Why get stuck on LSAs?
My apologies, just was a bit confused.
All I know is that the rule is written differently for operations that don't require a medical certificate vs. those that do. I'm not an attorney, but I assume that there is a reason why they did that.
You are 20 years old. Maybe 25% through an average life and only still learning what life has to offer.
Don’t make a decision now that will prevent you from experiencing the other 75%.
Maybe it’ll suck, but highly unlikely with friends and guns and other challenges (including gliders, ultra lights and LSA) that the next 60 years will all suck.
Exercise the option to see what tomorrow brings. Always.
I feel like that is very much "For want of a nail."
So that everyone (FAA, Airline and Pilot) can maintain plausible deniability, we've created a system that stigmatizes and encourages not seeking help/healthcare. I realize of course that its not entirely the same because of the different risk profiles to property and the public at large vs the risk of a sole individual but where is the concern for the health and safety of the pilot?
When it comes to ADHD, there's nothing I can find that says you cant fly with ADHD so long as it does not "manifest in overt acts" and even if it does manifest in "overt acts" it is not an automatic disqualification though according to the FAA guide for AME's it does warrant further probative questions about your history...
However, if you have issues with your attention span that are not immediately disqualifying and decide to treat it with the typical medications (adderall/ritalin) then you just immediately became disqualified and even discontinuing the medication is not enough to warrant issuance in its own right. You are forever tarred with having sought treatment and taken medication for ADHD even if the case is mild.
As to the side effects of various medications, I've yet to see a medication come to market that doesn't have some sort of "unintended" side-effect. Heck most drugs are used off label in some form or fashion to address other issues than they were designed for because their side-effects have been found beneficial and some have even become drugs in their own right (viagra) because of their unintended side-effects. Smoking cigarettes can cause problems in some people (nicotine give me a massive headache for example), drinking milk causes problem in the lactose intolerant, food allergies in general are a "side effect" of consuming a particular food that our body is unable to process or handle.
Heck even drinking too much water can cause hyponatremia the symptoms of which include:
Pretty much any one of which could be disabling. Perhaps this goes against my general thesis but everything we put into our body causes changes to our body chemistry that can cause problems but you dont see the FAA going and saying "well because some people might experience seizures and changes to their mental state from excess consumption of water, we're not going to permit you to drink water." Yet that's the stance the FAA has with any of the drugs used to treat ADD/ADHD; they're forbodden even if you dont experience a single side effect or you do experience some of the lesser side effects that are not debilitating... Though I will grant that adderall is normally taken with the express purpose of "changing" your mental state, adderall is prohibited even when taken for other reasons.
Again perhaps its a stretch but drinking water in the right amounts (neither too much nor too little) is all about keeping the body chemistry in check so that you avoid the "mental changes" associated with hypo or hyper natremia and/or dehydration. Similarly, eating well balanced meals on a regular schedule is aimed at preventing low blood blood sugar which is known to cause changes in mood and temperament.
Here's one that the FAA not only doesn't seem to care about at all but pretty much actively supports... Humans by nature are inherently dinural (active during the day), while we've developed to the point where we can be active at night and even live semi-nocturnal our bodies still prefer being active during the day and they definitely do not like the disturbances to our circadian rhythms that come with such a change. Yet you dont see the FAA putting a stop to red-eyes (though again I will grant that the FAA did at least finally take a stand on crew rest periods in 2011)
I guess my point in all of this is that the FAA seems to take positions on medications based on the possibility of negative side-effects without consideration of whether the patient has experienced these side-effects or the positive impact of the "intended" side-effect for which the drug was prescribed. And while I recognize the FAA's list of approved medications does in fact refute this statement, I would the some of the approved drugs have side-effects that can be more dangerous and more prevalent than those of adderall yet adderall remains band while other drugs have been permitted.
Whether you, I, the Op or a doctor think the Op is a threat is a matter for a different discussion. The fact remains there is a clear incongruence there between the response of the ATF, FBI and the FAA. Both the ATF and FBI have interviewed him and determined he is a low enough threat risk to himself and others that he could receive a license to acquire otherwise restricted weapons and keep his weapons without further follow-up or inquiry, likely following a complaint made by someone on this board who felt he was a threat where as the FAA wont even entertain the matter/thought. The response is disproportionate and its made all the more disproportionate when you consider which threat profile posed by the firearms vs the pilots license.
Those posts you made to other forums are rather old now... Bear in mind that the FBI took a lot of flak in the wake of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting for their failure to take the threat seriously and follow-up. I would not be surprised that if you made new similar postings, you'd get another visit from the local FBI field office.
We all have opinions. Yours are no more valid than mine. I still don’t accept he was truthful on his gun apps.
Fair. I'm not suggesting my opinion is superior and while I hesitate to make cast judgement on 2 or 3 posts by the OP, I dont know that I would agree with the Op that he doesn't pose a threat based on what is there...
I do however feel like the FBI probably would have taken a closer look at his application and licenses before approaching him; especially in light of his admissions on here though not really sure what he would lie about on his application as he is absolutely correct regarding the requirements for reporting "adjudication as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution" when applying for a firearms license.
The Federal Firearms License Application asks only:
31. Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
And refers you to Definitions 12 & 13 which state:
12. Adjudicated as a Mental Defective - A determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked sub normal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs. This term shall include: (1) a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and (2) those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility.
13.Committed to a Mental Institution - A formal commitment of a to a mental institution by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.
Dont know what state the OP is in but a few states have no further requirements while some others have more stringent requirements however, most state laws similarly seem to require a legally "adjudicated" judgement of mental defect or involuntary commitment. http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-...session-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx
The difference likely has to due one is perceived as a right the other a privilege. Politically and legally a "right" is harder to take away.
You pretty much got it, only two corrections,
1. I do not have my own FFL license, I strongly intend on doing so upon turning 21. I currently volunteer at a gunshop/indoor range the owner of which is a close family friend. Just filling in whenever they need an extra hand helping.
2. It’s not a license for NFA items as an individual, it’s a exercise tax which requires a tax stamp per NFA item. At 19 (turning 20 in two weeks) I am unable to purchase through an FFL on a form 4. However I am able to assemble it on a form 1 which I did, taking advantage of eforms which gives a digital tax stamp.
The receiver which transfers as a title one firearm isn’t a destructive device until one mounts the barrel. https://lmtdefense.com/firearms/lmp300e
Once one fills out the eforms, submits two finger print cards, uploads a digital photo, and pays two hundred dollars to the ATF, and mails a copy to your local chief LEO (since 41f your no longer required to get their signature). You wait 30-50 days for the ATF to respond, once you receive an email of approval, you may order the barrel https://lmtdefense.com/parts/lmp380 . While waiting you engrave your name, city, state into the receiver.
Once all of this is done, and you snapin the barrel, you now have a destructive device.
I did this as RI bans most NFA items but our laws banning MG’s suppressors, ect. Predate 1968 (when the classification of destructive devices was created). I called the ATF back in January and asked if it would be legal to Form 1 a m203 ATF said yes, they checked with the AG’s office who didn’t know that a loophole existed. AG’s office flipped ****, included a provision in the gov’s latest attempt of an AWB banning “grenade launchers”. It doesn’t include any other type of DD’s so registered Molotov cocktails are fine.
That bill ended up dying in committee and session has not ended.
Bingo that’s exactly what I’ve been trying to say!
This is one reason to believe that the FAA’s current aeromedical regime may actually _decrease_ the safety of flight. The regulations may create a much larger population of pilots flying with questionable health in order to avoid the problems with medical certification than the number of possible Lubitz’s they prevent. The ability to predict that kind of behavior is likely to be very poor.
It is a question of risk benefit trade off and I am not aware of studies to suggest that the current probing of mental health conditions by the FAA had improved the safety of flight. I’ve asked many times for references on that - so far nothing.
The bottom line is that FAA is a beurocracy
How about 10s of thousands of people flying with Sport Pilot privileged without any medicals for the last 10 years or so... the relevant accident rates and especially health related accident and mishaps stats have been pretty much the same , no worse and no better - a pretty good study if you ask me.
A terrible study if you ask me. The 10s of thousands operating light sport without a medical is a totally bogus value.
How is that bogus ?
There are about 6 or 7 thousands of actual Sport Pilot pilots plus a lot more folks with expired medicals - hell, most of he LSA plane sales were due to the second group ( recently a lot of these guys converted to Basic Med )
The bottom line is , there were a lot of folks without medicals flying planes of about Cessna 172 performance profile without causing any issues ..
Stop screwing up his argument by presenting facts.
The question is; is this group self selecting and representative? Same goes for BasicMed. Do many of those who select these programs belong to the group of people who are more likely to follow the rule of law, or those who skirt it?
Without a controlled study (which is likely never to be funded) there is no way to know.
And here we have an example of where 87% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Active sport pilot certificate holders as of 12/31/2018: 6,246
Active PPL, CPL, and ATP certificate holders as of 12/31/2018: 425,720.
Not a good study whatsoever.