Food for thought: I see many parallels between depression and alcohol use with regard to flying “qualification”.
We’ve seen a lot of conversations on here about alcohol misadventures and how the FAA addresses them. Some people get upset with the process and “conservatism” of the FAA with regard to heavy drinking. Yet I think few of us push back too hard on the 8-hour rule even though many probably personally believe we’d be safe to fly with just one beer or glass of wine.
Virtually everyone gets depressed to some degree at some point. As with the 8-hour rule, if we are aware our distraction because of the loss of a loved one or a job change or whatever may impact our flying, we know we should “self-ground” until we’re in a better frame of mind. More or less like if we had a beer at lunch.
Alcohol use and depression are both on a continuum (both in quantity and frequency) from none through low likelihood of impact to impairment. The FAA’s job is to protect the public from aviation-related issues. Yes, they’re conservative (and I don’t think it’s because they don’t want to get sued, as she says) and they DO make adjustments along the way (such as SSRIs and even Basic Med).
Understandably, those subject to the consequences of apparently being on the high side of the continuum think the system is broken. Then again, there are people who swear they’re OK to drive after a lot of drinking.
Can the system be improved? Absolutely. But the cost of being conservative is to impact a relative handful of people (who, by the way, at least have a potential way forward in most cases, albeit expensive). The cost of being lenient can kill lots of innocents.
Again, just food for thought.