Hacker News Reader

Comment by protonbob | Hacker News Reader

The FFA also tells me that because I took an low dose antidepressant in my teens for anxiety, I can't get a private pilot's license without either lying or paying tens of thousands of dollars in fees to prove that I am not suicidal. So not the most up to date organization.

View on HN

Now imagine what effect that has on commercial pilots who are already working, and want to seek medical help for mental health issues. Risk losing your medical, and your job, or just carry on as if everything's fine?

Meanwhile Andreas lubitz was known to have depression and be suicidal but was given the greenlight to continue flying.

They do this to everyone with ADHD as well. They don't understand the condition and have a lot of weird 1950s assumptions. You can't be medicated and fly and if you're diagnosed but unmedicated you need to go through extremely expensive testing. As a result everyone just hides it.

Yet the (military) Air Force uses modafinil?

Presumably to promote wakefulness, not for its benefits for ADHD.

The point being the medication has no effect on ones ability to safely operate an aircraft.

The issue is, yes, there are ADHD cases that are debilitating but they typically don't even make it out of training. If you're managing the condition through therapy and potentially medication there isn't an issue but the FAA fails to recognize that neurodivergence isn't binary.

A significant chunk of the pilot population has ADHD, it's common enough to basically be a meme in the community because the career/hobby is especially appealing to those that have it.

When military considered it fine to give amphetamines to pilots, it also considered it fine to run soldiers through still hot ground zero of nuclear explosion (so hot the boots would melt), or purposefully release radionuclides over american cities to research the effects.

Military isn't necessarily a good benchmark for sane ideas.

And before they switched to modafinil, they gave pilots (wait for it...) amphetamines.

It's total nonsense and the entire aeromedical division should be razed and rebuilt from the ground up.

I've got my PPL and refuse to go to see a psychiatrist or anyone who might diagnose me simply for the fact that if I'm told I'm "depressed" and might have to medicated for it, I could ironically lose the one hobby in the world that makes me happiest.

Same. I'd love a therapist and sleep study. But alas.

The special issuance process for medical after the use of anti-depressants is not as bad as described for cases where a medical should reasonably be (specially-)issued.

If you're interested in flying, I'd look more closely into the SI process. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/av...

I'm in the same boat as the GP. Talked to a few AMEs about my options back in 2019. SI involves thousands of dollars per year and and only applies to a few relatively old SSRI drugs. Ideally they want you to discontinue your psychiatric drug treatment – great job, FAA.

There's also the BasicMed rules. You can fly with BasicMed instead of 3rd class, but you need to have had a 3rd class to get the BasicMed, so I suggested to the AME that I could drop the drugs for 2 months, get the 3rd class, and then immediately apply for the BasicMed and hop back on whatever I was taking in the first place. One guy refused to talk to me after that.

Wait, you can fly with 3rd class? If the classes are the same as in europe...

I had to take 2nd class for gliders (1st class is required for ATPL/CPL only, I believe)

3rd class or BadicMed for private pilot, 2nd class for Commercial, 1st for Airline.

> so I suggested to the AME that I could drop the drugs for 2 months, get the 3rd class, and then immediately apply for the BasicMed and hop back on whatever I was taking in the first place. One guy refused to talk to me after that.

Unfortunately, despite what their flowcharts say, it actually doesn't work like that if you've been taking the prescription for any length of time. They don't actually follow their little flowchart. You will need the full special issuance.

What you described you can get away with ONLY IF you've never applied before and they have no record of you ever being on the medication. That AME likely did you a huge favor by not talking to you after that.

Technically, `hopping back on' you would still be violating the law because the Basic Med allows you to self-certify but the rules are the same. On the other hand you can pay for SI once and then switch to Basic Med (since the rules are that you had a valid 3rd class medical before switching to Basic Med). There are many AMEs around, talk to another one but do not reveal your plans after you get the medical.

The basic interaction model with government should be “answer their legitimate questions truthfully, but do not volunteer extraneous information.”

I'm going through the process right now. It is every bit as bad as described.

I don't think it's a matter of being "up to date" but rather about being risk adverse. There's much more downside for a false negative (approving someone who is suicidal) than false positive (disapproving someone who isn't). So they will err on having more false positives.

Bureaucracies tend toward being risk adverse, and it can lead to bad incentives that create inefficiency and lack of innovation. As the saying goes, "nobody ever got fired for hiring IBM."

I would say the risks of having a driver’s license and driving into people is pretty similar to the risk of flying a small plane to the general public but the red tape is not there.

Fair point, but I think the risk of not giving people drivers licenses is quite a bit greater. Not too many people fly their Cessna's to work. But prohibiting people from driving would have a major impact on the economy. There's also a larger political risk since the share of people who would be unhappy with such a policy would be orders of magnitude larger.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com