So I did a bad thing

[John1244]

.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

For the OP. Dr. Chien is an expert on these sort of cases and I think his advice here is spot on.

You may also want to see the main page and FAQs at my FAA medical page at http://tinyurl.com/faaMedicalInfo .

Sorry you are having to deal with the aeromedical bureaucracy.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

just a note on your page:

“Initially the requirements for a private pilot were fairly simple, but they have become much more tricky and intrusive over the years.”

That is not a true statement. The part 67 standards haven’t changed in decades. What’s changed is more doctors are diagnosing conditions more often that don’t meet the standards. Even obstructive sleep apnea has been around for years and has required a special issuance. The difference is now it is diagnosed much more frequently. Yes, the FAA has added addition screening for those who are high risk of OSA.

If anything, the FAA is issuing SIs for more conditions now than ever before.

Thanks for the comments Brad. While that is true about the regulations themselves, I think the drift of the questions asked on the form, their intrusiveness, the guidance given to AMEs, and the FAA’s internal levels of screening have become considerably more intrusive over the years. That is what I was trying to cover more broadly by saying “requirements”.

Also, even the regulations have changed a fair amount since the formation of the CAB, haven’t they?

But if you have a suggestion for a modification to the language on my page which would reflect all these realities in a simple way appropriate for an introductory statement, I would be very happy to hear it and potentially revise.

My own feeling is that saying “the requirements have become more tricky and intrusive” is not a bad lay summary, but there may well be another better way to cover it.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Folks taking some medications have no business flying.
Common side effects of Lexapro and Buspar include:

• Dizziness.
• Drowsiness or fatigue.
• Insomnia.
• Headache.
• Nausea.
• Lightheadedness
• Blurred vision

This is a very common list of side effects. A very large fraction of prescription drugs will have the bolded items as possible side-effects.

That said, if one is experiencing these, whether from medications or other reasons, probably best to be grounded.

Lexapro, or escitalopram, is one of the 4 SSRIs that can be used and still get a medical. Buspirone not.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

???

I believe ROC means Rules of conduct.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Are you required to take a medical/mental health screening in order to register the destructive device?

These normally have to be approved by the local chief LEO, which is normally the Sheriff. I don’t think they do a health screening. Usually a criminal background check if any court ordered mental health treatment.


In terms of his original thread on that, the FAA medical process is much stricter.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

No doubt. But it's a bit disingenuous to say on one hand feds allow him to play with bombs while disallowing him to fly a Cessna 150. The feds allowing him to play with bombs are likely not aware of his history of depression or suicide. At least he didn't mention disclosing it as part of the process,

I'm not sure if you truly mean "disingenuous" here? That would sort of be an attack on the speaker and I don't think we know enough about him or having any reason to believe he was lying. See the definition - "Definition of disingenuous : lacking in candoralso : giving a false appearance of simple frankness".

Did you voluntarily disclose your mental health history?

He is under no obligation to do so as part of that form, I don't believe.

Getting a bit off in the weeds from what I think is his main point - namely - that there is a strong difference between Federal agencies in the level of assurance of safety required to engage in potentially risk activities relative to their level of risk. I don't think he meant that the same people were somehow being inconsistent.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I meant exactly as written. The poster was suggesting that the feds are okay with him handling explosives with his medical condition, but not okay with him flying. The reality is the feds who authorized him to handle explosives (the BATFE) is not aware of his mental health history; they are only aware that he has no criminal history associated with it. Big difference.

Yes, but I don't understand how that makes the speaker disingenuous, i.e. lacking in candor or giving a false appearance of simple frankness? I suspect you mean there is some other problem with his argument here. Like it is not a proper comparison of like items, or something like that. But don't really understand your meaning.

I mean, for him to say that "the Feds", meaning the Federal government as a whole, are ok with him handling explosives and are inconsistent with allowing him not to fly due to his medical condition, seems to me an open and honest argument. It doesn't strike me he is trying to be subtle or hide something about it.

One could perhaps argue that there is no requirement that the Federal government apply the same risk criteria to all activities, or that that would not be good policy, or that it is simply an unrealistic expectation given the size of the Federal government, all potential arguments. But none of those suggest to me disingenuity of the speaker.