Time for FAA Psychiatric Illness Reform

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Don't get me wrong, Peter, I appreciate your arguments and I think these things are worth debating.

Thanks for the kind words. Definitely agree it is worth politely discussing/debating.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Perhaps a bit of a misunderstanding there. I would consider people stealing other people’s property to be clear and present danger to the rights of the people whose property being stolen.

Seems quite clear to me and a perfect case where enforcement of people’s rights through a law and ultimate threat of physical coercion is clearly called for!

People have a natural right to defend themselves and their families through the use of lethal force if necessary. And the right to defend their property through the use of force in an adjudicated process.

The case of the possible danger from someone flying without a FAA medical certificate is considerably more remote.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

While you have the right to lobby for changes, likewise others have the right to lobby for the status quo. That includes corporations who have an economic safety interest.

Interesting question about corporations. They do not have natural rights and can’t vote, so that is the argument that they shouldn’t be permitted to lobby for the outcome of voting.

The counterpoint of course being that they have a right to freely express themselves, representing the speech of their stockholders. Presently that is the law of the land.

In any case, I would suggest in the case of aviation medicals that they be permitted to make their own determinations of what is required of their pilots using their property. Might work better to let them and their insurance companies decide on appropriate safety procedures (and hold them legally responsible for all damages caused by use or abuse of their aircraft). That puts the economic incentives more in line with liability and safety.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Peter, when you started this you used the term, "clear and present danger to others", now you have changed it to "clear and present danger to the rights of the people". Those are two different things! Please stick with an argument so it can be debated accordingly.

Firstly sorry for any confusion. And thank you for the polite request for clarification. I thought that in the context it was clear that clear and present danger to others would apply to both physical injury and any other rights. But happy to clarify and continue the discussion using the clarified terms.

So if I understand your comments correctly, according to you, if someone steals property without endangering others, they should not be punished.

I would have thought my post just prior would clarify this, but no, it is NOT my position that people who steal property without physically endangering others should not be punished. I agree however with the law in Arizona that the mere theft of property is not legal grounds for the immediate use of deadly force by the owner. Rather, such punishment should be administered through appropriate objective channels where all the facts can be heard and adjudicated in due course. There are obvious special conditions such as the burglar fleeing the scene of a crime and refusing to stop when commanded by the police and apparently presenting a danger to the safety of others in the course of said flight.

REF your previous comment: So this could be used for things society thinks is bad, but for which there is no clear evidence that it presents a clear and present danger to others"

In terms of the clarified definitions above, for that hypothetical, I would say that such a procedure could be use for things society thinks are bad, but for which there is no clear evidence that it presents a clear and present danger to the safety or rights of other people. (I can see how this may have caused confusion.)

As for the flying without a medical, that could go either way. It may, or may not pose a danger to others.

Basically I would agree to the extent that I think there is no good evidence that the requirement for a third class medical improves the safety of others or their rights on an aggregate statistical basis.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

No, my answer is that this is an academic discussion, because the answer already exists. In this country, the legislative, executive and judicial branches decide. That's the bottom line. They legislate, sign legislation into law, and respond to constitutional challenges to laws, respectively. What principle I think should be used is irrelevant. It's already been decided.

Of course I am an academic, so debating abstractions and hypotheticals seems quite normal to me. Indeed, it is much of what academics do for a living. Nonetheless, let's consider from that perspective then.

What do you think are the principles the FAA uses governing and deciding which aviation regulations are currently in place and in use, particularly as regards aeromedical testing issues?

Qualitative answers might be -- they have none, safety at all costs, anything not unduly burdensome, etc.

Or less abstractly with an example (though still hypothetical). Scientists have developed a new genetic test (administered with just a cheek swab) which can identify a subset of the prospective pilot population who will always have great difficulty properly judging the attitude of the aircraft relative to the horizon. When such a person flies, they have a 6 per 100k hours of flight chance of a fatality (thus about 6 times the normal fatal accident rate), which which will involve other people 50% of the time . These people are about 10% of the prospective pilot population.

Does the FAA choose to require this test as part of the medical application and deny issuance of a certificate if the person tests positive? More importantly, what guiding principles and reasoning do they use to make that decision?