FAA, great decision guys...

[Bazz]

...how daft is this

From the above link:

"FAA Insists Public Safe on Planes With Depressed, Medicated Pilots"

Thanks Neil for reformatting the link, not so easy to do on the iPhone!


Sent from my iPhone

I don't think it is daft at all.

Someone who has recognised they have a problem and who is having it treated is to be applauded.

The meds today for depression are way more advanced than they used to be, they still have side effects but are no where was bad as before.

I would far rather have a pilot who is being monitored etc than one who has kept it a secret and who is still on meds but who is not.

That applies to any medical condition and not just depression.

[Nottingham Nick]

I tend to agree with Tonty.

I would much sooner be flown by someone receiving proper medication, than someone who has a major problem but is afraid to come clean about it for fear of being banned from flying.

Can't say I know too much about it, but hope the people at the FAA are taking advice from people who know what they are talking about.

Nick

Not daft at all IMHO. Reading it, it sounds reasonably well thought out. If pilots had to suppress and hide their depression it would be much more dangerous.

[Bazz]

I think it good that pilots should be allowed to fly when they are taking one of the four prescribed anti-depressants and they are being regularly monitored. The 70 year old rule has been superseded by medical science and new safer drugs. What I feel is daft is the way this has been set-up.

Personally I feel six monthly examinations by a psychiatrist is a little too long between examinations but I would hope this is a moving goal post depending on individual circumstances.

I completely agree with the piece that by forcing pilots who come forward under the six month amnesty and agree to take treatment, to take a mandatory 12 months off from their careers may defeat the object. I fully understand the medical reasons for this however many will not be in a financial position to do this, potentially driving the problem further underground. I feel it would have been better if some sort of agreement with the industry/employers could have been reached to protect these individuals jobs, it would have encouraged more to hold their hand up and come forward for treatment. (The ALPA have yet to comment.)

According to the piece, a 2009 study by Columbia University revealed that 10% of the US population take anti-depressants. The piece also states that there are 600,000 licenced pilots in the US and of those 124,000 fly commercial aircraft. That gives us 60,000 licenced pilots of which 12,400 commercial pilots who may be taking these drugs, this is not a small number.

This could become a big issue and I for one would not like to be in an aircraft flown by someone who's balance of mind is disturbed. If these changes mean there is a greater chance of someone flying an aircraft when they may be experiencing one or more of these symptoms: increased irritability, insomnia, slowed thinking, decreased concentration, fatigue, trouble making decisions, and suicidal thoughts, I feel there ought to be a better way.

Do we discount the Pilot's personal physician/doctor who would prescribe these drugs in the full knowledge of their profession?
Do we completely discount the Pilot's own professionalism - and judgement, if informed, of their own condition when they know full well what the consequences could be if they fly while impaired?

Too often we second guess professionals - both of them concerned. But if regulation impairs or prevents professional judgement it must be bad. Surely over-regulation is worse than no regulation at all.

Draconian over-regulation (current complete ban) can force the only decision on a single person who could medicate without any proper medical judgement.

Is not a 12 month ban still too much?
How can 6 months be inadequate when three professionals have to "sign off" the individual concerned - The Pilot, his Doctor and a Specialist?

I would feel much safer that a Pilot would feel fully able to go and both consult and medicate without excessive penalties - but also to have three professional opinions rather than one (which is possibly impaired!)