3rd Class Med and Anti-depressants [Archive]

View Full Version : 3rd Class Med and Anti-depressants

Don Martin

July 20th 03, 04:04 AM

Greetings:

I take an anti-depresant (LexaPro) and I know that FAA won't allow it.
Personally, I have no problem saying "FO" to the FAA (damn
bureaucrats).

Anyhow, can anyone tell me if current 3rd class exams do a drug test
of any kind (blood, unrine)? If they don't I have no problem
falsifying the form, after all one of our presidents lied under oath
and nobody cared, right??

Secondly, if I succeed in getting a 3rd Class under such "false
pretenses", what happens to my insurance in case of an "incident" of
some sort? Can my insurance carrier refuse to honor a claim because
my med cert wasn't really legal??

Would it make a difference if it's determined afterward that my taking
the drug in no way contributed to the cause? (like the landing gear
won't extend, I belly the sucker in and the insurer tries to deny
coverage).

I welcome answers from all, but am especially interested in those
familar with the laws (attorneys??), doctors who perform FAA exams or
perhaps someone who is already doing what I've mentioned above (NO I
*ain't* the FAA).

I especially DON'T want to hear from those wishing to "scold", lecture
or "preach" to me, or tell me what a jerk I am for considering such a
thing. I've been a pilot for 40 years, have never so much as scratched
an airplane or made a passenger sick, and to some degree *I* know
what's best for me. So, to those few with the holier-than-thou
attitudes please keep your responses to yourself; I won't even bother
to read them.

Of course I want to have the ticker and blood pressure, eyesight and
everthing else that's REALLY important checked properly by a qualified
medical examiner, in order to be as safe as I can for myself and
everyone else. But I can tell you that it'd be FAR better for me to
be flying around USING the drugs, than going off them to get the
medical and THEN flying. THAT would be far more potentially dangerous
than being on the drug, trust me.

Private EMail response welcomed at

Regards

D M

CP-ASMEL I

Larry Rodriguez

July 20th 03, 05:35 AM

Thomas Wong

July 20th 03, 09:13 AM

Question, why can't you get off the anti depressants? I'm currently a
student pilot and once I found out that taking Anti depressants is a no-no,
I arranged with my doctor to get off my happy pills (zoloft, wellbutrin, and
Depokote). I must admitt that it was really hard, but I can't and won't give
up the thought of getting my pilots license. Try working with your doc on
getting off your med's if possible.

For all ya pilots out there that suffer from Depression it's not the end of
the world, I suffer from Major Clinical Depression all my life, but the
last few years I let it get out of control when I lost my job. Still
unemployed but at my choice. While everbody else is working a 9-5 i'm
working on my pilots license!

Happy flying!

"Don Martin" > wrote in message
om...
> Greetings:
>
> I take an anti-depresant (LexaPro) and I know that FAA won't allow it.
> Personally, I have no problem saying "FO" to the FAA (damn
> bureaucrats).
>
> Anyhow, can anyone tell me if current 3rd class exams do a drug test
> of any kind (blood, unrine)? If they don't I have no problem
> falsifying the form, after all one of our presidents lied under oath
> and nobody cared, right??
>
> Secondly, if I succeed in getting a 3rd Class under such "false
> pretenses", what happens to my insurance in case of an "incident" of
> some sort? Can my insurance carrier refuse to honor a claim because
> my med cert wasn't really legal??
>
> Would it make a difference if it's determined afterward that my taking
> the drug in no way contributed to the cause? (like the landing gear
> won't extend, I belly the sucker in and the insurer tries to deny
> coverage).
>
> I welcome answers from all, but am especially interested in those
> familar with the laws (attorneys??), doctors who perform FAA exams or
> perhaps someone who is already doing what I've mentioned above (NO I
> *ain't* the FAA).
>
> I especially DON'T want to hear from those wishing to "scold", lecture
> or "preach" to me, or tell me what a jerk I am for considering such a
> thing. I've been a pilot for 40 years, have never so much as scratched
> an airplane or made a passenger sick, and to some degree *I* know
> what's best for me. So, to those few with the holier-than-thou
> attitudes please keep your responses to yourself; I won't even bother
> to read them.
>
> Of course I want to have the ticker and blood pressure, eyesight and
> everthing else that's REALLY important checked properly by a qualified
> medical examiner, in order to be as safe as I can for myself and
> everyone else. But I can tell you that it'd be FAR better for me to
> be flying around USING the drugs, than going off them to get the
> medical and THEN flying. THAT would be far more potentially dangerous
> than being on the drug, trust me.
>
> Private EMail response welcomed at
>
> Regards
>
> D M
>
> CP-ASMEL I

Steve House

July 20th 03, 01:40 PM

Just something to consider. One of the potential side effects of many
anti-depressants is sudden siezures, which can occur without warning and
even after a considerable time taking the drug without having any prior
problems. For a PIC this is not good. I am not a doctor and not privy to
the FAA's reasoning but my guess is that is one of the primary reasons that
they are prohibited. Heck, being banned even when they're being taken for
non-psychiatric reasons, like prohibiting Zyban taken as an aid to stop
smoking, indicates there's something else in the logic besides concern over
the emotional state of the pilot.

"Don Martin" > wrote in message
om...
> Greetings:
>
> I take an anti-depresant (LexaPro) and I know that FAA won't allow it.
> Personally, I have no problem saying "FO" to the FAA (damn
> bureaucrats).
>
> Anyhow, can anyone tell me if current 3rd class exams do a drug test
>

G.R. Patterson III

July 20th 03, 06:12 PM

Larry Rodriguez wrote:
>
> You don't consider the brain to be _REALLY important_ ?

Personally, I'm wondering if someone out there hates the real Don Martin badly
enough to post this? If someone would post the fact that they are taking a
disqualifying drug and intend to falsify the medical exam application and then
sign their real name to it, I would agree that they are "lacking substantially
in the judgement area" (as you so nicely put it).

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

Don Martin

July 20th 03, 10:35 PM

Thanks for that thought. I have already considered that and my
psychiatrist says that since I've been on the drug for three years
with never a hint of any side effect, then the chance of a seizure is
so infintesimal as to be non-existant. Actually, Wellbutrin if far
more likely to cause seizures, than either Celexa or LexaPro (more
refined version of Celexa). I've been on Celexa since 1999 (20 mg per
day) and just recently switched to LexaPro at half that dosage.

Consider that at 60 (my age), it's quite easy to get a very "clean"
EKG at noon and be dead of a heart attack at 13:00. It happens, so
what's the difference??? Either way the plane is coming down. Heart
attack or seizure it makes no difference.

FWIW, my wife, with no ratings at all, but VERY competent at the
controls would be in the right seat on almost every flight. She flies
better from the right seat than I do!!

To the person that mentioned getting off the drug.... I can do that,
but if so I become the irritable, suffer severe anxiety attacks, am
quite hard to get along with, etc. But the best part is that it makes
my tolerance for a**holes extremely high!! 8-)

I've suffered this maldady all my life as did my father and his
mother.... It's hereditary. But it's just in the last 3 years that
I've been treated chemically. My qualify of life is so improved with
the drug that it's incredible.

Thank you both for you **constructive** and helpful responses.

D M

"Steve House" > wrote in message >...
> Just something to consider. One of the potential side effects of many
> anti-depressants is sudden siezures, which can occur without warning and
> even after a considerable time taking the drug without having any prior
> problems. For a PIC this is not good. I am not a doctor and not privy to
> the FAA's reasoning but my guess is that is one of the primary reasons that
> they are prohibited. Heck, being banned even when they're being taken for
> non-psychiatric reasons, like prohibiting Zyban taken as an aid to stop
> smoking, indicates there's something else in the logic besides concern over
> the emotional state of the pilot.
>

Gordon Young

July 20th 03, 10:46 PM

Pilots are held to a higher standard than the rest of the population when it
comes to mental health medications. There are millions of people driving
heavy metal down expressways every day while on the same drugs that
disqualify pilots. Is this fair? I don't think so.

Richard Kaplan

July 21st 03, 12:35 AM

"Don Martin" > wrote in message
om...

> FWIW, my wife, with no ratings at all, but VERY competent at the
> controls would be in the right seat on almost every flight. She flies
> better from the right seat than I do!!

So perhaps your wife should get her private certificate and a medical. Then
you could legally fly in the left seat all you want as long as she is in the
right seat.
This is probably the simplest solution -- even if you had strong letters of
support from physicians, an initial Special Issuance takes at least 4-6
months. Your wife could easily have her private certificate in less time
than that, and then your problem is solved.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Roger Halstead

July 21st 03, 01:34 AM

On 19 Jul 2003 20:04:13 -0700, (Don Martin)
wrote:

>Greetings:
>
>I take an anti-depresant (LexaPro) and I know that FAA won't allow it.
> Personally, I have no problem saying "FO" to the FAA (damn
>bureaucrats).
>

<snip>
>Of course I want to have the ticker and blood pressure, eyesight and
>everthing else that's REALLY important checked properly by a qualified
>medical examiner, in order to be as safe as I can for myself and
>everyone else. But I can tell you that it'd be FAR better for me to
>be flying around USING the drugs, than going off them to get the

>medical and THEN flying. THAT would be far more potentially dangerous
>than being on the drug, trust me.

"I think" the general population wouldn't understand that last
sentence, or what's behind it.

>

"As I understand" this hot potato is being worked on.

Contrary to what some on here seem to think, many of the drugs are
safe. It's more the psychological background that worries the FAA..
Many patients get to feeling good, think they don't need the meds so
they quit taking them and end up back at square one where they can be
a hazard. Others won't admit they need them so they only take them for
a short while.

In short, the FAA doesn't want pilots with clinical depression flying
around.

"The last I heard" the FAA was taking this type of problem under
consideration.

If they ever do OK applicants using anti depressants it will probably
be with the requirement that they periodically have a checkup to prove
they are taking the meds and that the meds are working. OR...IF off
the meds, they are no longer needed.

My stand on this has softened some what over the years, and is based
on knowing a number of individuals who suffered from clinical
depression which "as I understand" is often, but not always, caused by
a chemical imbalance in the brain.

Two committed suicide, a couple are unable to work, one can't hold a
job (which is different), and many are living normal lives. I know
one entire family that sufferes from clinical depression. Medication
has done wonders for all but one of the members.

It's the tendency for people to quit taking their meds that has had me
opposing the passing of the medical for such cases in the past, but
having known a number who stay on the meds and are living normal lives
has me questioning the FAA's stance on these drugs.

*Some* of the drugs would be disqualifying just by their side effects
while others would not. OTOH, like antihistamines which put some
people to sleep and leave others apparently unaffected. I think
evaluations need to be done on an individual basis.

Unfortunately I don't think we are going to see that kind of approach
from an understaffed bureaucracy that feels a need for CYA any time
soon.

Pilots themselves tend to be highly polarized on this issue and many
of them don't understand (or have the wrong understanding) the
reasoning the FAA uses for disqualifying an individual taking those
drugs.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

>Private EMail response welcomed at
>
>Regards
>
>D M
>
>CP-ASMEL I

Roger Halstead

July 21st 03, 09:56 AM

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 01:20:43 GMT, "Richard Kaplan"
> wrote:

>
>
>"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Pilots themselves tend to be highly polarized on this issue and many
>> of them don't understand (or have the wrong understanding) the
>> reasoning the FAA uses for disqualifying an individual taking those
>> drugs.
>
>Take a look at the pilot "reasoning" in the initial post... Presuming this
>is a real post and not a troll, do you think the FAA is far off the mark?

Not as far as I used to.
I have a bit of a time understanding "clinical depression" as I've
never suffered any form of depression, other than feeling bad when my
dog got run over when I was a kid. Feeling bad about something, or
unhappy due to a reason such as that is not depression.

"As I understand", basically there are those who take the meds and
live normal lives, there are those who take them and still have
problems, there are those who take the meds which work, but have side
effects, and there are a good many who won't admit to a problem and
don't take the meds. Only the first would be safe to fly.

As I stated in one of the other posts, the FAA doesn't want pilots
with clinical depression flying around, nor do I. They can easily end
up like the kid in Florida that stuck the trainer into the side of a
bank building. Who knows how many drivers have decided to cross the
centerline into oncoming traffic?

IF they can verify they are taking meds that do not cause problems AND
do not suffer symptoms while taking it, I see no problem with them
flying...HOWEVER it's that verification and the percentage that keep
quitting the meds that bothers me. It also means the FAA is stuck
with the knowledge if they pass some one, that sooner or later some
one on the meds might forget, or just quit and the results would leave
the reporters having a field day.

I don't see a sure fire way of knowing they are taking the medications
regularly and that they are working.

Even regular checkups are no guarantee.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

Steve House

July 21st 03, 01:01 PM

There's a fourth possibility to consider as well as the options you listed.
That would be the pilots who do need the medications to counter moderate
symptoms but quit or refuse to take them in order to pass/keep their
medical. In that case the restrictions actually are a proximate cause of
the very hazards they are intended to fight and that too could present a
hazard.

These days many physicians will prescribe anti-depressants for life
situations where in the past they would not have been considered. A day
doesn't go by that we don't see television ads for Zoloft and others -
indeed I read somewhere recently that Zoloft was the #1 most frequently
prescribed drug in North America of any type.

Used to be that only someone who markedly dysfunctional and had been
evaluated by a psychiatrist would be a candidate for psychotropic
medication. Nowadays many people who do not have pronounced clinical
symptoms that would justify a psychiatric consultation but feel they might
function *better* with some pharmaceutical help, will happily be given a
script by their family doctor.

Then we have cases of the same drug marketed under different names.
Wellbutrin as an anti-depressant and Zyban as a smoking cessation aid is a
case in point. Same medication, same dosage, same absorption rates,
identical in every respect.

I wonder if some of this may not be a beaurocratic attitude esconced in the
regs from the days of yore when *all* pilots were somehow expected to have
"The Right Stuff" like Billy Mitchell, Chuck Yeager, Jackie Cochran, or the
astronauts, and people who exhibited any weaknesses, especially emotional
weaknesses, were considered lesser quality individuals that needed to be
washed out of the program.

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
>
> IF they can verify they are taking meds that do not cause problems AND
> do not suffer symptoms while taking it, I see no problem with them
> flying...HOWEVER it's that verification and the percentage that keep
> quitting the meds that bothers me. It also means the FAA is stuck
> with the knowledge if they pass some one, that sooner or later some
> one on the meds might forget, or just quit and the results would leave
> the reporters having a field day.
>

Ron Natalie

July 21st 03, 07:38 PM

"Steve House" > wrote in message ...
> Just something to consider. One of the potential side effects of many
> anti-depressants is sudden siezures,

Let's stick to the facts here. The FAA doesn't ban antidepressents because
of the side effects, and none of the current popular ones has such a side effect.

Steve House

July 21st 03, 08:49 PM

I don't know anything about all the reasons behind the FAA's rational in
banning antidpressants but I know t for certain that siezures as a potential
side effect of Wellbutrin/Zyban. But if it's just the underlying
psychiatric condition that is the sole reason for the ban, why is the use of
Zyban as an aid to quitting smoking also a prohibited drug? As I mentioned
before, Zyban and Wellbutrin are the same drug in the same dosage from the
same manufacturer - the ONLY difference is in the labeling.

Here's one site that details the side effects and the siezure risk for
buproprion (Zyban/Wellbutrin)
http://www.thememoryhole.org/health/zyban-update.htm
and another
http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/buprop.htm

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Steve House" > wrote in message
...
> > Just something to consider. One of the potential side effects of many
> > anti-depressants is sudden siezures,
>
> Let's stick to the facts here. The FAA doesn't ban antidepressents
because
> of the side effects, and none of the current popular ones has such a side
effect.
>
>

Don Martin

July 21st 03, 10:18 PM

>
> >medical and THEN flying. THAT would be far more potentially dangerous
> >than being on the drug, trust me.
>
> "I think" the general population wouldn't understand that last
> sentence, or what's behind it.
>
> >
Hmmmm..... *I* don't understand your comment. What I meant by my
original remark is that (assuming no problem such as seizures), my
mental outlook is 10 times better on the drug than without the drug.
From a personal standpoint (in other words *ME*) I am safe either way.
I've suffered the condition all my life, flew professionally for many
years and as mentioned before have never dinged a bird or sickened a
passenger. If I were to quit the meds today, in no way would I be
dangerous; I've NEVER on my worst day considered suicide.

Let me give a couple of example to those who've never suffered
depression or one of it's "sub categories" (there are many). Take
for example, "road rage". If you've NEVER gotten ****ed off at some
damn fool in traffic, then you probably have no depressive symptoms at
all.

When I don't take the drug, I can sometimes get into situations where
I'd *like* to kick someones tail, but I'd NEVER do it. With the drug,
when some jerk does a real stupid thing, even if it potentially
endangers me, I have no such feelings. I just sort of "laugh it off".
I figure *HE'S* got bigger problems than I.

Another example.... Without the drug I have much better days when the
sun is shining that I do on dreary days. This is the SAD (seasionally
affected disorder) sub-category of depression. Using the drug, I
rarely even notice if it's sunny or cloudy.... In other words I'm
just as happy either way.

Third example.... Without the drug, I'd have visciously blasted those
one or two individuals who (even though my original post said I didn't
wanna hear of their opinionated crap) posted chiding types of messages
anyhow. I'd have ripped them a new one (verbally).

With the drug, I just ignore them; in fact, more than likely THEY
could benefit greatly from the same meds I take. Does the cliche
"Wound too tight" seem appropriate?? It should, 'cause that's another
sympton of depression.

Hopefully, this will shed a little further light on me. I am NOT a
troll an the origination of this whole thread was sincere. Obviously
my real name is NOT Don Martin. I am old enough (and experienced
enough, having been a federal employee for several years) to
understand federal government bureaucracy and how some damn fool in a
high place can make an arbitrary (but stupid) decision that negatively
affects the lives of thousands for no real ligit reason at all.

Oh, to the person who suggested getting the wife a rating.... She
can't hold a medical either and has been that way all her life.

Once again, my thanks to all who've commented, especially those with
the fine thoughts/ideas.

D M

Don Martin

July 21st 03, 10:37 PM

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message news:<4adc3484d24aec339332655478c79820@TeraNews>...
> "Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Pilots themselves tend to be highly polarized on this issue and many
> > of them don't understand (or have the wrong understanding) the
> > reasoning the FAA uses for disqualifying an individual taking those
> > drugs.
>
> Take a look at the pilot "reasoning" in the initial post... Presuming this
> is a real post and not a troll, do you think the FAA is far off the mark?

So Richard...... What's wrong with my "reasoning"??

Also, you mentioned (don't have the quote exactly) something about
"they're working on this hot potato".....

Yeah, right.... They've been working on if for YEARS. Since I'm now
60 and would probably not fly much past 70, then if the bureaucrats
just drag their feet for 10 more years (a few seconds in fed govt
time) then it'll all be a moot point anyhow. See, contrary to the
couple that think I'm such a jerk because of my attitude, *I* will be
smart enough to know when I'm no longer safe and will "hang it up"
without having to be told by the FAA. I won't drive(fly?) thru a
crowd like that idiot in CA.

Oh yeah, I thought of one more example for those that think the the
Feds always "know best". Anyone remember the oil crisis of the early
70's??? 55 MPH, right?? Oil crisis definitely over with by what,
1977, 1978??? And 55 MPH limit stayed around until when??? Sometime
in the early to mid 90's???

Yet how many folks religiously drove that speed on the interstate
highway for all those years??? And how many bought radar detectors
and said "screw the 55 HP limit"?? Hmmmm? The only difference is
that I'm honest enough to admit I don't mind breaking the law,
especially STUPID laws.

BTW Richard, don't take this post as a personal slam. Your posts in
this thread have been quite imformative and thoughtful. I *DO* wonder
what you meant by the quoted comment, though. You think I'm a "nut
case"?? 8-)

Regards

D M

Ted Huffmire

July 23rd 03, 08:15 PM

Personally, I would rather that the pilots
who are depressed take their medications.
Wouldn't you?

The aviation medical examiner people must be
dinosaurs if they still attach a stigma to
depression. Didn't it take a big fight to
get them to let HIV+ people fly? My conjecture
is that their reluctance was likely caused
by prejudice.

I'm certain that the insurance company would
use the anti-depressant issue to get out of
paying any claim that resulted from an
accident.

Ted

Don Martin wrote:
>
> Greetings:
>
> I take an anti-depresant (LexaPro) and I know that FAA won't allow it.
> Personally, I have no problem saying "FO" to the FAA (damn
> bureaucrats).
>
> Anyhow, can anyone tell me if current 3rd class exams do a drug test
> of any kind (blood, unrine)? If they don't I have no problem
> falsifying the form, after all one of our presidents lied under oath
> and nobody cared, right??
>
> Secondly, if I succeed in getting a 3rd Class under such "false
> pretenses", what happens to my insurance in case of an "incident" of
> some sort? Can my insurance carrier refuse to honor a claim because
> my med cert wasn't really legal??
>
> Would it make a difference if it's determined afterward that my taking
> the drug in no way contributed to the cause? (like the landing gear
> won't extend, I belly the sucker in and the insurer tries to deny
> coverage).
>
> I welcome answers from all, but am especially interested in those
> familar with the laws (attorneys??), doctors who perform FAA exams or
> perhaps someone who is already doing what I've mentioned above (NO I
> *ain't* the FAA).
>
> I especially DON'T want to hear from those wishing to "scold", lecture
> or "preach" to me, or tell me what a jerk I am for considering such a
> thing. I've been a pilot for 40 years, have never so much as scratched
> an airplane or made a passenger sick, and to some degree *I* know
> what's best for me. So, to those few with the holier-than-thou
> attitudes please keep your responses to yourself; I won't even bother
> to read them.
>
> Of course I want to have the ticker and blood pressure, eyesight and
> everthing else that's REALLY important checked properly by a qualified
> medical examiner, in order to be as safe as I can for myself and
> everyone else. But I can tell you that it'd be FAR better for me to
> be flying around USING the drugs, than going off them to get the
> medical and THEN flying. THAT would be far more potentially dangerous
> than being on the drug, trust me.
>
> Private EMail response welcomed at
>
> Regards
>
> D M
>
> CP-ASMEL I

Don Martin

August 5th 03, 01:55 AM

Ted:

Thanks for your comments. I find it "interesting" how quickly this
thread has "died" as soon as most readers figured out 1. I am serious,
and 2. will not be intimidated by the FAA "rule mongers". Quite
frankly it's an IDIOTIC rule and breaking it is of no consequence to
me whatsoever.

None of my original points have ever been addressed, except by your
reply. I fear you are correct, the ins comp will look for ANY reason
to disallow ANY claim, no matter how much of a "stretch" it is. That
is my biggest worry with the whole thing.

Regards

D M

Ted Huffmire > wrote in message >...
> Personally, I would rather that the pilots
> who are depressed take their medications.
> Wouldn't you?
>
> The aviation medical examiner people must be
> dinosaurs if they still attach a stigma to
> depression. Didn't it take a big fight to
> get them to let HIV+ people fly? My conjecture
> is that their reluctance was likely caused
> by prejudice.
>
> I'm certain that the insurance company would
> use the anti-depressant issue to get out of
> paying any claim that resulted from an
> accident.
>
> Ted
>
> Don Martin wrote:
> >
> > Greetings:
> >
> > I take an anti-depresant (LexaPro) and I know that FAA won't allow it.
> > Personally, I have no problem saying "FO" to the FAA (damn
> > bureaucrats).
> >
> > Anyhow, can anyone tell me if current 3rd class exams do a drug test
> > of any kind (blood, unrine)? If they don't I have no problem
> > falsifying the form, after all one of our presidents lied under oath
> > and nobody cared, right??
> >
> > Secondly, if I succeed in getting a 3rd Class under such "false
> > pretenses", what happens to my insurance in case of an "incident" of
> > some sort? Can my insurance carrier refuse to honor a claim because
> > my med cert wasn't really legal??
> >
> > Would it make a difference if it's determined afterward that my taking
> > the drug in no way contributed to the cause? (like the landing gear
> > won't extend, I belly the sucker in and the insurer tries to deny
> > coverage).
> >
> > I welcome answers from all, but am especially interested in those
> > familar with the laws (attorneys??), doctors who perform FAA exams or
> > perhaps someone who is already doing what I've mentioned above (NO I
> > *ain't* the FAA).
> >
> > I especially DON'T want to hear from those wishing to "scold", lecture
> > or "preach" to me, or tell me what a jerk I am for considering such a
> > thing. I've been a pilot for 40 years, have never so much as scratched
> > an airplane or made a passenger sick, and to some degree *I* know
> > what's best for me. So, to those few with the holier-than-thou
> > attitudes please keep your responses to yourself; I won't even bother
> > to read them.
> >
> > Of course I want to have the ticker and blood pressure, eyesight and
> > everthing else that's REALLY important checked properly by a qualified
> > medical examiner, in order to be as safe as I can for myself and
> > everyone else. But I can tell you that it'd be FAR better for me to
> > be flying around USING the drugs, than going off them to get the
> > medical and THEN flying. THAT would be far more potentially dangerous
> > than being on the drug, trust me.
> >
> > Private EMail response welcomed at
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > D M
> >
> > CP-ASMEL I