3rd Class Med and Anti-depressants

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

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

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

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