Soaring on unapproved prescription drugs, and conditions, legal??

I don't know how accurate these statistics are. These come from the
following web site: http://www.leftseat.com/sistats.htm


It is a website to promote the use of their service, which is to help
people who have been denied medicals get waivers, so take it with a
grain of salt.

A quote from the web site is:

"Over the last few years, the FAA has been moving towards approval of
psychotropic medications. There has been rare isolated approval of
certain psychiatric medications, yet the agency approves very few
cases and utilizes extremely strict requirements."



The number and type of medicals given to pilots denied for psychiatric
reasons are listed below. The link also shows numbers of medicals
issued to others, including 3rd class medicals to insulin dependent
diabetics.


Psychiatry

Condition / Pathology 1st 2nd 3rd

Neuroses, Anxiety, Hypochondria, Phobia 1,361 1,835 5,456

Schizophrenia 7 12 28

Major Affective Disorder, Depression and Mania 11 10 29

Don't shoot the messenger, just wanted to share what I found on the
subject.

From Avflash 10.25b:

PILOTS ON ANTI-DEPRESSANT MEDICATIONS GAIN AME SUPPORT
Aeromedical certifying authorities -- such as the FAA's Office of Aviation
Medicine -- should begin to study and license pilots on anti-depressant
medication, the Aerospace Medical Association (AsMA) said in a position
paper published last month. The proposal is "stunning," says Aviation
Medical Examiner (AME) Dr. Brent Blue, who said he has tried for years to
get medicated pilots licensed. "The appearance of this paper was an
unexpected triumph of rational thought in pilot certification," he told
AVweb yesterday. The paper proposes that aeromedical certifying authorities
remove the current absolute prohibitions that bar pilots from flying while
taking anti-depressants. The 10-page proposal, Blue said, would allow a test
group of pilots to fly under the watchful eye of psychological specialists,
AMEs and perhaps aeromedically trained psychiatrists. More...


"ADP" wrote in message
...
Thank you, thank you. Finally a rational response by a knowledgeable
individual.

At 00:00 16 June 2004, Adp wrote:


If such a clever lawyer were to bring up these elements,
a much more clever
defense lawyer
would have them thrown out.


One hopes! I grew up with the old saw that says a
jury gets to vote which side has the best lawyer.

I'm not a complete wimp; I do give barebacked instruction
in a glider club. Nontheless, or perhaps because of
it in part, I will not fly a glider while using medication
that the FAA finds deleterious to the operation of
a C-172. It is just common sense.

Of course it's just common sense. But the good news is, you get to choose.

Allan


"Nyal Williams" wrote in message
...
At 00:00 16 June 2004, Adp wrote:


I'm not a complete wimp; I do give barebacked instruction
in a glider club. Nontheless, or perhaps because of
it in part, I will not fly a glider while using medication
that the FAA finds deleterious to the operation of
a C-172. It is just common sense.

Interesting, you couch you arguments very reasonably, then turn them
on their ear by going dogmatic. Yes, I know pilots who continue fly
even though they suffer from medical problems that put them and others
at risk. They are intelligent people who suffer the same psychological
problems we all face when presented with questions of mortality.
DENIAL. Not only do I know glider pilots who should give up the sport
for their own sakes as well as others, I know power pilots who seek
out medical examiners who are less than rigorous in pursuing their
responisbilities to the FAA and to the public.

We all love to fly. We all want to keep doing it as long as we can.
And from my point of view, we should all be able to do whatever we
want, unless our pursuit of happiness is likely to cause harm to
others. There has to be some objective measure. For now, there is
none. And since there isn't, those harmed should have some recourse. I
know of only one way to achieve this. My suggestion is that pilots who
have reason to think twice based on health, should think thrice based
on the financial well-being of their heirs. Hopefully, it will help
them to make more reasonable, prudent decisions.

Nyal Williams wrote:
I will not fly a glider while using medication
that the FAA finds deleterious to the operation of
a C-172. It is just common sense.


It's not common sense bcause, as Rich pointed out, the decision as to
what medication is "deleterious to the operation of a C-172" is
sometimes more political than medical.

Tony V.

"(b) Operations that do not require a medical certificate.

For operations provided for in Sec. 61.23(b) of this part, a person
shall not act as pilot in command, or in any other capacity as a
required pilot flight crewmember, while that person knows or has
reason to know of any medical condition that would make the person
unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner."

How much exegesis does it take to figure out that even though you
don't have to maitain a medical certificate, you cannot act as PIC
under the regs if you have a medical condition that hinders your
ability to operate an aircraft in a safe manner. A pilot who has
corrected vision and chooses not to wear glasses or contacts is
busting the regs. Note also that the reg includes not just knowledge,
but "reason to know of." You may not know what infrimity you have, but
ringing in your ears, blood in your urine, shortness of breath all
constitute "reason to know of."

My goodness, this is an exceedingly boring exercise. Arguing the
obvious. Please, someone find some nuance!

(DL152279546231) writes:

Is it legal in the US to fly gliders while taking drugs such as
Prozac, Effexor, or Lithium for depression given that a medical
certificate is not required??

From an article I've just seen on Avweb, this may be about to change.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

Boring is not the half of it.
Responding to you Chris is like responding to a wall.

Hmm....

dog·mat·ic [dawg máttik, dog máttik]
or dog·mat·i·cal [dawg máttik'l, dog máttik'l]
adj
1. expressing rigid opinions: prone to expressing strongly held beliefs and
opinions


While I plead guilty to having strongly held beliefs, I fail to see where my
replies
are dogmatic. In fact, I can't understand how this thread degenerated into
making
assumptions about what lawyers and juries might or might not do.

The question was, can you soar while taking unapproved legal drugs?

The answer is that there are no unapproved legal drugs for glider pilots.

Ergo, you can soar while taking any or all legal drugs.

These are facts, not opinions.

Is it wise to fly while taking these drugs? I don't know and it is not for
me to determine.
It is for the individual glider pilot to determine. Why is this fact so
difficult to comprehend.

Why is individual responsibility so frightening to so many? Perhaps you are
all
hoping to spill hot coffee into your collective laps and have Mc Donalds buy
you a new glider.

You state that you know many pilots who fly while incapacitated in some way.
Does this not make you culpable for keeping this knowledge secret? Suppose
they have an accident?
According to all of the arm-chair lawyers on this group, you would be
crucified by a jury
should they learn that you had such knowledge.

I think we've wrung about all we can out of this thread.

So, in the interests of glider pilots everywhere,
fly safe and may you all find 10k thermals when you look for them.

Allan



"Chris OCallaghan" wrote in message
om...
Interesting, you couch you arguments very reasonably, then turn them
on their ear by going dogmatic. Yes, I know pilots who continue fly
even though they suffer from medical problems that put them and others
at risk. They are intelligent people who suffer the same psychological
problems we all face when presented with questions of mortality.
DENIAL. Not only do I know glider pilots who should give up the sport
for their own sakes as well as others, I know power pilots who seek
out medical examiners who are less than rigorous in pursuing their
responisbilities to the FAA and to the public.

them to make more reasonable, prudent decisions.

We're done here Chris. Assuming that you know what exegesis means!

Go back to sleep!

Allan

"Chris OCallaghan" wrote in message
m...
"(b) Operations that do not require a medical certificate.


How much exegesis does it take to figure out that even though you
don't have to maitain a medical certificate, you cannot act as PIC
under the regs if you have a medical condition that hinders your
ability to operate an aircraft in a safe manner. A pilot who has
corrected vision and chooses not to wear glasses or contacts is
busting the regs. Note also that the reg includes not just knowledge,
but "reason to know of." You may not know what infrimity you have, but
ringing in your ears, blood in your urine, shortness of breath all
constitute "reason to know of."

My goodness, this is an exceedingly boring exercise. Arguing the
obvious. Please, someone find some nuance!