For example in Australia I’ve heard multiple cases of somebody proactively seeking counselling for help dealing with temporarily stressful situations such as divorce, then being grounded at work, and the regulator (CASA) denying medical clearances. This increases the stress.
Every time some senior person proclaims “it’s okay this time - report your illnesses”, it never is, and we go around this circle again and again. I will personally never report my medical history accurately to the regulator.
The medical profession is almost unrecognizable from what it was in the 1950s. My grandfather (MD) said as much 15 years ago before passing away. It has only changed more since then. The FAA’s policies are based on 1950s medical knowledge and opinions.
If you spend any significant time in online aviation circles, medical issues come up daily. People who had a diagnosis of ADHD as a kid (when getting diagnosed with it was all the rage) have to jump through insane hoops if they disclose that on their FAA medical. Meanwhile, existing pilots often avoid going to a doctor or seeking help when they need it because of the possibility of losing their source of income, temporarily or maybe even permanently.
So, in many situations, instead of having healthy pilots, we have unhealthy pilots. The policy sometimes has the complete opposite effect of its intended purpose.
The FAA could change this instantly by simply abandoning their “have you ever” language and focusing on whether or not the pilot currently requires medication for a condition.
The government just loves those “have you ever” questions, though, as you know if you’ve ever applied for a clearance or gone through the immigration process. So they probably aren’t going away.
But first the regulator need to take action and keep doing it.
My primary care doctor had me try lexapro in 2018 and even though I hadn't flown in 2 years I protested but reluctantly agreed I needed to do something and it was unlikely I would ever fly as a private pilot for many factors and should go on with treatment.
I know for a fact pilots hide all kinds of medical issues. I had a doctor that worked with delta pilots and argued my case with the FAA (a formality more than anything) and he along with everyone at flight school advocated for keeping my kidney stones to myself and not disclosing it in the first place.
The system needs some work. I have first hand experience with it without my livelihood being on the line and its easy to imagine why pilots hide issues.
https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/airmen_certificati...
> In the aftermath of the crash, experts proposed various measures intended to reduce the risk of pilot suicide, including a rule that there must be two crewmembers in the cockpit at all times. …] Shortly after the crash of flight 9525, the European Aviation Safety Agency began encouraging the policy in Europe in order to gather data about its effectiveness, but after the trial period was over, the results were not encouraging. […] the policy leaves the cockpit door open for longer periods of time, increasing the risk of hijackings, which historically have been much more common than pilot suicides anyway.
This seems to be the crux of the matter.
I’ve seen it argued that the only sensible post-9/11 security measure was reinforcing the cockpit door. Extra screenings, shoes off, no liquids - all this seems secondary at best, security theatre at worst, when compared to denying an adversary control of an airplane.
Having said that, I’ve also heard the theory advanced that even a reinforced door isn’t needed: passengers mental models have shifted from compliance to active resistance, and 9/11 may be impossible to repeat as a result.
Can i recommend a rereading of the last 3 part, the one about medical conditions killing pilots careers and how it incentivise them to hide a lot of conditions?
In addition, if you look at the mass killings that have made the news, it seems that most of not all of them were on some type of antidepressant.
There may be a link that is worth exploring further, but there are some very strong interests that would be opposed.
This has been known at least since Charles Whitman packed his trusty Dexedrine while shooting up U Texas in 1966, and all the Columbine kids were heavily medicated, as is likely for other "mentally troubled" mass shooters before and since.
The medications responsible for this used to carry appropriate black-box warnings, but since it was a bad PR move, the FDA permitted them to remove it.
So let’s reframe it as: should we expect people to tell the truth about things that mostly don’t matter at a personal cost of their entire career, and all training costs?
If you disclose, you are punished severely and may never go to work again with almost no recourse by a system which largely ignores medical science. If you withhold, as almost all pilots are advised by colleagues and the doctors themselves to do, nothing happens. (When I went for an aviation medical, the doctor said: I’m not your family doctor, only answer the question I asked. If I need more information I can ask for it)
When faced by a system so perverse is it really all that unethical.
Brainwashing alone does not an ethical system make. You generally have to act ethically in order to teach other people to do the same.
Sometimes these things happen, it's almost like a random mechanical failure that takes down an airplane.
Maybe one day when we get AI good enough to fly an airplane on its own we can eliminate that. Assuming that such an AI is 100% predictable and reliable and isn't subject to psychosis or hallucinations, which may or may not be achievable.
At this point, the flight crews are a bigger threat to passengers than terrorists. Since passengers won't sit still for a hijacking anymore, terrorists effectively aren't a threat.
You don't need a heavily reinforced door. You only need one that prevents entry for a few seconds while the passengers figure out that they need to subdue the attacker.
