Plane Conversations

From our first article with Plane Conversations, we have advocated for general aviation, pointing out how aircraft charter can be a logical solution to travel difficulties and why corporate flight departments and private aircraft ownership are far more than the corporate excess Main Stream Media supposes.  However, we realize that while we have said that air mass transit is not always your best solution, there are particular instances when it does  makes the most economic sense.  In those cases, travelers have to suck it up and deal with the hassles and inconveniences of scheduled air service.

One of those hassles is airport security.  As I have said before, while I am not a fan of the process, I recognize the need for it and I understand that it is a necessary evil.  In July, a woman was arrested for disorderly conduct at the Nashville International Airport when she refused to allow her teen-aged daughter to go through the body scanner.  This meant that the girl had to be screened using a standard pat-down, a procedure far more thorough than it looks on Law and Order.  The mother wasn’t happy with that, either.  She proceeded to complain loudly, repeatedly and abusively enough that the airport police finally put her under arrest.  She has now achieved some kind of bizarre martyr status in the Main Stream Media.

This absolutely blows my mind.

Her attitude reflects  a common sentiment, though.  The traveling public insists on government protection for fliers. Snicklefitz Traveler cries, “Keep me safe!  Keep me safe!  But do it by screening that other guy, ‘cause I’m not a threat.”  “Keep me safe, but handle it in the way that I want, even though I don’t really know how the whole process works.” “Keep me safe, but don’t inconvenience me.” “Seat me next to people like these….”

Security measures are not created out of a vacuum.  They are in response to a specific threat or incident.  Thanks to Richard Reid, we have our shoes screened.  Thanks to Umar Farouk Abdulmatallab, we have our bodies scanned and our groins checked.  Organizations all over the world use both women and children as soldiers and terrorists.  Security screening is a thankless job and the TSA an easy target for criticism; but, the fact is, the TSA has to get it right every time – or as close to every time as humanly possible –  because the cost of being wrong could be catastrophic.  The terrorist has to get it right only once to achieve that same catastrophic effect.

Flying is a privilege, not a right.  To take advantage of the privilege, we must agree to abide by the rules of the airlines, airports and related agencies.  If you disagree with the measures in place, you don’t have to fly.  People crossed the oceans in ships.  They settled Utah using hand carts.  There are other ways you can get to your destination.

By the way, the attractive, harmless people in the photos are Alyssa Bustamante, a 15-year-old who strangled, stabbed and cut the throat of her nine-year-old neighbor and Anders Breivik who murdered 77 people in Norway.

If Timothy McVeigh taught us nothing else, he should have taught us that evil may look innocuous and that not all of those who would do us harm are from outside our borders.

Click on pen to

Over the past few months as I have talked both online and offline to people about Social Flights, a question has been raised about the impact of the Social Flights business model on the security of private aviation flights. A recent tweet from @tinsko started a dialogue via twitter about this issue that prompted me to write more on this issue from my perspective as an operator of charter aircraft.

In private aviation, whether operating charter flights, running a corporate flight department or flying your own aircraft, the reality of security is that we know who is on our flight. For starters, on a small aircraft carrying 4 to 12 people it would be strange to be sitting on a flight with someone you did not know, or at least know why they were on the flight. I think all of us who have experienced flying this way can say we have never been on an aircraft when we did not know who was on our flight and why they were on it.

There are ways that we as a charter operator comply with security, such as checking passengers against the no fly list and training of our employees to identify potential threats. These are all good security filters to prevent boarding a passenger who could be a threat.

What most of us will say, however, is that the best security measure is to know your passengers on a more personal level.

When I board an airline flight, most of the time I don’t know anyone else on the flight, unless I am traveling with others from my company or family members. What I do assume is that we have all gone through security screening and no fly lists, so that by the time we get on the aircraft the risk has been mitigated to an acceptable level.  All of this screening does not prevent the occasional passenger going nuts on the flight and trying something crazy. We have seen these stories lately.  Fortunately, the most anyone has succeeded at doing is getting thrown off the flight and met at the gate by law enforcement.

Back to charter flights. As our business model for Social Flights develops, people will self-aggregate around travel intentions and charter flights. They will board a small jet together and go to a common destination. Before that flight they may not have met each other in person, but I am convinced they will know more about each other than they know about the person they share space with on an airline flight.

With the explosion of social technology in the past seven years, most of us now know so much more about the rest of us than we ever have before. We all have put ourselves out there on Facebook, Linked In and Twitter and we have a history of interaction with each other. A history that says way more about who are than a security screening or a government list.

So before I share a Social Flights ride with you I will know a lot about who you are, who your friends are, who your business associates are, and what you have been up to recently. And based on that knowledge I can make some pretty good assumptions about what level of threat you might impose on me and our fellow passengers when we fly together.

Nothing is completely fail safe and our society can never completely protect ourselves from bad actors who are intent on harming us. But our intelligence agencies have proven that good information is the best basis for preventing acts of terrorism.  

I would propose that getting to know each other before we share a ride on a jet might be one of the best security measures we could use. It has never been easier to develop that trust than it is today with the advent of social technology.

Click on pen to

This post first appeared on 4.26.11 in CS&A Insurance blog – Clear on Top

How do we determine is something is dangerous?  Is there a universally known definition or just a matter of opinion?  Webster defines the term as follows:

dan·ger·ous – adj – able or likely to inflict injury or harm

If we stop and think about the literal definition of dangerous, we realize that it applies to most things in our life.  We start off each day with dangerous acts…shaving, taking a shower, cooking breakfast, driving to work…all of which have the ability to inflict injury or harm.   How many of us have cut ourselves when shaving?  How about burned yourself while cooking?  And what about having an accident in a car?   The generally accepted odds are that 1 in 4 people will be involved in a serious car accident in their lifetime.  Let’s take that a step further, based on the average number of automobile trips made by Americans in their lifetime the odds of being killed in an accident are 1 in 140.  Driving is the most dangerous activity undertaken by most Americans on a daily basis and very little thought is given to the dangers encountered because it is just a routine part of life.

Why does the general public view flying as being dangerous?  Any time we cheat the laws of gravity we are entering into a “dangerous” scenario by definition; but is it really dangerous, or is it just different?  According to the National Safety Council, the odds of being killed in a plane crash are about 1 in 250,000.  In comparing these statistics you are 1,786 times more likely to die in a car than in a plane…in other words you are more likely to die on the way to the airport than in flight to your destination.

So what is it that is driving this dangerous view of flying?  In short, lack of education and the media.  This is a funny combination in my mind because the media is supposed to educate, but often times they are just as uneducated as the masses to which they are pontificating.  How does a blind man know what color the sky is?  He trusts the person describing it to him, even if that person is colorblind.  In absence of knowledge we tend to believe whatever sounds the most accurate.  So without further ado I give you some media quotes concerning recent flying scenarios making headlines.

“The Monday night close call, left Obama’s jet 2.94 miles away from slamming into the 200-ton C-17 plane…” – New York Post

This is what is known in the aviation world as a “go around”.  It happens on a daily basis and exists for just such an occasion.  When the required separation cannot be maintained or does not exist, the controllers direct the pilots to break off the approach and send them around to try it again.  Let’s put this in perspective just to give you an idea how far 2.94 miles is…try 15,500 feet.  This is a greater distance than all those aircraft that pass over your house on approach to landing if you live within 30 miles of a major airport.   If their landing lights are on when they fly over your house at night, they are probably below 10,000 feet and only 1.89 miles away from slamming into your house.

“The pilots landed their planes safely but without help from the airport tower.”  – ABC News

“Planes forced to land without help from tower at Reagan Natl” – America’s Newsroom     

News flash…the tower does not and cannot help a pilot land an airplane.  The tower can only give direction and recommendation just like the traffic cop at an intersection.  Pilots land without help from the tower thousands of times every day…it’s how we were trained from Day 1.

Let’s face it, flying is still a widely misunderstood activity and as long as there are reporters there will be inaccurate news reports.  As pilots, we are a relative minority and the understanding of flight is still a wondrous mystery to most.  The how’s, why’s, and what if’s are the stuff of Hollywood legend.  Entire movies have been made around the fear of flying and the perceived dangers that they instill are numerous.  Aviation activities still draw front page news, from the airshow to the accident and the engine failure to the ATC actions.  Is flying dangerous?  Yes.  Is it more so than other daily activities?  No.  It is up to us as pilots, air traffic controllers, and all other aviation support personnel to do all we can to operate as safely as possible and calm the fears of the general public.

Be professional, train appropriately, and be personable.  Just because we can fly does not mean we are above anyone else.

Click on pen to

09/24/10

It’s Friday Down Under - the last day of our General Aviation flying adventure.  The nearly one hour drive from mid-town Sydney to Bankstown Airport gave us plenty of time to discuss today’s mission.  Unlike other mornings, this day began with a crisp, blue sky and light winds.  And, with a high pressure system keeping all clouds away, we were really pumped up for the flight.

Tim chose to fly a reversal of our previous flight.  This time, we toured Sydney first, before heading off to the south for some low level (500 foot) coastal flying.  We finished up with a trip inland towards the Blue Mountains and the gorgeous views the ravine flying provided.

Today, Bankstown Airport seemed to be as busy as Atlanta’s Peachtree DeKalb Airport.  There are three parallel runways at Bankstown and all three were in use. We were number five for take-off on Runway 29 Right or just the “Right” as they say here.  We heard the new call from the tower of “Line Up and Wait” just as we called “ready” at the Holding Point, or the Hold Line, as we say in the States.  Almost immediately, we were cleared for take-off directly behind a older Cessna 172 which was lifting off.  The Cessna planned to depart in the same direction that we did; so, since the SR22 is quite a bit faster than the 172, Tim had to make allowances to keep clear of the aircraft before overtaking it.  Off the ground, we overtook the 172 even before exiting the Class D airspace and beginning to look for our visual ground reference points. 

Within ten minutes, we were over the Pacific at 1,500 feet awaiting our clearance into Sydney Harbor, which came right as planned.  (We had filed a VFR flight plan before departure to let them know we were coming.) Inbound on the Harbor Scenic One, we were advised to watch out for an Airbus 380 that had just departed towards our direction.  We picked it up visually at about ten miles - quite a distance, but at 747 big, the Airbus isn’t hard to see.

Making our two orbits over the harbor, we departed back towards the coast and were cleared for our low level coastal flying.  We flew down past Botany Bay and Jibbon Point before heading on to Seacliff Bridge.  This time we saw no whales, but the views were still magnificent.

Maintaining a listening watch on Sydney Radar 124.55 and with a right climbing turn, we now headed west towards Lake Burragorang that sits surrounded by the painted canyons of the Blue Mountains. We crossed the ridge on the south side of Lake Burragorang, then dropped below the ridge line and flew up the lake.  The only hazard we had to watch for was a power line draped over the north end.  We saw absolutely no one on the lake and no signs of any development at all.  Talk about getting away from it all…we were there!  We agreed that today was the best flying day of the trip.

Turning towards home, Bankstown, the pattern was just as busy as as it had been when we left an hour and a half earlier.  It sure was comforting to have the Cirrus Skywatch Traffic system alerting us to other aircraft. Tim used this to pick up the closest threats before slowing to blend in with the other approaching traffic.  We were number four for landing!

As we rolled out on final, the controller cleared us for the Center runway and that was that.  Tim greased the landing and taxied us back to Regal Air to say our good-byes and to give our our thanks to our new friends and to the aircraft that gave us such incredible views of Oz.

Click on pen to

In college, I took a class called International Strategies and Security.  I believe that I may have been the only non-military student in the class which, for a civilian, turned out to be like a Tom Clancy novel – only it lasted for a whole semester.  We discussed technology that just blew my mind.  I had no idea the things that were possible and I’m sure that what blew my mind then is Stone Age compared to what is possible now.

So yesterday, we talked a little bit about test flights Alaska Airlines is conducting to be greener both environmentally and economically.  I think that there is a lot to celebrate with that.  My one concern with their reliance (and more, with NextGen’s reliance) on satellite technology is the increase in solar storms projected over the next few years.  I am curious to see how the technologists will handle it.

Since the systems do rely on satellite communication, they will be vulnerable to solar flares and storms, the kind we discussed back in March, which brings me back to the same concerns I expressed then.  With so many new pilots being trained using only glass cockpits and satellite approaches, what happens when those systems are compromised?  Worse, what happens when those systems are compromised and the pilots don’t know it?  NextGen, RNP, OPD and RVSM (Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum) are all designed to increase efficiency by tightening up the airspace.  This precision puts more aircraft into smaller spaces.  Well, if a pilot was flying along a flight path ten years ago, he might have encountered another aircraft along the same path; but, since neither of them was flying with today’s degree of precision, there was still likely to be a safe distance between the aircraft.  However, with todays’ greater precision, the space is greatly reduced.  If all systems are operating as advertised, that’s no problem.  In fact, it’s positive situation.  However, if solar flares contaminate the positioning information, an aircraft may be hundreds of feet off position and not know it.  If two aircraft are in the same situation, but are separated by only a few hundreds of feet to begin with, well, you do the math.

The Federal Aviation Administration recently awarded $125 million to Boeing and other companies to develop greener aircraft, fuels and technology.   As aircraft become more advanced and the Gee-Whiz factor in them increases, by definition, they get further away from the simple, stick-controlled Stearman.  I love the advances, don’t get me wrong.  I just know that a great many young pilots are learning on advanced equipment and may not be learning some of the manual basics of their predecessors.  For now, the young group still has access to pilots trained without all of the gizmos.  Those pilots are available to act as mentors and assist the younger generation of aviators in gaining some wisdom, an invaluable asset, as Billy Minkoff pointed out last week.  His example of the new, accessible very light jet and microjet is perfectly appropriate here.  As precision flying gets more precise and pilot training gets further removed from non-precision equipment, without mentoring, how do we avoid the dangers of corrupted satellite data?

What technology and training do we develop to slow or halt the current trend as expressed by CFM Director of Operations Dwayne McMurry, “It used to be that the last words on a cockpit voice recorder were ‘Oh, (explicative)!’  What you hear these days is, ‘What’s it doing now?’ “

Click on pen to

Johnny Paycheck has lost his position as Poster Child for the disgruntled worker.  The country singer has been replaced by former JetBlue flight attendant Steven Slater whose antics would have been really funny – in a movie.

As my boss, Allen Howell said, “I personally find it pitiful that a flight attendant who can’t take it anymore thinks it is OK to pull the emergency exit slide to leave the aircraft and his job all at the same time. It is even more frustrating that he is made out to be some kind of hero for doing what he did.  Everyday flight attendants get rude and sometimes extreme hostile treatment from frustrated passengers but two wrongs don’t make it right. What does it say for the state of the airline industry when it gets to this?  The stunt will cost the airline, JetBlue, thousands of dollars in damage and more importantly it was a reckless and unprofessional act that does not need to be glamorized. This could have easily turned bad and someone could have gotten hurt.”

Anyone who has worked in customer service for more than 20 minutes has had a fantasy of creating just such a scene as the one Slater did – publicly humiliating an adult for poor behavior, grabbing a cold beer and disappearing into the mist, fog or just plain slamming the door.  As a responsible, professional adult you leave it in the realm of fantasy.  Slater caused thousands of dollars in expenses when he deployed that slide.  Mechanics at JetBlue will have to repack the slide, which is a great deal more complicated than folding up a map and stowing in your glove compartment.  There are explosives and inspections involved.  That aircraft is now out of service until it can be made airworthy again. 

It’s not that I don’t understand his frustration and his anger at these passengers who, by some accounts, acted like spoiled children.  I experienced it first-hand when passengers threw credit cards, briefcases, garment bags and even a bag of brick samples at me; however, there are methods to handle this situation – specifically airport police.  For instance, when the passenger hit Slater with her luggage, she interfered with the ability of a crew member to perform his job function.  This is a federal offense, folks.  Rather than throwing a hissy fit, he could have had her arrested upon arrival in New York, or he could have had her removed from the aircraft in Pittsburgh, where the incident occurred.  He chose not to do that.  He chose to wait until the aircraft arrived at JFK and create a public scene and a potentially deadly situation.  His behavior could very well have injured someone on the ground. 

Even if he looked out of the window and didn’t see anyone before he deployed the slide, he couldn’t possibly have had a clear view of the whole area involved.  Stand at a third storey window and look down.  Can you see the foundation of the building?  No, you can’t.  And he couldn’t see anyone standing in the area where he was about to launch an emergency slide.  His behavior was impulsive and reckless, not professional.

Yet, as I write this, Slater’s childish temper tantrum has earned him over 150,000 fans on Facebook.  The number will likely be mind-boggling by the time you read this. 

As Allen said, “If  Mr. Slater wanted to quit he should have walked off the flight and turned in his notice and gone home.  Something is wrong with this society when we glorify this type behaviour with media fanfare  and a social media frenzy.  Whatever happened to professionalism even in the face of adverse conditions?”

Click on pen to

A vastly expanding civilian Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) market is leading to the day when UAVs must be allowed to operate freely in the National Airspace System (NAS). The main obstacle preventing this from happening is the distrust of the ability for a UAV to avoid collisions with manned aircraft. There has been a vast amount of effort put into researching UAV Detect Sense and Avoid (DSA) systems with the hope that an Equivalent Level of Safety (ELOS) can be achieved for unmanned compared to manned flight. The current debate is what type of DSA will provide the required level of safety to prevent increasing the hazard to manned aircraft operations.

There are many different types of DSA systems currently undergoing research, from visual cameras interpreted by humans to automatic detection systems incorporating lasers. ASTM International, an organization that develops industry consensus standards such as those that govern Light Sport Aircraft design, has released a standard (F2411-07) on the requirements for an Airborne DSA system that specifies the minimum capabilities of a DSA. However, this ASTM standard does not (and should not) mandate what type of system must be used.

The overriding question regarding what type of DSA will eventually be used is whether or not the pilot operating the vehicle should be “in the loop”. Can a UAV’s computer detect an aircraft and maneuver to avoid a collision automatically as effectively as a pilot on the ground could view a high resolution video screen and perform the same operation? There are many factors that must be considered before this question will be appropriately answered, such as pilot/computer response times and communication latency. However, a human has the ability to make decisions based on variables that may never have been identified as pertinent by a computer software engineer. Thus, a human interaction with the DSA system may not be the most “precise” option, but probably the most dynamic. Will we ever see 100% autonomous UAV operations in the NAS? Only time will tell.

Click on pen to

Over the last two days we’ve looked at a few of the concerns and ramifications for pilots taking advantage of the amnesty offered.  We’ve outlined the immediate effects of claiming amnesty and contemplated some of the possible long-term effects.  What is the big picture, then?

A professional pilot has a huge amount of time and money invested in his career.  He probably has at least an undergraduate degree, has a few thousand hours of flight time (many of which he’s paid for himself), some type-ratings that he may have paid for, flight instruction certifications, air transport pilots certifications, etc., and he probably won’t make it to that single digit percentage of pilots making six figures.  To give over control of that career to someone in an office 700 miles away doesn’t sit well with pilots as a group.  There are too many examples of pilots being honest about transient health conditions, having their medicals revoked, being grounded and even losing their jobs.  Any kind of communication to the FAA about physical status is carefully considered since it’s much easier to get your ticket pulled than it is to get it reinstated.  

On the other hand, a pilot voluntarily puts himself under the authority of the FAA when he chooses this career.  In a conversation with Dr. Greg Pinnell, we discussed the differences in perception and treatment for a pilot who admits a drug or alcohol addiction and seeks treatment and one who fails a random drug test or breathalyzer.  The first is offered rehabilitation and continued employment.  The second is immediately released.  What’s the difference between the two pilots?

Dr. Pinnell suggested that it was maturity and discretion.  The pilot who admits a drug or an alcohol problem is mature enough to know that he needs help and oversight.  The pilot who just gets caught either doesn’t have the discretion to realize he has a problem or he simply doesn’t care.  Would you put your child or your mother on the plane with the second pilot?  I wouldn’t.

Now apply that same thought process to the pilot who admits that he has a condition – through no fault of his own – that can, if left untreated, cloud his judgment.  He seeks treatment and realizes that the nature of his condition may require on-going treatment and regular monitoring.  Because he recognizes that he has voluntarily put himself under the authority of the FAA and, thus, must abide by their regulations, he discloses both the condition and the treatment.

Do we or should we require some maturity and discretion in pilots?  We must, regardless of whether they fly a single-passenger Husky or a small-town-with-wings Boeing 777.

Having been in the industry and heard all of the nightmare stories of pilots’ livelihoods being threatened by hold-ups and foul-ups in bureaucracy, I can understand why a pilot would not want to report his diagnosis and course of treatment to the FAA.  However, when you remove sentiment and opinion for the equation, the bottom line is this:  if a person voluntarily puts themselves under the authority of some entity, he cannot abide by that entity’s rules only when they suit his own purposes.  So, in this case, if a person chooses the career of a pilot, he must abide by the FAA’s medical regulations no less than he must abide by their procedural ones.  If the forms to obtain an airman’s medical certificate ask about mental, chronic or other conditions, they must be completed truthfully.  And, as the FAA’s regional medical office pointed out, if a pilot continues a course of non-disclosure and the FAA somehow finds out about it, the FAA will come after him in criminal actions.

The purpose of this blog site is to provoke thoughts and conversation.  Sometimes, as I research and write, I challenge my own beliefs and original notions.  In general, I believe in minimal government intervention and interference, and I started writing this series with that belief firmly influencing my opinion on this subject.  After having spoken with professionals on both sides of the issue and gotten many points of view, I can’t say that I still hold that opinion quite as firmly.  Bear in mind, however, that I am not a pilot; so, sitting on the sidelines, throwing out an opinion is an easy thing for me to do. 

Depression is a serious illness that kills, whether it’s a short-term condition when the wheels come off of your life or a life-long struggle with physiological origins. It’s a health issue that, if present in anyone, must be addressed.  If it’s present in a pilot, it must be addressed on all appropriate levels.  As I’ve stated in my initial post on this subject, at some point we have to trust the government agencies in control of transportation or we have to stay home.  The costs of being wrong are just too high.

 As always, we welcome your questions, concerns and comments, whether identified or anonymous.

(previous installment)

Click on pen to

Yesterday, we looked at some of the immediate concerns regarding taking advantage of the FAA’s amnesty offer for pilots who have been diagnosed with one of three kinds of depression and who are taking one of the four approved medications.  So now, that we’ve discussed a few of the immediate concerns, our focus shifts to long-term ramifications.

Ongoing issues

Several sources in administrative positions told me that a pilot’s confession of previous non-disclosure calls into question the ethics of the pilot.  For a pilot to claim amnesty under this policy change, he must have been successfully treated with the medication for at least 12 months.  This means that a pilot holding a first class medical has lied at least one time, likely more, in filling out paperwork with his Aviation Medical Examiner.  The pilot has perjured himself on a federal document, which is a federal offense.  It’s not unreasonable, then, for a supervisor to wonder, “If you’ve hidden this, what else are you hiding?”  “Will you be objective enough to remove yourself from flight status if you are unsafe to fly?” 

This kind of ethics question can undermine a pilot’s relationship with their current employer, no doubt, particularly if the relationship falls into the category of Less Than Warm and Fuzzy to begin with.  In a perfect world, it wouldn’t be an issue - the pilot’s denial of depression and treatment would be an event independent of any others.  But, we don’t live in that world.  We live in this one with all of our own human frailties, biases and prejudices as well as those of the people we work with and for.  And, even if a pilot’s current employer is enlightened enough to see depression as a condition to be treated rather than something to be feared or stigmatized, what about the next one?  Aviation is a notoriously fluid industry with companies starting up, failing and changing with a regularity that would alarm people in many other fields.  If a pilot has a diagnosis of major depressive disorder and takes Celexa daily for the rest of his life, what if he is passed over for a new position or for a promotion based on that medical waiver?  The pilot is not legally required to reveal the nature of his special waiver, but, in many circumstances, he may feel socially compelled to.  If that admission in itself is used to justify termination or stagnation, at the moment, it does not appear that the pilot has any recourse.  However, as I’ve said, HR rules are changing quickly and constantly; so, that issue may be addressed shortly either proactively or as the result of litigation.

Just as the private sector is filled with imperfect beings; so, is the FAA.  People lose files; they go on vacation; they shuffle the priorities of their work days.  Sometimes, in that process, a pilot’s file goes missing or it ends up at the bottom of the stack.  To the FAA agent in Oklahoma City, it’s a file folder.  To the pilot, it’s how he pays his mortgage and feeds his children.  To the one person, it’s all in a day’s work.  To the other, it’s the sharpest focal point of his life.  Most of us who have worked closely with pilots in an operational setting have either known personally or known of a pilot who has had a special waiver of some kind.  We’ve seen their process of dealing with it ranging from being a regular struggle to being a constant nightmare.  It’s no wonder the pilots are expressing concern and even some distrust of the FAA.  These pilots are under the care of their own physicians for this diagnosis and treatment regimen.  Many of them see the FAA’s actions as redundant, intrusive, or even a threat to their livelihoods.

While disclosure may appear to be a threat to a pilot’s livelihood, there are consequences to be considered if that path is to be followed.  The FAA’s Regional Flight Surgeon’s office pointed out that if a pilot chooses the path of non-disclosure and he is involved in an accident or an incident, toxicology tests will reveal the presence of anti-depressants.  Regardless of the cause of the event, his non-disclosure leaves him especially vulnerable to criminal actions by the FAA and to civil actions by passengers or even the company he works for.  If the accident is fatal, his family may not receive appropriate insurance or death benefits and his estate could be targeted in civil actions due to his perjury.  So, the pilot has protected his career in the short-term, but left his family in a real mess.

On the one hand, you have a person who feels like he must lie to protect his job, his reputation and his status.  On the other hand, you have a government agency with the right and the responsibility of oversight.  At this early stage of this new special waiver, we’re seeing huge amounts of wariness on the one side and an inability to offer concrete assurances on the other.  Until those two sides can get closer together, I’m not sure how successful the program will be in getting pilots to open up about their conditions, furthering one of the stated goals of the policy which is to remove the stigma from depression.

So far, we’ve considered the immediate effects of claiming amnesty and some of the longer term ramifications.  Tomorrow, we will conclude this series by looking at the issue as a whole.

As always, we welcome your questions, concerns and comments, whether identified or anonymous.

(previous installment)      (next installment)

Click on pen to

In a post on April 11, I mentioned the FAA’s April 5 policy shift on the legality of pilots taking certain anti-depressants.  I anticipated some chatter, and was surprised at how little there was on the internet.  However, some real activity took place behind the scenes in phone calls and emails directly to me.   My original thought was, “Great!  Treatment options for a serious condition.”  I naively missed the complexities of the issue.  While my main focus was on the actual treatment of the condition, pilots, employers and human resources professionals had some very real concerns and some good questions about the disclosure of it:

• How long can a pilot expect to be off work while the feds in Oklahoma City monitor him/her? 
• Will a company be required to hold the pilot’s position for his return?  Will his job be protected?
• How will companies feel when one of their pilots admits to taking anti-depressants?
• What are the potential long-term effects of this declaration in a pilot’s relationship with his current employer / future employers / the feds?

 Immediate issues

For the answers to the first two questions, I turned to Dr. Gregory Pinnell, a board certified family practitioner licensed in Michigan, and to a representative from the FAA Southern Region’s Flight Surgeon’s. Dr. Pinnell is an EAA Aeromedical Council member, senior aviation medical examiner, Flight Surgeon for the USAFR and an instrument-rated private pilot.  He also teaches for Western Michigan University College of Aviation. 

The FAA is offering an amnesty period of six months during which pilots who have already been taking one of the four approved medications for one of the three approved diagnoses.  According to Dr. Pinnell, pilots who take advantage of that amnesty period and who have been stable on one of the approved medications can expect to be grounded for between one and three months while his medical case is reviewed by an HIMS-trained Aviation Medical Examiner.  A pilot with a new prescription for one of the medications can expect to being grounded for one year while his conditioned is monitored.  While each pilot’s case will be examined and considered on its own merits, Dr. Pinnell believes that the one year mandatory grounding may be too conservative.  In a study mentioned by the FAA as evidence for this new policy, patients achieved stabilized conditions in 20 to 36 weeks, which Dr. Pinnell believes to be a more reasonable time-frame.  He believes that this somewhat arbitrary number will be questioned at the upcoming Aerospace Medical Association annual meeting, to be held in Phoenix from May 9 to 13, 2010.  Each pilot must show successful treatment in order for his medical certificate to be reinstated.  If this pharmaceutical course of treatment is discontinued, a pilot’s medical certificate may be reinstated three months after cessation of treatment with no evidence of recurrence of the depressive symptoms.  Dr. Pinnell stressed that, at this time, there are only three depression diagnoses and four drugs which qualify the pilot for a medical waiver.  Neither every depressed condition nor every antidepressant qualifies. More detailed information and required documentation may be found on an FAA Q&A site.

So, with the prospect of being grounded for one to twelve months, any reasonable pilot would be concerned about his job security, particularly in this climate where many, many pilots are either unemployed or employed in non-flying positions.

I spoke with Dr. Pinnell, the FAA’s Southern Region Flight Surgeon’s office and several Human Resource professionals about that very question.  The answer is that the policy shift does not contain any kind of job protection provision along the lines of those in the FMLA, as covered by the ADA, or as present in Employee Assistance Programs.  While the FAA “expects” airlines to treat these special issuances just as they would other medical waiver, there seems to be no requirement at this time.  However, Human Resource laws, rules and guidelines change at head-spinning speed; so, probably the safest course of action for any pilot taking advantage of the amnesty or with a new prescription is to check with your human resources department.  Your company may go further than the law requires, but it’s not a bad idea to read through the current requirements of the FMLA, the ADA or your EAP.  If you have short or long-term disability coverage or loss of license disability coverage, you might want to review those policies, as well.  One source pointed out that pilots must remember their rights.  They are not required to disclose the nature of the special waiver – just that they have one.  It could be for depression, diabetes or any other condition covered by the special waiver program.  The pilots I spoke with reminded me that this might work in an airline or large fractional setting, but in a flight department with four or five line pilots, the question of the nature of the waiver is harder to dodge and may cause further issues on a personal level, regardless of HIPPA.

This is a thorny issue all the way around, to be sure.  The bottom line on how long a pilot can expect to be grounded is one to twelve months.  He’ll need to do a great deal of homework with his HR department and disability insurance carriers to determine employment and fiscal issues.  Tomorrow we will look at the longer range issues.

 As always, we welcome your questions, concerns and comments, whether identified or anonymous.

Click on pen to