3rd Class Med and Anti-depressants

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.

"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.

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.

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

"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

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