JohnBurke

We know what you tell us, which is a disjointed swill of speculation mixed with bad in formation and guesswork.

[QUOTE=fenix1;2824237
I have read or heard multiple accounts of IQ tests being used by the FAA for folks involved in situations that fall under the purview of HIMS. I have no clue of the validity of the information, but - if true - it seems bizarre. But there’s plenty of bizarre out there sometimes.
[/QUOTE]

Finally an answer to the question. You're taking a swipe and second or third hand information that you guess might not apply based on your lack of knowledge, training, and experience. That wasn't so hard to say after all, was it?

[QUOTE=fenix1;2824237
I’m also read & heard of situations where quantitative testing has come back favorable, but the SI has still been denied, which seems bizarre as well. Again, not sure of the validity or the completeness of the info and I’m not going to indulge you with specificity.
[/QUOTE]

Again, you're guessing regarding information which is rumor and at best third-hand that you read or heard somewhere, and somehow projecting that into your own world (and ours, as you've posted it). Your comments thus far have pointed to irrational and unprofessional acts by the Administration, and by AME's, none of which you can actually identify. You're venting, but you don't know what you're venting about because it's based on rumors.

Because you're not qualified to make these decisions, you're going to second guess those who do; the information that returns from a "quantitative test" is "favorable," and therefore you'd approve the applicant, but the applicant of these mythical situations is denied a medical. This is "bizarre" to you, even though you aren't qualified to diagnose the condition or it's applicability to aerospace safety or medicine, or the regulation that governs both. Because you think it's "bizarre," it makes the professionals who are qualified to make the decisions, wrong.

Therefore, no need to deal truthfully, then?

Remember, everything said here is said because you introduced it, and every response ONLY to what you've elected to provide. It's muddled, filled with "I heard about" or "I read about" but a refusal to provide specifics about what you heard or read about, and you've introduced the IQ test as though it's applicable to you, when you don't know if it's applicable to anything or not, and have gone so far as to decide it's not and stand on that platform...yet when told that your comments are not clear, you're quick to bark back and tell us to "read the thread."

Again, we know only what you say. Do you not intend to say it truthfully?

The "administrator" is the FAA Administrator; the sole person charged by an Act of Congress to oversee aviation safety in the United States. The Administrator's delegates in the matter are physicians; the ones who make the decisions: these are not arbitrary or capricious calls made by secretaries and bureaucrats, but by panels of physicians who meet to discuss the cases and who will order additional information as needed. When matters are deferred to Oklahoma city, primarily when the Administrator (a term which collectively refers to the designees fo the Administrator and the FAA) has determined that local approval is not possible by the AME in the field, the matter is handled by physicians whose expertise is aviation medicine.

You seem to think that it's a matter of favoritism and rolling dice, and it's not. You seem to think that a failure to be approved is "bizarre," not based on any science, but based on your guesswork of second hand internet lore. You seem to think that everyone should think as you, and you seem to think that the entire process is decided by faceless bureaucrafts who haphazardly make the call.

You are wrong on all counts.