Originally Posted by tomgoodman

I served on a HIMS committee several years ago, and in cases involving substance abuse (which were the only kind we dealt with at that time), IQ and other mental tests were used to check for brain damage. Judging the effectiveness of such tests was above my pay grade.



Test results are not supposed to be released, and even if they were “favorable”, the SI could have been denied for other reasons. In my experience, most denials were for non-compliance with aftercare instructions or for a bad attitude. Appeals were rarely successful.

Originally Posted by JohnBurke

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



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?



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.

Originally Posted by fenix1

Thanks, TG - I’m no doctor/other medical professional, but I continue to be unsure how an IQ test & mental health are related (especially without a baseline exam), but this is yet another account of their widespread usage. It’s disconcerting.

It’s my understanding that test results weren’t released in a quantifiable fashion, but rather qualitatively (and likely unofficially). As you alluded to, I hope all cases where the testing/quantifiable results were favorable but an SI was not given centered on issues of some kind after or outside of the testing/evaluation (example: relapse in the case of an alcoholic or drug addict after testing showed no brain damage). Those cases are not only understandable, but, frankly, I commend the FAA & AME’s for denying/not supporting the SI in those situations - no one (not the pilot themself, other pilots in their pilot group, the flying public, the company or the FAA/AME) benefits from an SI being issued in a case like that. I’m not sure if I’m not getting the full story or if there really are somewhat arbitrary SI denials even with positive testing results that occur.

Again, thanks for the help.

Originally Posted by USMCFLYR

You keep talking about needing some base line IQ test. There is not a baseline test for an individual unless you choose to take one first and then keep having them, but that isn't the way they are generally used. Your baseline is the average of a large group of people who have taken the same test (the below article say based on your age group even) - so in this case you literally have millions of baselines on which they base your results.

https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is...age-iq-2795284

Originally Posted by fenix1

Thanks for your help, but my primary interest remains understanding the PROCESS or PROCEDURE administratively of an SI in the HIMS realm and what really determines the outcome (issuance or denial)...not the medical side of things.

The most logical application for an individual’s baseline IQ is to measure change; if the same individual takes an IQ test and their brain chemistry changes adversely in way that would pose a threat to their ability to fly safely, then their IQ should/could decline noticeably. Comparing an individual’s IQ to their peer group reveals nothing about their mental health - if being stupid (poor reasoning, critical thinking, etc) can be the sole basis for the FAA to deny a medical certificate, then it should be given to all applicants, not just those going through the SI process. The use of an IQ test as a quantitative means of determining mental health continues to be concerning and likely indicative of a lot of “soft math” involved in SI evaluations, which is disconcerting; the very link posted above mentions how controversial IQ testing is toward determining intelligence (let alone conclusions about mental health!), yet IQ testing continues to be a tool widely used as part of the SI evaluation.....

Please, let’s flush out all we can about the SI PROCESS, and what really matters within the PROCESS toward an ultimate issuance or denial. Thanks to anyone who can help toward this objective!

Originally Posted by USMCFLYR

You are all over the place and your pleas to concentrate on the process without even understanding the tests is misplaced. You keep saying 'the process' but then type paragraph after paragraph talking about the tests.

Good luck in your search.

Originally Posted by fenix1

I’m all over the place? The thread is titled SI Process. I’ve repeatedly attempted to steer others back to the process instead of pretending they are medical professionals. I only brought up the IQ test to point out the apparent issues & shortcomings of the process and others have fixated on that. If you have nothing to offer toward the SI process, then good luck to you, too.

Originally Posted by Excargodog

There are as many procedures/processes as there are potentially disqualifying diagnoses. Ultimately a specialist knowledgeable in the key aeromedical issues of whichever potentially disqualifying is under consideration assesses tests believed to be applicable and worthwhile and recommends a disposition and the Federal Air Surgeon buys off on it, either individually or by delegation. That may not be a process you like, and indeed I could envision a half dozen other processes, but it’s been through the courts and has been legally upheld. I suppose you can challenge it again if you’d like.

Good luck with that.