Thanks the lawyers for that.

 

With substances, treatment type doesn’t matter much—it’s the diagnosis that screws you. Avoid being diagnosed, if at all possible.

I would never advocate for someone to hide anything, but after seeing how the FAA handles substance dependency/abuse issues, I would suggest non-clinical treatment first. Self ground, if required. Try AA/NA, etc. The second you get a healthcare professional or substance abuse counselor involved, an official diagnosis WILL follow. And once you have that label slapped on you, it’s all over.

The follow-on therapy/testing/monitoring requirements (after the gymnastics required to obtain the SI in the first place)used to be 2-3 years. Manageable. They very recently upped them to 5-6. If you make the cure worse than the disease, people will try to live with the disease...

 

I agree with the diagnosis part of what you say.

My point in the previous post is there in all kinds of counseling that doesn't have any downsides to it with the FAA. Grief counseling would be one.
Now go to grief counseling and come out of there with a prescript for ZOLOFT and there is going to be an issue with your medical and the FAA.

As far as substance abuse - - slippery slope.
The people complaining on here aren't the ones who have to answer the question to the media and the plaintiffs lawyers when something goes down and they can prove that the pilot had a substance abuse history (or in today's society even a sniff of a problem).

 

Are you suggesting that abusers should go to AA and then report or not report to FAA? I know they would not be diagnosed, but someones presence at AA meetings indicates they are admitting they have a problem.

 

The FAA does not consider any legal substance behavior to be disqualifying in and of itself.

They do consider some behaviors and other indications as possible indicators of dependency. A hint of dependency will get you a precautionary grounding until they can evaluate the situation.

Flying is a privilege, not a right, and public safety always comes first so they will always err on the side of extreme caution. You get some due process for your certificates, but very little for medicals when it comes to grounding... you're going to get grounded, and then you have to fight your way out of the hole.

 

Potentially very bad idea. If you check "no" on 18(n) but leave a paper-trail of getting help for dependency you're volunteering for federal prison. Some folks will say "but you never had a formal diagnosis with a second-opinion from two board-certified MDs specializing in substance abuse"... good luck trying to get the FAA or the judge to buy that line, they take a very common-sense approach on this kind of stuff: if you went to AA, you knew you had a problem.

Unless you're 100% certain that AA is truly anonymous. And leave your cell phone home at home, so it doesn't show you spending an hour at the AA location two nights a week. And don't tell anyone you're a pilot.

And don't tell your spouse/SO either.

May the force be with you on that.

Frankly HIMS is the better option, unless you can google self-help and make that stick with no outside intervention.

 

I’m not suggesting anyone do anything. I’m just saying that if I found myself in a situation where I thought I needed to crack back on/stop my drinking, I would self-ground and do what I could in order to get it in check myself first. I would not lie on an 8500-8, but I would avoid the formal diagnosis to the maximum extent possible, for as long as possible. It’s easier to explain to the FAA that you saw the potential for things to go sideways, so you took care of it, than to call them and tell them you were just diagnosed with AUD. Take from that what you will. For the record. I don’t drink.

Providing a little context about the while ‘what constitutes abuse’ question, let me provide a scenario that is based on the current DSM-V criteria (which no longer delineates between dependency and abuse):

You don’t drink frequently. Maybe once every few weeks or so. During the summer, it’s usually drinking a few beers in your backyard pool with your family. On the rare special occasion (a friend’s bachelor party or birthday, for example) you may bend to peer pressure end up having more drinks than you had planned, and wake up the next morning with a hangover, with some difficulty remembering the very end of the night. It never interferes with family, job, etc. You never get behind the wheel while intoxicated.

Per the DSM-V, you meet the criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder - Moderate.

What many, many people consider to be normal, acceptable drinking falls into the mild-moderate range in the eyes of the medical community. Unless you only have the occasional glass of wine with dinner, be VERY careful.

 

Certainly drugs whatever the reason are a bright line. Totally get that. I think it's the normal reticence to inject any unnecessary potential risk to the career when the regulatory agency has so much control and you are literally at their mercy. Even the military, with policies in place, has a hard time getting troops into counseling because of the stigma and the fear of prejudice by leadership/peers. As a former Marine I'm sure you can speak to the military mentality more than most. Just no way to know the outcome when you hit "press to test"

 

so for most place the reason you volunteer is if you get help the company generally pays for the treatment, testing, and you are protected from losing your job. If you have an incident the FAA is going to take your medical, possibly your certificate, and the company is free to discipline you as they see fit.

 

Certainly more of an incentive if you are a dues paying employee. It’s a good protection for 121 employees.

If you aren’t, you’re on your own. In other words, if the industry just took a major hit, you haven’t made it to 121 world yet, you’re unemployed, and you find yourself at the bottom of a bottle? Unless you’re independently wealthy, you’re done.

Unfortunately, this will become all too common as the industry continues its slide.