HIMS Seminar Wrap-Up: Where’s the Data?
Day One – Setting the Stage
The seminar began with introductory sessions and baseline presentations. P4HR made its presence known immediately, engaging with program leadership, coalition partners, and other attendees.
Our first win was visibility: bringing accountability questions directly into the room and showing that reform voices cannot be ignored. Coalition members asked targeted questions, opening the door for deeper conversations in the days ahead.
Day Two – Building Momentum
The morning featured a scheduled session on psychiatric evaluations, where P4HR raised a critical question about potential bias and conflict. Specifically, we challenged the practice of psychiatrists consulting with other members of a pilot’s medical team before issuing their report. While it was described on stage as “best practice,” we pointed out that this practice can — and has — introduced bias, with devastating consequences for pilots who otherwise should have been cleared.
Later that day, P4HR hosted our first-ever reform roundtable, bringing together a total of 11 participants. The discussion was tough and, at times, divided — but it was a beginning. For the first time, stakeholders sat down in the same room to openly wrestle with the need for change, what that change might look like, and how it could impact the system.
We also achieved a direct win: P4HR engaged FAA officials on one of our coalition member’s cases and successfully obtained a status update. This kind of real-time advocacy shows the value of having reform voices present in the room.
Finally, we made meaningful connections, including high-level meetings such as with the ALPA Vice President. These discussions showed that reform is not just a distant idea — it’s part of the current dialogue.
Day Three – Pressing the FAA on Data
The final morning of the seminar featured back-to-back Q&A sessions. P4HR focused our efforts on one critical issue: data.
During the FAA Q&A session, in front of the full audience, P4HR posed direct questions to FAA leadership. The exchange unfolded openly for everyone in the room to hear:
- FAA officials acknowledged their frustration with the inability to make risk-based, data-driven decisions. When pilots leave the program, the FAA only knows they did not renew their certificate — but not why.
- The current DIWS system was described as outdated and not designed for research. While it holds large amounts of information, it requires case-by-case manual review.
- Privacy laws were cited as a barrier. FAA officials emphasized they cannot release personally identifiable medical data outside their “four walls.”
In response, P4HR recommended that an independent organization be empowered to gather and analyze program data. We emphasized that realistically, such a mechanism would require legislative action.
At that point, FAA leadership replied with a cautionary note: “Be careful what you wish for.”
This exchange — delivered and answered in front of the full seminar — made clear that even FAA leadership is constrained and frustrated by the lack of data. Without reform — potentially legislative — accountability will remain impossible.
Good Faith vs. Lived Experience
In all sincerity, the seminar appeared to be put on in good faith. Participants and speakers seemed genuinely interested in helping those in the program.
That is what makes the contradiction so confusing. Based on the many stories we’ve documented of abuse, neglect, or retaliation, such behavior should not exist in a program that is genuinely dedicated to helping. Yet the lived experiences of pilots tell a very different story.
This contradiction underscores the need for a closer look:
- What’s going wrong?
- Where is it going wrong?
- How is it going wrong?
Being Welcomed and Positive Signs of Change
As an organization, P4HR felt genuinely welcomed at the seminar. Capt. Craig Ohmsieder, National HIMS Chairman, and Dr. Quay Snyder, HIMS Program Manager, were very open with us, and P4HR was included in the seminar introductions as a recognized group.
It also appeared that many of our session topics were incorporated across the event. We want to specifically credit the discussion on support groups. Traditionally, these conversations have been heavily AA-focused. This year, however, there was a balanced presentation that gave equal time and consideration to both Alcoholics Anonymous and SMART Recovery, as well as acknowledgment of other recovery options. The two were presented in an unbiased manner, side by side — a positive change that we noted ourselves.
The event drew around 400 participants. Beyond leadership, P4HR had several discussions with other attendees, and many were supportive of our efforts. Of course, there was some strong pushback, particularly from segments of union leadership, largely rooted in fear of unintended consequences from reform. This is understandable — and this kind of engagement is exactly what we are seeking.
Open and honest dialogue is the path forward. At the end of the day, we all share the same goal: ensuring that the program works in the best possible way for everyone — pilots, air traffic controllers, and those administering the program alike. That is the only way to truly help the people who need it most.
Findings & Next Steps
- Transparency is missing. The HIMS program is called the Human Intervention Motivation Study, yet there is no accessible dataset to evaluate outcomes.
- Bias is built in. Psychiatric evaluations and opaque processes allow for subjectivity and abuse.
- Legislative action may be required. If transparency cannot be achieved internally, Congress may need to mandate accountability.
- Dialogue is possible. FAA leadership engaged directly, and even if cautiously, they signaled willingness to continue the conversation.
- Reform is beginning. Our first-ever P4HR roundtable proved that difficult conversations are possible and that the pilot community is ready to engage.
- Advocacy delivers results. Direct engagement with FAA officials led to a real-time status update for one of our coalition members — proof that persistence matters.
Conclusion
P4HR entered the HIMS Seminar determined to ask the questions that matter. We leave with important wins: visibility, engagement, our first roundtable, a case update victory, and a potential path forward through continued dialogue.
But we also leave with clarity: without data, there is no accountability. If internal reform cannot provide answers, then legislative reform must.
At Pilots for HIMS Reform, we will continue to press this simple, essential question:
Where’s the data?