P4HR Submits Formal Response to FAA HIMS Program Support Services RFI
Pilots for HIMS Reform (P4HR) has formally submitted an industry response to the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Sources Sought / Request for Information (RFI) for the HIMS Program Support Services Contract (Notice ID: 693KA9-26).
This submission marks an important moment. The FAA is actively evaluating how the HIMS program is operated, who operates it, and what safeguards should govern it going forward.
Transparency matters at all stages, at all times. That principle guided our decision not only to submit a formal response, but to publish both the FAA’s RFI and P4HR’s full submission for public review.
What Is the FAA HIMS RFI?
An RFI is not a contract award and not a request for bids. It is a market research step the FAA uses to:
- identify capable potential vendors,
- assess competition and acquisition strategy,
- evaluate operational and governance risks, and
- shape the final Statement of Work (SOW) before issuing a formal solicitation.
In this case, the FAA’s RFI makes explicit something many aviation professionals are unaware of: the HIMS program is largely operated through a contractor, not run exclusively inside the FAA.
According to the RFI, the contractor is responsible for:
- conducting national HIMS education and advanced seminars,
- managing the HIMS Tracking Database,
- maintaining the HIMS website (himsprogram.com),
- supporting advisory board governance, and
- shaping “recommended practices” that influence how HIMS operates across the industry.
Who performs this work — and under what structural safeguards — directly affects fairness, trust, safety culture, and medical certification outcomes.
Read the Documents
Why P4HR Submitted a Response
P4HR submitted a formal response because program operations matter.
Policy statements alone do not determine outcomes. Training, data governance, transparency, and incentives do.
A safety-critical program that affects medical certification, employment continuity, and livelihoods must be operated without structural conflicts of interest and with measurable accountability.
Unlike legacy or incumbent program operators, P4HR:
- does not profit from testing laboratories,
- does not receive revenue from treatment or monitoring vendors,
- does not answer to airline or union financial interests, and
- does not benefit from prolonged monitoring, escalation, or program expansion.
This independence is not ideological. It is operational. It allows program performance to be evaluated based on safety, recovery, and timely return to duty, rather than program perpetuation.
For these reasons, P4HR believes it is well positioned to serve as a lower-conflict prime contractor for HIMS Program Support Services.
What Our Submission Focused On
Our RFI response was intentionally professional, measured, and procurement-focused. It did not attempt to litigate individual cases or catalogue grievances.
Instead, we identified structural risks in the current HIMS model that can be addressed through contract design and oversight.
Key Areas Highlighted
1. “Recommended Practices” Becoming De Facto Rules
Unpublished or evolving “recommended practices” can quietly become mandatory without transparency, documentation, or review.
2. HIMS Tracking Database Governance
Auditability, error-correction pathways, and safeguards are necessary to prevent misuse or bias.
3. Website Transparency
Public-facing resources must clearly disclose governance, contractor involvement, and participant rights.
4. Advisory Board Composition
Governance benefits from representation beyond airlines, unions, and AMEs.
5. Meaningful Performance Metrics
Outcome-based KPIs such as dispute resolution timelines and return-to-duty delays matter more than activity counts.
Why This Matters
HIMS participation affects careers, livelihoods, and safety culture. A program that lacks transparency discourages early self-reporting and undermines trust.
Transparency is not something that begins after problems emerge. Transparency matters at all stages, at all times.