When “Mental Health Advocacy” Draws a Line in the Sand
Pilots for HIMS Reform • PMHC’s DC Advocacy Day 2026 (February 4, 2026)
On Tuesday, Pilots for HIMS Reform received a series of phone calls we did not expect—but ones that, unfortunately, confirm exactly why our work exists.
Chris Finlayson, Executive Director of the Pilots Mental Health Campaign (PMHC), contacted two of our co-founders—Captain Maurice MacEwen and Captain Michael Danford—to inform us that we were no longer welcome to attend PMHC’s DC Advocacy Day 2026, scheduled for February 4, 2026.
We were, quite literally, uninvited.
A Conversation That Revealed More Than Intended
Captain MacEwen’s phone call with Mr. Finlayson lasted approximately 17 minutes. The conversation began in a friendly, professional tone. Mr. Finlayson explained that he was calling regarding PMHC’s DC Advocacy Day and expressed that it would be best if we did not attend.
As the discussion continued, we sought to understand how an organization branded around “pilot mental health” could exclude a coalition advocating for a major and well-recognized mental health category in aviation—particularly substance use disorder (SUD) and the lived realities of professionals navigating the HIMS system. We raised what we believe are clear contradictions in publicly claiming to represent “all pilots” while treating certain subsets of pilots as outside the scope of engagement.
We also explained that our concerns are not theoretical. Pilots within our coalition have described approaching the Pilots Mental Health Campaign in good faith—some after donating—seeking advocacy related to experiences within the HIMS pipeline, only to report being turned away, disregarded, or effectively sidelined once their circumstances became complicated or institutionally sensitive.
In at least one reported instance, a coalition member described being undermined during an interaction involving a congressional office after seeking support. According to that account, the pilot felt their situation was minimized rather than advocated, reinforcing the perception that pilots entangled in the HIMS system fall outside the scope of support PMHC is willing to offer.
During the call, Mr. Finlayson stated that PMHC would be willing to engage with us or explore working together, but only if we could provide assurances that we would not “run off and publish” what was discussed. We declined to offer such assurances. Transparency with our coalition is foundational to Pilots for HIMS Reform, and we are not willing to accept conditions that require silence or selective disclosure as a prerequisite for engagement.
As we declined to provide those assurances and continued pressing the underlying contradictions, the tone of the conversation shifted further. We were told that we were being “unprofessional” and were directly called liars. No specific factual inaccuracies were identified when clarification was requested.
Similar concerns regarding exclusion, stigma, and conditional advocacy have also been raised by air traffic controllers and other members of our coalition, based on their own reported experiences.
Prior Attempts to Engage
In 2025, Pilots for HIMS Reform approached the Pilots Mental Health Campaign in good faith to explore potential collaboration. Despite shared interest in aviation mental health advocacy, we were ultimately told that our goals “did not align.”
This raises an unavoidable question. It is difficult to reconcile how an organization explicitly branded as a pilot mental health campaign could exclude or distance itself from a subset of mental health conditions that are both well-recognized and prevalent in aviation—most notably substance use disorder (SUD). SUD is a diagnosable, treatable mental health condition, not a moral failing. The only logical conclusion is that this exclusion reflects the persistent stigma associated with SUD, even within spaces that publicly claim to combat stigma itself.
Captain Danford’s Account: A Pattern, Not an Isolated Incident
Captain Danford’s intent was simple: to participate in an advocacy effort that claimed to represent pilots broadly. That participation was explicitly denied.
Captain Danford reports that Mr. Finlayson asked him to call and that the discussion centered on whether Danford would attend. Danford explained he might still be able to come. He reports he was told it was “not a very good fit,” and when he asked directly whether he was being told not to come, he understood the answer to be yes. Danford ended the call without escalating, stating that since he was not invited, he would not attend.
This denial is particularly notable given Captain Danford’s prior engagement. He participated in PMHC’s advocacy day in 2024, showing up in good faith to support the organization’s stated mission. By his account, he received no meaningful support during that interaction. Nonetheless, he continued participating—setting aside his own priorities and agenda to further PMHC’s goals.
.jpg)
At the conclusion of the 2024 advocacy day, Captain Danford drafted and submitted a multi-page letter outlining a viable solution addressing FAA-related mental health issues, drawing on his 45 years of professional experience. According to Captain Danford, he received no response whatsoever.
Advocacy—But Only Within Approved Boundaries
Pilots for HIMS Reform exists because many aviation professionals—pilots and air traffic controllers alike—have experienced harm, coercion, stigma, and long-term professional consequences under systems that claim to support mental health.
Mental health advocacy does not advance by excluding pilots who have lived through the HIMS program. It does not advance by dismissing those whose experiences challenge comfortable narratives. And it does not advance by drawing quiet lines around who is allowed to speak.
Advocacy that is contingent on conformity, silence, or pre-approval of acceptable viewpoints is not advocacy at all. It is gatekeeping.
That is not advocacy. It is gatekeeping.
Why This Matters
A campaign devoted to aviation mental health chose exclusion over engagement. A movement built on reducing stigma responded to criticism with marginalization and demands for silence.
This is precisely why reform is so difficult—and why it is so necessary.
Real mental health advocacy must make room for uncomfortable truths. It must listen to pilots and air traffic controllers who have been harmed—not distance itself from them. And it must be willing to confront institutional failures, even when doing so is inconvenient.
Because progress does not come from unanimity.
It comes from truth.
And sometimes, truth is unwelcome in the room.
Right to Comment
Prior to publication, Pilots for HIMS Reform contacted Chris Finlayson and the Pilots Mental Health Campaign to request comment on the substance of this article. Mr. Finlayson indicated that it was too late in the evening to respond and that he intends to provide a response. We acknowledge that Mr. Finlayson was given only a few hours to review and respond prior to publication.
This article is being published as scheduled. We welcome full comment at any time and will publish Mr. Finlayson’s response in full once received.