A New Leaf? FAA engagement on HIMS reform after Denver.

P4HR Analysis • Denver • September 14, 2026

A New Leaf? Is the FAA Finally Willing to Engage on HIMS Reform?

For the first time, P4HR had a meaningful, direct conversation with senior FAA aeromedical leadership about the concerns driving HIMS reform. No promises were made. But the conversation itself may represent an important change.

For months, Pilots for HIMS Reform has called on FAA aeromedical leadership to engage directly with the pilots affected by the HIMS system.

Last Friday in Denver, that finally happened.

During the HIMS Seminar, P4HR co-founder Maurice MacEwen met directly with Dr. Brett Wyrick, Deputy Federal Air Surgeon, for a substantive conversation about the concerns that have driven P4HR’s reform efforts.

We believe it is important to acknowledge that meeting honestly.

It was meaningful.

That does not mean the FAA agreed with everything P4HR has advocated. It does not mean reforms were promised. And it certainly does not mean that the problems we have documented within the HIMS system have been resolved. But it does mean something important changed.

The FAA Listened

P4HR has consistently argued that the debate surrounding HIMS is about much more than whether pilots should receive appropriate treatment, monitoring, or medical oversight.

The deeper questions involve transparency, due process, scientific justification, individualized medical decision-making, proportionality, and whether pilots are sometimes subjected to requirements that continue long after their clinical necessity can be clearly demonstrated.

Those were among the issues discussed in Denver.

Dr. Wyrick appeared to understand the substance of the concerns being raised. The discussion was not simply about isolated complaints or individual frustrations. It addressed the broader principles underlying P4HR’s reform effort and why so many pilots have come to believe the current system requires meaningful change.

For an organization that has repeatedly asked for direct engagement with FAA aeromedical leadership, we should be willing to say clearly when that engagement occurs.

It occurred in Denver.

A Conversation Is Not Reform

We also need to be careful not to overstate what happened.

There were no promises.

There was no announcement of a new FAA policy.

There was no commitment to adopt P4HR’s legislative proposal, rulemaking petition, or specific recommendations.

And we do not yet know what will come from the conversation.

That distinction matters.

P4HR will not characterize a meeting as a victory simply because a meeting occurred. The measure of progress ultimately will be whether pilots begin to see greater transparency, clearer standards, stronger due-process protections, scientifically defensible requirements, and meaningful alternatives to unnecessarily prolonged monitoring.

But reform has to begin somewhere.

And meaningful reform is exceedingly difficult when the people responsible for administering the system and the people affected by it are not talking to one another.

For that reason, we believe the Denver conversation deserves recognition.

Is the FAA Turning a New Leaf?

That remains the unanswered question.

Was this simply an opportunity for FAA leadership to hear P4HR’s concerns?

Or does it represent the beginning of a genuine willingness to examine whether parts of the legacy HIMS structure need to change?

We do not know yet.

And we are not going to pretend that we do.

But we came away from the conversation believing that Dr. Wyrick understood what we were actually asking for.

P4HR is not seeking to dismantle legitimate aeromedical safeguards. We are not arguing that substance-use or mental-health conditions should be ignored. And we are not asking the FAA to sacrifice aviation safety.

We are asking for a system in which restrictions and monitoring requirements can be justified by current evidence, applied proportionately to the individual pilot, reviewed meaningfully over time, and reduced or removed when the evidence no longer supports them.

We are asking for transparency.

We are asking for due process.

And we are asking for a system willing to evolve when science, experience, and evidence demonstrate that evolution is warranted.

If FAA aeromedical leadership is willing to have that conversation, P4HR is willing to be at the table.

The Door Should Stay Open

We appreciate Dr. Wyrick taking the time to meet and engage directly in Denver.

We also hope that meeting was not the conclusion of the dialogue, but the beginning of one.

P4HR will continue attempting to engage Dr. Wyrick, the Federal Air Surgeon, and other members of FAA aeromedical leadership. Where the FAA takes constructive steps, we will acknowledge them. Where serious problems remain, we will continue documenting them and advocating for change.

Our responsibility is not to oppose the FAA simply for the sake of opposition.

Our responsibility is to the pilots whose careers, livelihoods, and medical certification are affected by this system — and to the broader goal of an aeromedical framework that is safe, fair, transparent, and grounded in evidence.

Perhaps Denver represented the beginning of a new chapter.

It is too early to know.

But for the first time in this effort, there is at least reason to ask the question:

Is the FAA finally willing to engage?

We sincerely hope the answer is yes.