Hi All,
I agree with Lee and (most?) other folks recently commenting as to the
"need" (or lack thereof) for medical certification and its effect on
safety of flight for both pilots and those on the ground. It bothers
me that a majority of the pilot community is afraid to express such
radical sentiments as we discuss among ourselves (presuming they are
shared) because of "politically correctness".
To change course requires pressure on the helm. Until a majority
acknowledge the serious flaws in our present "system" and demand
something better, the regulatory climate and culture will not change.
There is also, even in our comments, a certain incredulity, naivety or
mental innocence that suggests surprise:
1. that "common sense" has a place in the process, and
2. the utter absence of "common sense" association between a given
"danger" and regulations adopted to mitigate such danger.
I believe this is because, while all regulations should originate as an
honest attempt to resolve an honest problem, few do. Many not only do
not accomplish what would appear to be their intended purpose, but
actually have precisely the opposite effect. The very idea that a
regulation should "make sense" has become a joke among us. Truth be
told, it is we who are, in reality, the butt of such jokes; and rightly
so.
In the spirit of July the 4th and all that the holiday represents:
Whether our persecutors be the local tax board, local police, state
and federal legislators, or even our President, our fear of retaliation
keeps us from telling each that we know we are persecuted and we know
who is doing it. As we entered World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt
suggested everyone had a right to "freedom from fear" even as his hand
created many of the fundamentally unconstitutional "acronym agencies"
that today comprise "bigger and bigger" government at greater and
greater expense. Does anyone now alive expect to see the day that such
"freedom from fear" becomes reality? The very concept is contrary to
human nature.
Given the traditional absence of any meaningful responsibility to
demonstrate that any given regulation is having the intended effect,
ineffective or unnecessary regulations enjoy, to all intents and
purposes, eternal life. Ever more regulations (or legislation) are
enacted as "solutions" for problems never properly defined until any
logic between a given regulation and the effect it actually has is lost
or completely obscured.
From the perspective of a government bureaucrat, the more "problems"
that are perceived, the more of THEM are required (in the "public
interest", of course). Since the authority to make any decision is the
same, whether they make it or we make it, the obvious "tension" is in
how much authority do they actually need to resolve genuine "problems".
There is an absolutely marvelous British series frequently in reruns
on PBS entitled "Yes, Minister" that better exemplifies that of which I
speak than mere words ever could.
Because they believe we employ them to keep us from acting
irresponsibly, the day will never come that they will leave such
freedoms as we still enjoy untouched. Their professional reason to
exist is to seek and exercise ever more advantage and dominion over we,
the people. Mere centuries after the founding of the first free nation
on this earth, most have become silent and meek observers as the
influence of bureaucrats and the legal "community" increasingly control
a government we merely ratify between elections. Our "choice" between
two evils is still evil.
If we judge them by action and inaction, their purpose and destiny is
to enslave us and the expectation of justice has been reduced to mere
"outcomes". "Truth, outcomes and the American way" just doesn't have
the same "ring" to it!
For over four decades, the FAA has used its regulatory process to
progressively strangle the private pilot sector of the the aviation
community. Unlike the AOPA, I exclude corporate jets, the airlines,
charter operations and the like, all part of "civil aviation" because
these merely pass the increasing costs of operation and regulatory
compliance to the consuming public. The long term prosperity of the
FAA is no longer linked with the health of our thus-redefined sector of
civil aviation. Not one FAA position will cease to exist when the last
privately owned aircraft is grounded. In fact, their lives will be
infinitely easier because all levels of commercial aviation merely pass
their costs of operation to the consuming public.
Benjamin Franklin gave us words to the effect that "Those that would
give up freedom for security will receive and deserve neither". So
many of our recent generations have willingly come to feed from the
public trough that their descendants will be unable to perceive any
"cause" and "effect" when the fence around us is completed. Things
will simply be as they then are, and no one will bear or perceive
responsibility.
Whatever (off soap box),
WRB
--
On Jul 5, 2010, at 15:06, ercou...@juno.com wrote:
It hardly matters whether one has a medical or not as to when they
might fly with some medical problem. Folks do it all the time. FAA
relies on the pilot to ground him/herself when they are not
medically fit to fly. An acquaintence here has a high blood pressure
problem and would fail a medical if he took one. He is asking friends
with high blood pressure to give him pills to lower his blood pressure
till his is low enough to pass a medical. The idiocy of FAA regarding
3rd class medicals causes pilots not to mention any medication they
might be taking as it will flag them, the medical will be denied and
after 3-6 months FAA might award the medical because the medicine has
no adverse effect on one's ability to safely fly. However, it does
give a position for another burecrat and control over pilots.. In the
end it comes down to the individual to not fly if it is not safe.
In my last medical, I listed I was taking eye drops, the nurse wrote
down that I had glaucoma. The dr. denied my medical and forwarded it
on to Okla City. Even with a letter from my optometrist specifically
stating that I did not have glaucoma, that the drops were simply a
preventive measure FAA delayed giving me the medical and required me
to retest every 6 months. I went to an Opthomologist who did
extensive tests and sent a letter to FAA stating I did not have
glacoma. Faa has now removed all restrictions from my medical. I
recognize that it is FAA's duty to attempt to ensure that pilots are
medically safe to fly, however it is almost impossible to do so and
their efforts are making life miserable for many healthy folks.
The only cure for stupidity is death.
Lee Browning
I have found this is pretty common, I have a number of old friends
that have not had a BFR or a medical for years and years! I notice
when reading the NTSB accident reports, fairly often the crashee is
like maybe 10 years past due on his medical.
--- In ercoupe-t...@yahoogroups.com, ebengui...@... wrote:
>
> Dan too,
> Someone out there mentioned that they didn't think a medical
> was necessary for a Private Pilot Licensee.
> They did not refer to the Sport Pilot License which I have
reservations
> about regarding the medical condition of the pilot. Medical
Requirements.
> Generally, sport pilots are allowed to use their state driver's
license to
> establish medical fitness. What if they have a medical condition
that actually is
> dangerous to all concerned. You know what I mean! Those who just do
the
> wrong thing and get away with it until something happens. "Fate is
The Hunter"
> Fast story: My Pilot friends wife asked me to inform GADO that her
> husband was still flying his twin Beech with their two boys 10 and
13. He had a
> heart condition and medically had to stop flying as PIC. He figured
he was
> "JUST FINE" She informed them herself.
> "They all now live happily for ever after."
> Prof. Ed.
>
____________________________________________________________
Cheap Car Insurance
Drivers Pay $34/mo on Avg for Car Insurance. Are you paying too much?
iQuotes.org