I cannot figure out how anybody could "have reservations" about physical
condition of any light aircraft pilot, but still feel comfortable surrounded on
the highways with 16 wheel rigs, buses and millions of cars operated by
physically unexamined drivers. Have we a priority problem here? The
statistics look screwy. Maybe we should include global warming as a culprit.
It has about the same statistical validity/priority.
Why in the name of Pete are we worried about some light-aircraft operator's
blood pressure when we have certified highway meth-heads zipping by us at
closing speeds of over 100 mph on a regular basis? Maybe what we need is
people minding their own business, at least until they can recognize physical
reality?
Just a thought.
ddw
--- On Tue, 7/6/10, William R. Bayne <ercog...@txercoupemuseum.org> wrote:
From: William R. Bayne <ercog...@txercoupemuseum.org>
Subject: Re: [ercoupe-flyin] Re: [ercoupe-tech] Re: Pilot Medicals "Fate is the
Hunter"
To: ercoupe-flyin@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, July 6, 2010, 12:25 AM
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
