The recent questions about medical certificate, paper trail, sport
pilot etc.. etc..got me thinking. What is the reasoning behind
requiring a medical for pilots? Why is a minor medical condition
disqualifying for flying a Cessna 172, when the same person can drive a
20,000 lb truck on public roads? Are there statistic to show that
medically unfit pilots are a greater danger to society compared to
other activities?

On 16 Nov 2005 19:27:00 -0800, "Andrew Sarangan"
> wrote:

>The recent questions about medical certificate, paper trail, sport
>pilot etc.. etc..got me thinking. What is the reasoning behind
>requiring a medical for pilots? Why is a minor medical condition
>disqualifying for flying a Cessna 172, when the same person can drive a
>20,000 lb truck on public roads? Are there statistic to show that
>medically unfit pilots are a greater danger to society compared to
>other activities?


What I find even more disconcerting are conditions that would ground a
private pilot with a third class medical which merely get documented
and waived for a first class holder who flies heavy iron every day.

The consistency is questionable.

z

What conditions?

zatatime wrote:

>
>
> What I find even more disconcerting are conditions that would ground a
> private pilot with a third class medical which merely get documented
> and waived for a first class holder who flies heavy iron every day.
>
> The consistency is questionable.
>
> z

> What I find even more disconcerting are conditions that would ground a
> private pilot with a third class medical which merely get documented
> and waived for a first class holder who flies heavy iron every day.
>
> The consistency is questionable.
>
> z

Do you have a "for instance"??
a nice example for us to compare?

BT

"Andrew Sarangan"
> pilot etc.. etc..got me thinking. What is the reasoning behind
> requiring a medical for pilots?

If you're talking about third class medical, it does bring up some
interesting questions. Excluding passengers, I would think your chances of
killing others while having a heart attack in your car are much higher than
in an aircraft. If I may coin a phrase, "The big ground theory" seems to
make flying the safer alternative for a cardiac patient.


Dallas

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> The recent questions about medical certificate, paper trail, sport
> pilot etc.. etc..got me thinking. What is the reasoning behind
> requiring a medical for pilots?

Makes the regulators feel like they are doing something for the public.
The truth of the matter, is that it's easy to abuse the pilot community.
However you can't do anything that might separate the American voting
populace from their cars or TV without committing political suicide.

What about including passengers? Even if you are on the verge of
collapsing from some debilitating desease you could drive a minibus
loaded with passengers at 75mph.

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> The recent questions about medical certificate, paper trail, sport
> pilot etc.. etc..got me thinking. What is the reasoning behind
> requiring a medical for pilots? Why is a minor medical condition
> disqualifying for flying a Cessna 172, when the same person can drive a
> 20,000 lb truck on public roads? Are there statistic to show that
> medically unfit pilots are a greater danger to society compared to
> other activities?
>

Well you know... There's a somewhat revealing discussion of the medical
requirement in the preamble to the Sport Pilot NPRM (it's somewhere on
faa.gov but my link to it no longer works, since it's pretty old). In
particular, among other things, it cites the safety record of sailplanes
as a justification for the so-called "drivers license medical" that was
initially put into the rule. It strongly suggests that the writers of
the rule felt that a medical requirement is a) superfluous, certainly
for flying LSA and b) in very high demand and critical for survival of
the LSA industry.

Of course, as we all know, the medical requirement was very badly
crippled in the final version of the rule, but that would appear to have
only been the result of pressure from special interests (the insurance
companies probably). What's important is, it actually succeeded in
passing without formally requiring a medical certificate - a stunning
achievement if you really think about it.

So clearly, there seems to be disagreement even within the FAA about
whether or not a medical requirement really does any good. The fact that
Sport Pilot even made it out the door in its current form strongly
indicates this.....

By the way, I think the preamble made a similar argument to yours - if a
pilot holds a valid DL and can drive a multi-ton vehicle down the road,
surely (s)he is fit enough to fly an LSA safely.....

My personal case is a good example. I can't obtain and maintain a class
III anymore and yet I'm in the best health of my entire life and more
than fit to fly an airplane. I've accumulated more then 500 hours of
flight time since my class III went away with no problems.. There're a
lot of other guys just like me out there also flying without problems....

So as they say, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....

LS
N646F

I think the theory is that disabilities rarely occur without warning.
If you get chest pain while driving a bus, you can pull over to the
side of the road. If it happens in airplane, it may be a while before
you can find a safe place to park.

I've seen statistics on medical-related aviation accidents, and the
number of these that could have been prevented by a more rigorous
medical is close to zero. Compared to CFIT, VFR into IMC, and
stall/spin accidents, the medical requirements don't come close to
justifying their cost and inconvenience.

"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
> On 16 Nov 2005 19:27:00 -0800, "Andrew Sarangan"
> > wrote:
>
>>The recent questions about medical certificate, paper trail, sport
>>pilot etc.. etc..got me thinking. What is the reasoning behind
>>requiring a medical for pilots? Why is a minor medical condition
>>disqualifying for flying a Cessna 172, when the same person can drive a
>>20,000 lb truck on public roads? Are there statistic to show that
>>medically unfit pilots are a greater danger to society compared to
>>other activities?
>
>
> What I find even more disconcerting are conditions that would ground a
> private pilot with a third class medical which merely get documented
> and waived for a first class holder who flies heavy iron every day.
>
> The consistency is questionable.
>
> z

If you can get a waiver for a condition on a first class you can get it for
a third.

Allen

On 17 Nov 2005 06:28:26 -0800, "Paul kgyy" >
wrote:

>I think the theory is that disabilities rarely occur without warning.
>If you get chest pain while driving a bus, you can pull over to the
>side of the road. If it happens in airplane, it may be a while before
>you can find a safe place to park.
>

Yes, I'm sure that this is the reasoning used by Joe Bureaucrat for
keeping the reg. Of course, that bus driver might hit about 30
pedestrians when he pulls over to the side of the road while the pilot
may take out a backyard hot tub somewhere when he goes down.

>take out a backyard hot tub somewhere when he goes down.

The one incident I am aware of a pilot having a heart attack while
flying. The Pilot on a Cross country flight landed and called the FBO
to call 911 for him. He had a 2nd Class Medical.

Brian

>>by "Andrew Sarangan" > Nov 16, 2005 at 07:27 PM


The recent questions about medical certificate, paper trail, sport
pilot etc.. etc..got me thinking. What is the reasoning behind
requiring a medical for pilots? Why is a minor medical condition
disqualifying for flying a Cessna 172, when the same person can drive a
20,000 lb truck on public roads? Are there statistic to show that
medically unfit pilots are a greater danger to society compared to
other activities?<<

Completely inaccurate and untrue. In fact, medical testing requirements
are tougher for a CDL than for a PPL. Surely some pilots out there also
have CDLs. A link to reality:

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/medical.htm

"Skylune" wrote:
> And another thing: CDL holders are subject to
> random drug and alcohol tests. States may impose
> tougher standards than the federally required minimums,
> and many companies impose even tighter restrictions.
>
> PPLs get off comparitively easily. Drug testing should be
> mandatory for PPLs, and random drug testing s/b part of
> FAA ramp checks.

Oh, my... Private pilots (the majority) are not commercial pilots.
And NTSB statistics do not support a safety hazard to the general
public when medical problems cause an accident. Once in a blue
moon, a generally solo accident occurs, like heart failure.
Happens in cars to people, and occasionally they hit pedestrians or
head-on another vehicle.

If you hate recreational aviation so much, wouldn't it be more fun
to find a sympathetic newsgroup? Preach to the choir.

Fred F.

TaxSrv wrote:

>
> Oh, my... Private pilots (the majority) are not commercial pilots.
> And NTSB statistics do not support a safety hazard to the general
> public when medical problems cause an accident. Once in a blue
> moon, a generally solo accident occurs, like heart failure.
> Happens in cars to people, and occasionally they hit pedestrians or
> head-on another vehicle.
>
> If you hate recreational aviation so much, wouldn't it be more fun
> to find a sympathetic newsgroup? Preach to the choir.
>
I don't know about other states, but I can tell you in my state,
random drug tests never occur. As a matter of fact, it's unlikely
that anything happens to a CDL driver who lacks a medical card.
Twice while sitting around in traffic court (In Virginia to add
insult to injury, if you are involved in an accident and the cops
cite the other driver, you have to go to court as a subpeonaed
witness) I saw (two different judges) judges routinely dismiss
the "lack of medical card" citations.

Something to Consider,
CDL drivers have companies they work for paying for those random drug
test. As an aircraft mech the companies I worked for also paid for the
random drug testing. If every truck driver or aircraft mech had to pay for
this out of his/her own pocket, there would not be many truck drivers or
aircraft mechanics.
I guess companies would pay for commercial pilots to take random drug
test, but since we are talking about private pilots, who exactly would cover
the cost? Would the FAA simply say you and you go to this lab and take a
drug test right now? What if you didn't have the funds to cover the test at
that time? Say you did take it. What happens if you fail a drug test you had
to pay for..would a court say wait a minute we can't make a person pay for
their own entrapment. It would be very interesting to see how it played out
in court.
That being said I don't see why the people working on the planes have to
take a drug test if those that fly it don't. But I really don't see a way to
"make" a private pilot pay for a drug test randomly. When a company pays for
it and uses it as part of their tax write off, and it's a condition of you
working there, it's controversial. Could you legally make someone pay for a
drug test ? Gets "out there somewhere" when you consider the pilot may not
be at his home airport with transportation to a lab facility, may not have
the money to cover the expense of the test and let's not forget the taxi or
rental car to the lab.
Ahhh a tangled web we weave........

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Skylune" wrote:
> > And another thing: CDL holders are subject to
>> random drug and alcohol tests. States may impose
>> tougher standards than the federally required minimums,
>> and many companies impose even tighter restrictions.
>>
>> PPLs get off comparitively easily. Drug testing should be
>> mandatory for PPLs, and random drug testing s/b part of
>> FAA ramp checks.
>
> Oh, my... Private pilots (the majority) are not commercial pilots.
> And NTSB statistics do not support a safety hazard to the general
> public when medical problems cause an accident. Once in a blue
> moon, a generally solo accident occurs, like heart failure.
> Happens in cars to people, and occasionally they hit pedestrians or
> head-on another vehicle.
>
> If you hate recreational aviation so much, wouldn't it be more fun
> to find a sympathetic newsgroup? Preach to the choir.
>
> Fred F.
>

You are comparing apples to oranges. The majority of Cessna 172 pilots
are not flying for hire. I do not have a problem with for-hire pilots
needing a medical.

You can drive a heavy truck with a regular drivers license. You don't
need a medical or a CDL.

Drug and alcohol tests for pilots are fine too. There is clear evidence
that shows that driving/flying under the influence is dangerous to the
public. However, there is no overwhelming evidence that a pilot with a
blood pressure 20 points higher than normal is so much of a hazard
that they should be barred from flying.

Brian wrote:
>> take out a backyard hot tub somewhere when he goes down.
>
> The one incident I am aware of a pilot having a heart attack while
> flying. The Pilot on a Cross country flight landed and called the FBO
> to call 911 for him. He had a 2nd Class Medical.


We had a local chiropodist who had a heart attack while approaching the Rock
Hill, SC airport in an Aerostar after a trip to the coast. He ended up crashing
in an intersection and burning up. Unfortunately he took his passenger with
him.

Nobody on the ground was injured and I don't believe there was any appreciable
property damage, except his own.

You can read about the resulting lawsuit at:

http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/083098/met_079-1277.001.shtml

Use blahblah1 as the username and blahblahblah as the password unless you feel
the need to register.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> TaxSrv wrote:
>
>>
>> Oh, my... Private pilots (the majority) are not commercial pilots.
>> And NTSB statistics do not support a safety hazard to the general
>> public when medical problems cause an accident. Once in a blue
>> moon, a generally solo accident occurs, like heart failure.
>> Happens in cars to people, and occasionally they hit pedestrians or
>> head-on another vehicle.
>>
>> If you hate recreational aviation so much, wouldn't it be more fun
>> to find a sympathetic newsgroup? Preach to the choir.
>>
> I don't know about other states, but I can tell you in my state,
> random drug tests never occur. As a matter of fact, it's unlikely
> that anything happens to a CDL driver who lacks a medical card.
> Twice while sitting around in traffic court (In Virginia to add
> insult to injury, if you are involved in an accident and the cops
> cite the other driver, you have to go to court as a subpeonaed
> witness) I saw (two different judges) judges routinely dismiss
> the "lack of medical card" citations.

If the DOT gets a hold of them they will not be as forgiving to either them
or who they drive for.

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> The recent questions about medical certificate, paper trail, sport
> pilot etc.. etc..got me thinking. What is the reasoning behind
> requiring a medical for pilots? Why is a minor medical condition
> disqualifying for flying a Cessna 172, when the same person can drive a
> 20,000 lb truck on public roads? Are there statistic to show that
> medically unfit pilots are a greater danger to society compared to
> other activities?
>

There are a lot of people at the FAA who's job it is to "review" and reject
medicals. And those people have supervisors. And those people have managers,
etc. etc. etc.

Does it make sense now?

--
Geoff
the sea hawk at wow way d0t com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.

"Paul kgyy" > wrote in message

>I think the theory is that disabilities rarely occur without warning.
> If you get chest pain while driving a bus, you can pull over to the
> side of the road. If it happens in airplane, it may be a while before
> you can find a safe place to park.

Passing a kidney stone in an aircraft would be a show-stopper, or having a
heart attack or an asthma attack or a stroke or...

It's a good argument that you can't just pull over if you think you might be
having a medical problem. Good discussion, though!

-c

"W P Dixon" wrote:
> I don't see why the people working on the planes have to
> take a drug test if those that fly it don't.

Because it's FAA. It's makes sense to them. It applies to all
other type repair shops too. An instrument repair shop owner tells
me about all the silliness and inconsistencies of the rules in her
little shop. I guess FAA can't differentiate between repairs done
for my plane vs. a Boeing 757 and/or its appliances. But we're
still stuck on the fact that before drug testing, I believe there's
no evidence that any airline or 135 accident was caused by a repair
done by Cheech or Chong. Or a toaster to John Barleycorn for that
matter.

Fred F.

CDL = Commercial Drivers License
PP-ASEL = Private Pilot, Airplane, Single Engine Land
CP-ASEL = Commercial Pilot, Airplane, Single Engine Land
PPL = nothing in the USA - we have certificates, not licenses.

When exercising the privileges if a *commercial* certificate, random drug
testing is involved (Part 135 and Part 121).

Why should drug testing be mandatory for private pilots? Simply because you
think it's a good idea? You've repeated this several times, but you've never
given any reasons.


"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> And another thing: CDL holders are subject to random drug and alcohol
> tests. States may impose tougher standards than the federally required
> minimums, and many companies impose even tighter restrictions.
>
> PPLs get off comparitively easily. Drug testing should be mandatory for
> PPLs, and random drug testing s/b part of FAA ramp checks.
>

"gatt" wrote:
> ...
> It's a good argument that you can't just pull over if you
> think you might be having a medical problem.
>

I don't think it is a good argument, because in noncommercial
flight, it's gov't protecting us from ourselves. It's the same
objection many motorcyle riders have against helmets. An argument
is made there that there's a societal cost to treating avoidable
head injury, but I wonder how many pennies in our hospitalization
insurance that really is. There's exposure for passengers, but
they knowingly assume other and greater risks of flight. A pax
might even save us were we to become incapacitated and land the
plane with some help from the ground, as has actually happened. If
FAA had to make a narrative case for their rules here, I think
they'd run out of words pretty quick.

Fred F.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

>
> If the DOT gets a hold of them they will not be as forgiving to either them
> or who they drive for.
>
If they aren't driving for a common carrier, DOT has no authority to go
after the driver. If the judge dismisses a charge, it didn't happen.
There's nothing for the DOT to go after. We have this thing called
the Fifth Amendment. The DOT would like to continue to deny the
Constitution exists, but it is not the case.

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>>
>> If the DOT gets a hold of them they will not be as forgiving to either
>> them or who they drive for.
> If they aren't driving for a common carrier, DOT has no authority to go
> after the driver. If the judge dismisses a charge, it didn't happen.
> There's nothing for the DOT to go after. We have this thing called
> the Fifth Amendment. The DOT would like to continue to deny the
> Constitution exists, but it is not the case.

BS.... If tucking is regulated by the DOT common carrier or company fleet. I
just saw a $250,000 fine levied on a company that didn't have all the
medical records properly filed. What does the 5th amendment have to do with
it?

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>
>>> If the DOT gets a hold of them they will not be as forgiving to either
>>> them or who they drive for.
>> If they aren't driving for a common carrier, DOT has no authority to go
>> after the driver. If the judge dismisses a charge, it didn't happen.
>> There's nothing for the DOT to go after. We have this thing called
>> the Fifth Amendment. The DOT would like to continue to deny the
>> Constitution exists, but it is not the case.
>
> BS.... If tucking is regulated by the DOT common carrier or company fleet. ]]

I can't even begin to parse the above gibberish after the BS.
The DOT only has the authority to regulate interstate trucking
(common carriers). Everything else they have to extort compliance
with the states using a the typical unfunded mandates to get them
to comply and threaten pulling transportation funding for unrelated
issues.

> What does the 5th amendment have to do with
> it?
>
The 5th amendment applied to the my post about the judge dismissing the
no medical card charge in the post that you were responding to
initially. You said that the DOT would go after the driver.
It's not legal for them to do so.

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>>
>>>> If the DOT gets a hold of them they will not be as forgiving to either
>>>> them or who they drive for.
>>> If they aren't driving for a common carrier, DOT has no authority to go
>>> after the driver. If the judge dismisses a charge, it didn't happen.
>>> There's nothing for the DOT to go after. We have this thing called
>>> the Fifth Amendment. The DOT would like to continue to deny the
>>> Constitution exists, but it is not the case.
>>
>> BS.... If tucking is regulated by the DOT common carrier or company
>> fleet. ]]
>
> I can't even begin to parse the above gibberish after the BS.
> The DOT only has the authority to regulate interstate trucking
> (common carriers). Everything else they have to extort compliance
> with the states using a the typical unfunded mandates to get them
> to comply and threaten pulling transportation funding for unrelated
> issues.

Your right I typed to fast. Drop the "If" and add a "," after DOT.

All interstate trucking is not by common carriers. A private company who
owns its own trucks and operate accross state lines would be covered. I
wouldn't be surprised if just running on federal highways wouldn't be enough
to trigger coverage.



>
>> What does the 5th amendment have to do with
>> it?
> The 5th amendment applied to the my post about the judge dismissing the
> no medical card charge in the post that you were responding to initially.
> You said that the DOT would go after the driver.
> It's not legal for them to do so.

If you are talking about the double jeopardy, don't be silly the feds go
after folks all the time for things that they have been found not guilty for
in state court. Example, the cops that beat Rodney King.

Skylune wrote:
> PPLs get off comparitively easily. Drug testing should be mandatory for
> PPLs, and random drug testing s/b part of FAA ramp checks.
>

as a matter of fact, it is mandatory; alcohol and drug test
are compulsory; see 14 CFR 61.16 and 91.17

--Sylvain

TaxSrv wrote:

> I don't think it is a good argument, because in noncommercial
> flight, it's gov't protecting us from ourselves.

No, it's the Feds protecting the people on the ground from us.

George Patterson
If a tank is out of ammunition, what you have is a sixty ton portable
radio.

I think the "loigical" reason for non-commercial medicals is to protect
third parties (i. e. those on the ground) from our actions. What's
missed though is how rarely ground injuries or deaths are occuring from
single engine aircraft crashes. How many were there last year?

I think the need for medicals should be related to the amount of fuel
on board.

An alternative is I think the pilot community should demand biennial
medicals for all drivers licenses. Particularily given the number of
third party casualties involved. After all who can be against safety?

Dream on. In many areas if you know the right person and have a couple of
hundred dollars cash you can buy a CDL.

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> And another thing: CDL holders are subject to random drug and alcohol
> tests. States may impose tougher standards than the federally required
> minimums, and many companies impose even tighter restrictions.
>
> PPLs get off comparitively easily. Drug testing should be mandatory for
> PPLs, and random drug testing s/b part of FAA ramp checks.
>

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message

> What about including passengers? Even if you are on the verge of
> collapsing from some debilitating desease you could drive a minibus
> loaded with passengers at 75mph.

Any vehicle over 15 pax requires a CDL, and I believe there are some medical
standards attached to same, but I don't know the details.

"gatt" > wrote

> Passing a kidney stone in an aircraft would be a show-stopper, or having a
> heart attack or an asthma attack or a stroke or...

Ohh?

I've driven myself home from work, at least twice (maybe more) while
starting to pass a kidney stone. It was not easy, and surely painful, but I
did manage it quite safely.

Jim (passer of 11 stones) in NC

"Ron Natalie" > wrote

> I don't know about other states, but I can tell you in my state,
> random drug tests never occur.

Drug tests for CDL's are the responsibility of the employer, in NC. I have
been pee tested 2 or 3 times, and breathalyzer tested (at 07:45, believe it
or not) in the last 10 or so years.
--
Jim in NC

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote

> You can drive a heavy truck with a regular drivers license. You don't
> need a medical or a CDL.

Define heavy truck. If it carries 16 passengers or more, or if it has a GVW
of more than 10,000 pounds, you better have a CDL. Certain other exemptions
do apply.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
> I've driven myself home from work, at least twice (maybe more) while
> starting to pass a kidney stone. It was not easy, and surely painful, but I
> did manage it quite safely.
>
> Jim (passer of 11 stones) in NC


Jim, where in NC are you? I live in Charlotte; work in Rock Hill.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

What about Uhaul trucks?

"nrp" wrote:
> What's missed though is how rarely ground injuries or deaths
> are occuring from single engine aircraft crashes. How many
> were there last year?

Zero. Same as 2001-2003, and I believe I did the query correctly
on the downloaded NTSB database.

Fred F.

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> What about Uhaul trucks?

Good question. I seem to remember 12,500 pounds as the weight limit from my
CDL training long ago, but when I looked it up (a little bit ago), I came up
with the 10,000 pound limit.

I don't recall any exception for U-hauls, so it would not surprise me if
U-haul does not give a sh*t about who is driving their trucks.
--
Jim in NC

John Gaquin wrote:

> Any vehicle over 15 pax requires a CDL, and I believe there are some medical
> standards attached to same, but I don't know the details.

A short search with Jeeves shows that the Feds are involved in that too. Medical
certificate requirements are listed in CFR 49.

George Patterson
If a tank is out of ammunition, what you have is a sixty ton portable
radio.

nrp wrote:

> I think the need for medicals should be related to the amount of fuel
> on board.

To a certain extent, the government agrees with you. The other factor they
consider to be important is the combination of weight and speed.

George Patterson
If a tank is out of ammunition, what you have is a sixty ton portable
radio.

Morgans wrote:

> Jim (passer of 11 stones) in NC

Over how many years? 10 over a 15 year period for somebody I kneaux
quite well, stone free for the past year though...

No more tea and sodas for him in LA...

zatatime wrote:
>>>What I find even more disconcerting are conditions that would ground a
>>>private pilot with a third class medical which merely get documented
>>>and waived for a first class holder who flies heavy iron every day.
>>>
> Hearing and Diabetes are two on the top of my head that I know of
> which happened recently.

I doubt that you can get a waiver that would be valid for class-I but
not for class-III; as for hearing, there is a Deaf Pilots Association
(http://www.deafpilots.com/) which might disagree with your premise...

--Sylvain

Morgans wrote:
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>What about Uhaul trucks?
>
> Good question. I seem to remember 12,500 pounds as the weight limit from my
> CDL training long ago, but when I looked it up (a little bit ago), I came up
> with the 10,000 pound limit.

Four of the five box-on-frame trucks U-Haul rents exceed this and two exceed
12,500. No mention on their site that I could find about license requirements.

George Patterson
If a tank is out of ammunition, what you have is a sixty ton portable
radio.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:15:25 -0700, RomeoMike
> wrote:

>What conditions?
>
>zatatime wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> What I find even more disconcerting are conditions that would ground a
>> private pilot with a third class medical which merely get documented
>> and waived for a first class holder who flies heavy iron every day.
>>
>> The consistency is questionable.
>>
>> z


Hearing and Diabetes are two on the top of my head that I know of
which happened recently.

z

> Why is a minor medical condition disqualifying for flying a Cessna 172, when the same person can drive a
>20,000 lb truck on public roads?

I have a friend who is grounded (permanently, apparently) because of a
heart attack, but makes his living as a locomotive engineer, hauling
mile-long freight trains full of all sorts of hazardous materials.

vince norris

Except trains have dead man controls.

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
>> Why is a minor medical condition disqualifying for flying a Cessna
>> 172, when the same person can drive a
>>20,000 lb truck on public roads?
>
> I have a friend who is grounded (permanently, apparently) because of a
> heart attack, but makes his living as a locomotive engineer, hauling
> mile-long freight trains full of all sorts of hazardous materials.
>
> vince norris

"Darrel Toepfer" > wrote
>
> Over how many years? 10 over a 15 year period for somebody I kneaux
> quite well, stone free for the past year though...

I think it was about 4 or so years. At one peak time, I passed 3 stones in
2 weeks. I then got one hung that had to be removed through surgery. THAT
really sucked. Yes, what you are thinking, is how they go in to remove one.

> No more tea and sodas for him in LA...

That was not my problem. They tell me there are two types of stones. One
of calcium, and one of the other type caused by tea and sodas. Mine were
the calcium type.

I went to a urologist, and he had me do a 24 hour urine test, where all
output for a day went into a jug. It showed my body captured more of the
calcium that normally goes out with the urine. All I had to do was take a
diuretic (same thing some people take for blood pressure) to help keep the
kidneys flushed out. I haven't had a stone in close to ten years, or
coinciding with when I started the medication.
--
Jim in NC

Sylvain wrote:
> zatatime wrote:
>> Hearing and Diabetes are two on the top of my head that I know of
>> which happened recently.
>
> I doubt that you can get a waiver that would be valid for class-I but
> not for class-III; as for hearing, there is a Deaf Pilots Association
> (http://www.deafpilots.com/) which might disagree with your premise...


The FAA allows the use of Avandia, which is for the treatment of type II
diabetes. What is an absolute no-no (AFAIK) is any condition severe enough to
warrant the use of insulin.


--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Morgans wrote:

> I think it was about 4 or so years. At one peak time, I passed 3 stones in
> 2 weeks. I then got one hung that had to be removed through surgery. THAT
> really sucked. Yes, what you are thinking, is how they go in to remove one.

Ditto on the 3 in 2 weeks, never had any surgeries, that was a year ago...

>> No more tea and sodas for him in LA...
>
> That was not my problem. They tell me there are two types of stones. One
> of calcium, and one of the other type caused by tea and sodas. Mine were
> the calcium type.

Ditto for that person...

> I went to a urologist, and he had me do a 24 hour urine test, where all
> output for a day went into a jug. It showed my body captured more of the
> calcium that normally goes out with the urine. All I had to do was take a
> diuretic (same thing some people take for blood pressure) to help keep the
> kidneys flushed out. I haven't had a stone in close to ten years, or
> coinciding with when I started the medication.

Well peanuts are bad too, getting them to quit peanuts is tough...

The 26' Uhaul truck has a gross weight of 20,000 lb according to their
website. I rented this truck once, and I don't have a CDL.

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> The 26' Uhaul truck has a gross weight of 20,000 lb according to their
> website. I rented this truck once, and I don't have a CDL.

And have driven them across state borders, never stopped an inspection
station either...

>>by "Steve Foley" > Nov 17, 2005 at 08:12 PM


CDL = Commercial Drivers License
PP-ASEL = Private Pilot, Airplane, Single Engine Land
CP-ASEL = Commercial Pilot, Airplane, Single Engine Land
PPL = nothing in the USA - we have certificates, not licenses.

When exercising the privileges if a *commercial* certificate, random drug
testing is involved (Part 135 and Part 121).

Why should drug testing be mandatory for private pilots? Simply because
you
think it's a good idea? You've repeated this several times, but you've
never
given any reasons.


"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> And another thing: CDL holders are subject to random drug and alcohol
> tests. States may impose tougher standards than the federally required
> minimums, and many companies impose even tighter restrictions.
>
> PPLs get off comparitively easily. Drug testing should be mandatory
for
> PPLs, and random drug testing s/b part of FAA ramp checks.<<

I didn't invent the PPL shortcut, just adopted it from pilot talk.

I just wanted to point out that to the person that originally raised the
question was completely mistaken in his premise: You cannot drive a
20,000 lb truck around without passing physicals that are stricter than
those required for certificated private pilots.

The persecution complex many PPLs have may be understandable given all the
problems (some self-imposed) being experienced by GA these days. But it is
delusional. Perhaps flying occupies so much grey matter and is so
addictive that all other real world news and reasoning abilities are
squeezed out.... I don't know. Its just a theory.

>Sylvain wrote:
by Sylvain > Nov 17, 2005 at 03:00 PM


Skylune wrote:
> PPLs get off comparitively easily. Drug testing should be mandatory
for
> PPLs, and random drug testing s/b part of FAA ramp checks.
>

as a matter of fact, it is mandatory; alcohol and drug test
are compulsory; see 14 CFR 61.16 and 91.17

--Sylvain<<

"Here is 14 CFR 61.16:
Sec. 61.16 Refusal to submit to an alcohol test or to furnish test
results.

A refusal to submit to a test to indicate the percentage by weight
of alcohol in the blood, when requested by a law enforcement officer in
accordance with Sec. 91.17(c) of this chapter, or a refusal to furnish
or authorize the release of the test results requested by the
Administrator in accordance with Sec. 91.17(c) or (d) of this chapter,
is grounds for:
(a) Denial of an application for any certificate, rating, or
authorization issued under this part for a period of up to 1 year after
the date of that refusal; or
(b) Suspension or revocation of any certificate, rating, or
authorization issued under this part."

This has nothing to do with the required physicals to keep current. I
think drug testing (hair) s/b a requirement.

"TaxSrv"
> objection many motorcyle riders have against helmets. An argument
> is made there that there's a societal cost to treating avoidable
> head injury, but I wonder how many pennies in our hospitalization
> insurance that really is.

In actual practice, medical insurance companies learned not to support
motorcycle helmet laws. They found their claims were much higher because
the accident victims actually survived and they had to pay for extensive
post accident treatment.

Hey, question:

How come you always see occupants of ultralights wearing helmets, but I've
never seen anyone in a C150 wearing one?

:-)

Dallas

"TaxSrv"
> > What's missed though is how rarely ground injuries or deaths
> > are occuring from single engine aircraft crashes. How many
> > were there last year?>
> Zero. Same as 2001-2003, and I believe I did the query correctly
> on the downloaded NTSB database.


That just proves the current medical system is working.

; )


Dallas

>>What I find even more disconcerting are conditions that would ground a
>>private pilot with a third class medical which merely get documented
>>and waived for a first class holder who flies heavy iron every day.
>>
>>The consistency is questionable.
>>
>>z
>
>
> If you can get a waiver for a condition on a first class you can get it for
> a third.

You _can_ get a medical waiver on a third-class... but your chances
would seem to be much better on getting one with a first-class, because
holders of first-class medicals tend to fly for a living, whereas guys
with third-class ones don't. The FAA wouldn't bother with the
third-class waiver because of that.

Now, what evidence do you have that "hearing and diabetes" would ground
a third class but not a first class medical holder?

zatatime wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:15:25 -0700, RomeoMike
> > wrote:
>
>
>>What conditions?
>>
>>zatatime wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>What I find even more disconcerting are conditions that would ground a
>>>private pilot with a third class medical which merely get documented
>>>and waived for a first class holder who flies heavy iron every day.
>>>
>>>The consistency is questionable.
>>>
>>>z
>
>
>
> Hearing and Diabetes are two on the top of my head that I know of
> which happened recently.
>
> z

You still haven't told me what you hope to accomplish with your mandatory
drug testing of private pilots. I haven't heard any statistics, or even
anecdotal evidence indicating a problem that would be solved with drug
testing.


"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> >>by "Steve Foley" > Nov 17, 2005 at 08:12 PM
>
>
> CDL = Commercial Drivers License
> PP-ASEL = Private Pilot, Airplane, Single Engine Land
> CP-ASEL = Commercial Pilot, Airplane, Single Engine Land
> PPL = nothing in the USA - we have certificates, not licenses.
>
> When exercising the privileges if a *commercial* certificate, random drug
> testing is involved (Part 135 and Part 121).
>
> Why should drug testing be mandatory for private pilots? Simply because
> you
> think it's a good idea? You've repeated this several times, but you've
> never
> given any reasons.
>
>
> "Skylune" > wrote in message
> lkaboutaviation.com...
> > And another thing: CDL holders are subject to random drug and alcohol
> > tests. States may impose tougher standards than the federally required
> > minimums, and many companies impose even tighter restrictions.
> >
> > PPLs get off comparitively easily. Drug testing should be mandatory
> for
> > PPLs, and random drug testing s/b part of FAA ramp checks.<<
>
> I didn't invent the PPL shortcut, just adopted it from pilot talk.
>
> I just wanted to point out that to the person that originally raised the
> question was completely mistaken in his premise: You cannot drive a
> 20,000 lb truck around without passing physicals that are stricter than
> those required for certificated private pilots.
>
> The persecution complex many PPLs have may be understandable given all the
> problems (some self-imposed) being experienced by GA these days. But it is
> delusional. Perhaps flying occupies so much grey matter and is so
> addictive that all other real world news and reasoning abilities are
> squeezed out.... I don't know. Its just a theory.
>
>
>
>

Skylune wrote:
> I just wanted to point out that to the person that originally raised the
> question was completely mistaken in his premise: You cannot drive a
> 20,000 lb truck around without passing physicals that are stricter than
> those required for certificated private pilots.

OK, you made the point truck driver physicals are stricter than those
for a private pilot. Twice.

You still did not answer Steve Foley's question posted on 11/17/05:
"Why should drug testing be mandatory for private pilots?"

As a reminder, Steve F. was responding to your statement of 11/17/05:
"Drug testing should be mandatory for PPLs, and random drug testing s/b
part of FAA ramp checks."

The question still stands. Expanding on your statement and Steve
Foley's question:
1. Why do you believe drug testing should be mandatory for private pilots?
2. Why should random drug testing be part of an FAA ramp check?

If you have supporting arguments post them to the newsgroup. Simply
stating truck drivers have stricter physical requirements or drug
testing should be mandatory for private pilots are not reasons by
themselves. Supporting information is required.


Steve A.

"Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
...
> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> > The 26' Uhaul truck has a gross weight of 20,000 lb according to their
> > website. I rented this truck once, and I don't have a CDL.
>
> And have driven them across state borders, never stopped an inspection
> station either...

And you were very likely breaking the law.

As far as the weigh stations laws go, I'm not sure, but I think you have to
be a commercial vehicle to have to stop, unless it says All Trucks, then it
might be a briefing type of thing, for mountains, or the like.
--
Jim in NC

"George Patterson" > wrote

> Four of the five box-on-frame trucks U-Haul rents exceed this and two
exceed
> 12,500. No mention on their site that I could find about license
requirements.

Budget truck rentals says specifically that you do not need a CDL for even
their 24 foot truck. I must admit, I don't understand it.
--
Jim in NC

Bob Martin wrote:

> The FAA wouldn't bother with the
> third-class waiver because of that.

The Faa will grant a waiver for 3rd class just as readily as for 1st. If there's
a difference, it may be that the holder of a 1st class certificate will take the
steps necessary to get the waiver more readily than the holder of a 3rd class will.

George Patterson
If a tank is out of ammunition, what you have is a sixty ton portable
radio.

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:41:13 -0800, Steve A
> wrote:

>Supporting information is required.

Since when has that been a Usenet requirement? Most of what's posted
here is personal opinion.

Here's a proposition for you: drug testing should be a requirement to
get a driver's license, and random drug testing should be part of a
state's pull-over program.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:06:48 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>As far as the weigh stations laws go,

In New Hampshire, I don't think I've ever seen a weigh station that
was open. They get used a lot, though: truckers pull in there for a
snooze.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The 26' Uhaul truck has a gross weight of 20,000 lb according to their
> website. I rented this truck once, and I don't have a CDL.

In Massachusetts, the standard driver's license is good for up to 26,000
pounds gross.
http://www.mass.gov/rmv/dmanual/chapter1.pdf

--Gary

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:%u5ff.209$Db.203@trndny01...
> PPL = nothing in the USA - we have certificates, not licenses.

A license is just a document that confers permission to do something that
would otherwise be prohibited. A pilot certificate is therefore a license.

--Gary

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Sylvain wrote:
>
>>zatatime wrote:
>>
>>>Hearing and Diabetes are two on the top of my head that I know of
>>>which happened recently.
>>
>>I doubt that you can get a waiver that would be valid for class-I but
>>not for class-III; as for hearing, there is a Deaf Pilots Association
>>(http://www.deafpilots.com/) which might disagree with your premise...
>
>
>
> The FAA allows the use of Avandia, which is for the treatment of type II
> diabetes. What is an absolute no-no (AFAIK) is any condition severe enough to
> warrant the use of insulin.
>
>
Insulin users can get a waiver, but it takes a lot of paperwork and good
control. Met a guy with an accu-check yoke mounted!

Margy