Am I too old to fly?

[Philip Mellinger[_2_]]

I was thinking about taking up flying, but
not sure if I'm too old. I'm 62. Is this a bad
idea or should I go for it?

---
Philip Mellinger

[vaughn[_3_]]

"Philip Mellinger" > wrote in message
...
>I was thinking about taking up flying, but
> not sure if I'm too old. I'm 62. Is this a bad
> idea or should I go for it?

It CAN make sense if you don't push anything and never add up your flight hours
(because you won't want to know). The fact is, it will take you a long time,
but you can still enjoy the flying and you can get great satisfaction from
mastering the basics. Think of it as "just going flying", only difference is
there will be a (probably young) instructor sitting in the right seat for longer
than normal. Don't worry, paying the instructor is the cheapest part of flight
training. When/if you finally progress to the point where you are safe to solo,
he/she will tell you, but never ask and never-never push.

Vaughn

[Terry]

"Philip Mellinger" > wrote in message
...
>I was thinking about taking up flying, but
> not sure if I'm too old. I'm 62. Is this a bad
> idea or should I go for it?
>
> ---
> Philip Mellinger


Hi Philip

Age 62 is not to old! Heck I'm a lot older and still flying.

Only thing I'd suggest is unless you are going to fly Light Sport,
go get your medical first. If you pass it, then go for it! If you
don't pass then you have not wasted your money even for the 1st few
hours of instruction and plane rental.

Just an opinion

Terry

[Mark IV[_3_]]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 04:39:51 -0800 (PST), Philip Mellinger wrote:

> I was thinking about taking up flying, but
> not sure if I'm too old. I'm 62. Is this a bad
> idea or should I go for it?
>
> ---
> Philip Mellinger

I am approaching your age Phil and have been
working on my license for 40 years. It is never
to late to obtain your license. The time is NOW.

Satan Unleashed, end times are here. Here we clearly see the exit
portal to Hell which has opened up in South America.

<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/06/100601-sinkhole-in-guatemala-2010-world-science/>

This coorresponds with an alignment of the world against Jews, as they
try to eliminate the importation of more rockets used against them,
and,

of course, the complete annhilation of innocence in the Gulf of
Mexico, as beauty is coated with the filth of corporate oil, bringing
death to purity. I swoon at the thought.

Yes I know that isn't South America but I'm so ****ing cool. I mean,
Mark recently made 82 thousand dollars in one day. Did I mention how
beautiful all my new porcelin crowns look? Yeah, just like Hollywood.
I'm convinced my new white smile is playing a part in keeping my new
19 year old girlfriend mesmerized. Or maybe it's just all this
enthusiastic confident energy I'm exuding. What young beauty wouldn't
**** a tall, muscular, rich pilot-musician.

Get licensed.
--
https://twitter.com/CorruptNutsac
http://gayincarolina.jottit.com/my_main_squeeze

[Ari Silverstein]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 04:39:51 -0800 (PST), Philip Mellinger wrote:

> NNTP-Posting-Host: 98.71.167.26

Hi Mark(ie), trolling again?

*LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL* ****ing idiot.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Phil]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 04:39:51 -0800 (PST), Philip Mellinger wrote:

> I was thinking about taking up flying, but
> not sure if I'm too old. I'm 62. Is this a bad
> idea or should I go for it?
>
> ---
> Philip Mellinger

Good to hear from another Phil. I cannot assist. I leavce the flying
to those with caps and bars and pretty suits.

Phil

[Ari Silverstein]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 12:18:28 -0500, Phil wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 04:39:51 -0800 (PST), Philip Mellinger wrote:
>
>> I was thinking about taking up flying, but
>> not sure if I'm too old. I'm 62. Is this a bad
>> idea or should I go for it?
>>
>> ---
>> Philip Mellinger
>
> Good to hear from another Phil. I cannot assist. I leavce the flying
> to those with caps and bars and pretty suits.
>
> Phil

Mark(ie)/Mellinger has a pretty suit. He saves it for the little
children. Show and Don't Tell, you know.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Ari Silverstein]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 12:15:51 -0500, Mark IV wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 04:39:51 -0800 (PST), Philip Mellinger wrote:
>
>> I was thinking about taking up flying, but
>> not sure if I'm too old. I'm 62. Is this a bad
>> idea or should I go for it?
>>
>> ---
>> Philip Mellinger
>
> I am approaching your age Phil and have been
> working on my license for 40 years. It is never
> to late to obtain your license. The time is NOW.

In another 40 you might obtain your cert, you will only be 56
Mark(ie).

*har*

> Satan Unleashed, end times are here. Here we clearly see the exit
> portal to Hell which has opened up in South America.
>
> <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/06/100601-sinkhole-in-guatemala-2010-world-science/>
>
> This coorresponds with an alignment of the world against Jews, as they
> try to eliminate the importation of more rockets used against them,
> and,

Stupid Jews, don't like to get massacred. How trite of them.

> of course, the complete annhilation of innocence in the Gulf of
> Mexico, as beauty is coated with the filth of corporate oil, bringing
> death to purity. I swoon at the thought.

Swoon less. Since I can see the GoM out my window, and you can't see
anything except the end of your dick in Hickville, S.C., you are, as
usual, full of ****.

> Yes I know that isn't South America but I'm so ****ing cool. I mean,
> Mark recently made 82 thousand dollars in one day.

Whereupon you invested in a solar panel company, lost all of it in
less than a week, and got booted by your partners back to Hickville.

*O the irony LOL*

> Did I mention how beautiful all my new porcelin crowns look? Yeah,
> just like Hollywood. I'm convinced my new white smile is playing a
> part in keeping my new 19 year old girlfriend mesmerized.

Oooh datin up the age scale, eh?

> Or maybe it's just all this enthusiastic confident energy I'm
> exuding. What young beauty wouldn't **** a tall, muscular, rich
> pilot-musician.

None probably but what has that to do with you, a squatty, clinically
obese, welfare-doling, pilot wannabe like you?

> Get licensed.

Get ****ed.

*LOL*
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Mark IV[_3_]]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 12:17:12 -0500, Ari Silverstein wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 04:39:51 -0800 (PST), Philip Mellinger wrote:
>
>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 98.71.167.26
>
> Hi Mark(ie), trolling again?
>
> *LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL* ****ing idiot.

While I have no idea what the hell I am
babbling on about with myself, as I pretend
to be arguing with "me", I'm sensing by my
frequent misspelling, my obsessive/compulsion,
and childishness... that I am a disabled alcoholic
with a cheap laptop and a crippled self-esteem.
Thus the pilot fantasies, cruise ship director
fantasies, sports car fantasies, etc.

I'm thinking public housing soon before they
take my Mom's trailer.

Mark IV
--
https://twitter.com/CorruptNutsac
http://gayincarolina.jottit.com/my_main_squeeze

[george]

On Dec 14, 2:34*am, "vaughn" > wrote:

> It CAN make sense if you don't push anything and never add up your flight hours
> (because you won't want to know). *The fact is, it will take you a long time,
> but you can still enjoy the flying and you can get great satisfaction from
> mastering the basics. * Think of it as "just going flying", only difference is
> there will be a (probably young) instructor sitting in the right seat for longer
> than normal. *Don't worry, paying the instructor is the cheapest part of flight
> training. *When/if you finally progress to the point where you are safe to solo,
> he/she will tell you, but never ask and never-never push.
>
Friend of mine is an ag pilot at 75.
The original poster shouldn't have any more problems flying, going
solo, doing the training and getting a PPL than any-one younger.

[Phil]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 21:47:39 +0000 (UTC), Edward A. Falk wrote:

> In article >,
> Philip Mellinger > wrote:
>>I was thinking about taking up flying, but
>>not sure if I'm too old. I'm 62. Is this a bad
>>idea or should I go for it?
>
> My dad soloed a helicopter for the first time at 70. A few
> days ago, I watched a 75-year-old pilot a Zeppelin for the
> first time. Ol' man Whitman was demonstrating air racing at
> the Oshkosh airshow when he was 90.
>
> Go for it, I say.

Back in my NSA days (70s), I learned a great deal about flying from an
88 you man who flew us from Meade to D.C. and back in the Agency's
fleet of helis. He seriosly knew his stuff and was super capable.
Never too old! :)

Phil

[Mark IV[_3_]]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 21:47:39 +0000 (UTC), Edward A. Falk wrote:

> My dad soloed a helicopter for the first time at 70. A few
> days ago, I watched a 75-year-old pilot a Zeppelin for the
> first time.

Yeah, what a memory. There we were, shoulder to shoulder my hands in
my pants, on the football field, even though it was before a baseball
game, packed in like sardines. Me, my teddy bear and soon-to-be-dead
Tiger Boy, my pussycat.

The smell of cannabis filled the air. I don't smoke, it draws out my
manic depression.

This special night was different from the Grand Funk Railroad or the
Three Dog Night or Liberace concerts I never attended there. In my
mind, I was. On the football field, where they were awaiting to play a
Braves game. In May when NFL football didn't play.

1973 National Football League season Regular season Duration September
16, 1973 - December 16, 1973

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/1973_NFL_season

At one point the lights went total black-out, then suddenly the entire
room and immediate area (closet) were drenched in blue light. I began
to sing "My Room" by the Beach Boys because I sure as **** wasn't at
Fulton County Stadium on May 4th, 1973.

Nothing but blue. Next came the "smoke" of dry ice. It was like London
fog in blue. I guess, never been out of South Carolina, The
Mississippi of the East.

Yes it was "Stairway to Heaven" time. Boy was I suprised at what came
next. Tiger Boy jumped on my Philco and killed the turntable. this was
the day I decided to kill him.

Suddenly I released hundreds and hundreds of white fleas! It didn't
quite work out as planned. Except for the few that momentarilly
circled, they basically just flew away. **** me again.

But there was no disappointment. Those first few notes of "Stairway"
took us where I needed to be. Up the stairs to the cool breasts of my
Mommy.

There, in the moment listening to the most famous song in the world. I
turned and looked at my Mommy, Judy ( "Judy blue eyes"), and she
said...

"Mark, get your goddamned hands off my tits and go to sleep. You have
school in the morning. My son is a freak".
--
https://twitter.com/CorruptNutsac
http://gayincarolina.jottit.com/my_main_squeeze

[a[_3_]]

On Dec 13, 7:39*am, Philip Mellinger > wrote:
> I was thinking about taking up flying, but
> not sure if I'm too old. I'm 62. Is this a bad
> idea or should I go for it?


My advice is two fold. First, ignore the mental cases who've chosen to
'contribute' to the thread. Second, buy some hours of dual, perhaps up
to solo. If you like it, move on. If not, move out.

I don't know many 'late starters' but am pretty sure in the next half
decade or so I'll decide the complex single I fly is a little too much
airplane for me fly, so I'll move to something slower/easier, but will
likely continue flying. There are lots of airplane, like the C 172,
that are kindly to those of us who are older, but still manage to move
the earth under us at over a hundred miles an hour. You'll probably
train in one: give it a try.

Welcome to my sky! May you enjoy it as much as I do.

[Phil]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:10:23 -0500, Mark IV wrote:

> But there was no disappointment. Those first few notes of "Stairway"
> took us where I needed to be. Up the stairs to the cool breasts of my
> Mommy.

Mark,

When we spoke, she never mentioned that. O, the memory fails with age.

Phil :)

[Ari Silverstein]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 16:24:04 -0800 (PST), a wrote:

> On Dec 13, 7:39*am, Philip Mellinger Mark IV > wrote:
>> I was thinking about taking up flying, but
>> not sure if I'm too old. I'm 62. Is this a bad
>> idea or should I go for it?
>
> My advice is two fold. First, ignore the mental cases who've chosen to
> 'contribute' to the thread.

You do, of course, realize that you are responding to a Mark(ie)
troll.

Naw, you have no clue.

*LOL*

[vaughn[_3_]]

"george" > wrote in message
...
>
> Friend of mine is an ag pilot at 75.

Flying and learning to fly are two very different things.

>The original poster shouldn't have any more problems flying, going
>solo, doing the training and getting a PPL than any-one younger.

That's simply not true. People of any age can take flight training, but on
average the older you are, the longer it will take to make you a safe pilot.

That said, I encourage the OP to give it a go. When you climb into the plane,
leave your ego on the ramp. Get a good instructor, go fly, have fun, but don't
pay attention to your flight hours.

[Ari Silverstein]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 21:09:51 -0500, vaughn wrote:

> "george" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Friend of mine is an ag pilot at 75.
>
> Flying and learning to fly are two very different things.
>
>>The original poster shouldn't have any more problems flying, going
>>solo, doing the training and getting a PPL than any-one younger.
>
> That's simply not true. People of any age can take flight training, but on
> average the older you are, the longer it will take to make you a safe pilot.

And the less flight time you will have to perfect the art.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Phil]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 04:39:51 -0800 (PST), Mark IV forging my ID Philip
Mellinger wrote:

> I was thinking about taking up flying,

Mark, no I am not.

> but
> not sure if I'm too old. I'm 62.

No, wrong again.

> Is this a bad
> idea or should I go for it?

Mark, I thought you were a licensed pilot?

> ---
> Philip Mellinger

Don't forget the M.D. if you are going to forge posts in my name,
Mark.

Philip Mellinger, M.D.

[Mxsmanic]

Philip Mellinger writes:

> I was thinking about taking up flying, but
> not sure if I'm too old. I'm 62. Is this a bad
> idea or should I go for it?

You're never too old. The limiting factor is health rather than age. If you
can pass the medical (and the FAA claims that practically anyone can pass the
medical), you're good to go.

[Mxsmanic]

vaughn writes:

> That's simply not true. People of any age can take flight training, but on
> average the older you are, the longer it will take to make you a safe pilot.

On what do you base this assertion?

[Ed]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 04:39:51 -0800 (PST), Philip Mellinger
> wrote:

>I was thinking about taking up flying, but
>not sure if I'm too old. I'm 62. Is this a bad
>idea or should I go for it?
>
>---
>Philip Mellinger

Philip, If you have any known physical conditions which might preclude
getting a third class medical you could go directly to sport pilot.
Otherwise there are many pilots flying at your age and I know a few
who flew well into their 90s. Just keep an open mind and don't let
your ego get in the way of learning.

[Chris AKA (Dude)]

On 12/13/2010 5:39 AM, Philip Mellinger wrote:
> I was thinking about taking up flying, but
> not sure if I'm too old. I'm 62. Is this a bad
> idea or should I go for it?
>
> ---
> Philip Mellinger
My instructor is a lady and I think she is about 74 years old. She has
been flying for about 20 or 25 years.
I am 39 and started taking lessons back in April and having a ball with it.

Cheers,
Chris

[Jim Logajan]

"Chris AKA (Dude)" > wrote:
> On 12/13/2010 5:39 AM, Philip Mellinger wrote:
>> I was thinking about taking up flying, but
>> not sure if I'm too old. I'm 62. Is this a bad
>> idea or should I go for it?
>>
>> ---
>> Philip Mellinger
> My instructor is a lady and I think she is about 74 years old. She has
> been flying for about 20 or 25 years.
> I am 39 and started taking lessons back in April and having a ball
> with it.

I saw your post on a.g.m.f-s that you have resumed flying after a long
layoff due to someone bending your training plane. Have you managed to solo
yet?

Between Thanksgiving travel by me, some travel by my instructor, and
typical Oregon weather I last flew Nov. 17 and only finally flew again
today (Dec. 15). (I soloed Nov. 3)

Solo was thankfully unremarkable and with no angst at all - the nice parts
being that I didn't feel as cramped (it's a C-152) and less dead weight
made the climb rate a bit better. :-)

[Chris AKA (Dude)]

On 12/15/2010 6:11 PM, Jim Logajan wrote:
> "Chris AKA > wrote:
>> On 12/13/2010 5:39 AM, Philip Mellinger wrote:
>>> I was thinking about taking up flying, but
>>> not sure if I'm too old. I'm 62. Is this a bad
>>> idea or should I go for it?
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Philip Mellinger
>> My instructor is a lady and I think she is about 74 years old. She has
>> been flying for about 20 or 25 years.
>> I am 39 and started taking lessons back in April and having a ball
>> with it.
>
> I saw your post on a.g.m.f-s that you have resumed flying after a long
> layoff due to someone bending your training plane. Have you managed to solo
> yet?
>
> Between Thanksgiving travel by me, some travel by my instructor, and
> typical Oregon weather I last flew Nov. 17 and only finally flew again
> today (Dec. 15). (I soloed Nov. 3)
>
> Solo was thankfully unremarkable and with no angst at all - the nice parts
> being that I didn't feel as cramped (it's a C-152) and less dead weight
> made the climb rate a bit better. :-)

Yeah back in the air after almost 2 months off. Fortunately the plane
was ok. Some guy moved forward with the plane and struck a orange rubber
cone. No damage was done but because it was considered a "Prop Strike"
the engine did have to come out and get inspected.

Congrats on your solo. So are you working on cross country now?
I fly in a 2003 Archer III but it will be nice when she gets out and
there is more room like you said and better performance.

If any of you want to check out my videos of my flight training please
do. http://www.youtube.com/user/cholubaz I have cockpit video plus all
the ATC and COMMS of most every flight so far.

Cheers,
Chris

[george]

On Dec 17, 2:46*am, "Chris AKA (Dude)" > wrote:

> If any of you want to check out my videos of my flight training please
> do.http://www.youtube.com/user/cholubazI have cockpit video plus all
> the ATC and COMMS of most every flight so far.
>
Now that -is- busy...
Good place to learn. After that there's little that's going to faze
you..
Well done

[Mxsmanic]

Ed writes:

> Philip, If you have any known physical conditions which might preclude
> getting a third class medical you could go directly to sport pilot.

Actually, this is illegal. You are not eligible for a sport pilot license if
you are medically unfit to fly (and the inability to pass an aviation medical
is prima facie evidence of this). If you know you don't qualify medically, you
must not attempt to obtain the sport pilot license, as that would be
fraudulent.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Ed writes:
>
>> Philip, If you have any known physical conditions which might preclude
>> getting a third class medical you could go directly to sport pilot.
>
> Actually, this is illegal.

No, it is not.

The short answer is the medical requirements for sport pilot are not as
strict as they are for a third class medical.

<snip pontification>


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ari Silverstein]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 22:31:26 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

> Ed writes:
>
>> Philip, If you have any known physical conditions which might preclude
>> getting a third class medical you could go directly to sport pilot.
>
> Actually, this is illegal. You are not eligible for a sport pilot license if
> you are medically unfit to fly (and the inability to pass an aviation medical
> is prima facie evidence of this). If you know you don't qualify medically, you
> must not attempt to obtain the sport pilot license, as that would be
> fraudulent.

Horse****, the determination of "fit for flight" is a medical one
performed only by a physician so approved. Once you flunked the
medical, /then/ you are screwed for the PPPL.

So don't take the medical /if/ you think you are going to flunk it.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Chris AKA (Dude)]

On 12/16/2010 12:35 PM, george wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2:46 am, "Chris AKA > wrote:
>
>> If any of you want to check out my videos of my flight training please
>> do.http://www.youtube.com/user/cholubazI have cockpit video plus all
>> the ATC and COMMS of most every flight so far.
>>
> Now that -is- busy...
> Good place to learn. After that there's little that's going to faze
> you..
> Well done

Thanks George,
Yeah KDVT Deer Valley is the busiest GA airport in the country even over
Van Nuys
Your always talking to someone lol

Cheers,
Chris

[Jim Logajan]

"Chris AKA (Dude)" > wrote:
> Yeah back in the air after almost 2 months off. Fortunately the plane
> was ok. Some guy moved forward with the plane and struck a orange
> rubber cone. No damage was done but because it was considered a "Prop
> Strike" the engine did have to come out and get inspected.

>
> Congrats on your solo. So are you working on cross country now?

I just got signed off today to do solo landings at another untowered
airport (61S - Cottage Grove, OR) all of 8 NM away from my home field of
77S (Creswell, OR). The plan for next week is to fly to Eugene, OR
airport (KEUG), a towered field.

> I fly in a 2003 Archer III but it will be nice when she gets out and
> there is more room like you said and better performance.

Sounds nice! I think the C-152 I'm flying was built when Gondwana was
still whole. Runs fine though, and renter's insurance is cheap thanks to
its low replacement cost. :-)

> If any of you want to check out my videos of my flight training please
> do. http://www.youtube.com/user/cholubaz I have cockpit video plus all
> the ATC and COMMS of most every flight so far.

I've looked at some of your videos. Quite demanding! On the other hand,
I've already had a NORDO (and no transponder, or at least not in mode C,
if my MRX is any indication) biplane do a straight-in touch-and-go that
we spotted on long final just about when I was going to turn base.

Another time, a transient (probably a student on cross-country) pulled
out onto the active when another plane was on short final. (The landing
plane announced a go-around of course.) Never heard any calls from her -
probably had the wrong frequency.

Then there was the plane we thought was NORDO but my instructor had a
hunch and called on a CTAF frequency that 77S used to have - and managed
to reach the plane (after they had landed.) He let them know the proper
frequency and that it had been changed. Off-air he told me the frequency
had changed about 3 years ago - so they were using mighty old information
or charts!

Today while doing a 360 turn to check for traffic before leaving 61S, I
spotted a plane that was almost above us. No signal on the MRX and no
radio calls, and with wind dead calm we weren't sure which way he would
go, so we just watched to see what he did. My CFI tried to raise him, but
with no luck. Eventually he turned and landed on the runway we were
using. After I had done my solo landings and my CFI had cooled his heels,
I learned from him that the NORDO pilot had come over to him and
apologized - he was using a handheld and could hear us, but he realized
after the radio call from my CFI that we couldn't hear him.

Oh - and yesterday after we got back and I was shutting things down I
discovered I had never turned the transponder switch from standby to
altitude mode. We were both annoyed that neither one of us caught that.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> No, it is not.

I could say that the sky is blue and someone here would argue with me.

Hopefully the original poster will look it up and find out for himself.

[Mxsmanic]

Ari Silverstein writes:

> Horse****, the determination of "fit for flight" is a medical one
> performed only by a physician so approved. Once you flunked the
> medical, /then/ you are screwed for the PPPL.
>
> So don't take the medical /if/ you think you are going to flunk it.

If the medical determines your fitness for flight, and you don't take it
because you know you would fail it, then you know you are unfit for flight,
and thus you are not eligible for a Light Sport license. That's why having a
revoked or suspended medical isn't allowed, either.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> No, it is not.
>
> I could say that the sky is blue and someone here would argue with me.

Likely so, but that has nothing to do with the fact that your blanket
statement was wrong.

> Hopefully the original poster will look it up and find out for himself.

FAR 61.53 (a) which applies to holders of a medical certificate:

"...any medical condition that would make the person unable to meet the
requirements for the medical certificate..."

FAR 61.53 (b) which applies to no medical certificate:

"...any medical condition that would make the person unable to operate
the aircraft in a safe manner..."

A trivial example showing your blanket statement to be false:

A person could have a blood pressure of 156 which exceeds the limit for
a third class medical certificate by 1mm but be perfectly able to fly
an aircraft in a safe manner.

Since you made an all encompassing, blanket statement, one trivial example
is sufficient to show you were once again pulling it out of your ass.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Ari Silverstein writes:
>
>> Horse****, the determination of "fit for flight" is a medical one
>> performed only by a physician so approved. Once you flunked the
>> medical, /then/ you are screwed for the PPPL.
>>
>> So don't take the medical /if/ you think you are going to flunk it.
>
> If the medical determines your fitness for flight, and you don't take it
> because you know you would fail it, then you know you are unfit for flight,
> and thus you are not eligible for a Light Sport license. That's why having a
> revoked or suspended medical isn't allowed, either.

Nope, it means you are not eligible for a medical certificate.

FAR 61.53 (b) which covers light sport pilots says "...any medical condition
that would make the person unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner."

A blood pressure of 156 is 1mm over the limit for a medical certificate
but hardly makes a person "unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ari Silverstein]

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 00:07:40 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

> Ari Silverstein writes:
>
>> Horse****, the determination of "fit for flight" is a medical one
>> performed only by a physician so approved. Once you flunked the
>> medical, /then/ you are screwed for the PPPL.
>>
>> So don't take the medical /if/ you think you are going to flunk it.
>
> If the medical determines your fitness for flight, and you don't take it
> because you know you would fail it, then you know you are unfit for flight,

Bull****, back in the killfile you go, Simmy.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> A person could have a blood pressure of 156 which exceeds the limit for
> a third class medical certificate by 1mm but be perfectly able to fly
> an aircraft in a safe manner.

Then why would that person be rejected for a medical, when the sole purpose of
the medical is to determine whether or not the person is able to fly in a safe
manner?

The FAA currently tends to look the other way on this, but it's clear that it
is covering itself and giving itself a way to pull the license of someone who
causes a problem. Legally, it would be virtually impossible for someone to
successfully assert that he could fly safely even though he would fail a
medical, when, by definition, failing a medical is proof that one cannot fly
safely.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> A person could have a blood pressure of 156 which exceeds the limit for
>> a third class medical certificate by 1mm but be perfectly able to fly
>> an aircraft in a safe manner.
>
> Then why would that person be rejected for a medical, when the sole purpose of
> the medical is to determine whether or not the person is able to fly in a safe
> manner?

Because the requirements for a medical are rather rigid while the requirements
for a sport pilot is the rather flexible "safe to fly".

You said:

"Actually, this is illegal. You are not eligible for a sport pilot license
if you are medically unfit to fly (and the inability to pass an aviation
medical is prima facie evidence of this)."

Once again you see everything as black and white and can't decern shades of
grey nor do you seem to be able to understand the concepts of two sets of
standards.

You would fail your medical with a blood pressure reading of 156,
which is 1 mm over the limit for the medical, but there is no one (except
maybe you) who would make the claim that a person is safe to fly with a
blood pressure of 155 but not with a blood pressure of 156.

Here are some other things that are grounds for having the medical denied
which no one (except again, maybe you) would claim make a person unsafe to
fly as a light sport pilot:

Any head or facial deformity that would interfere with the proper fit of
an oxygen mask.

Stuttering.

A surgical scar not reported to the FAA.

There are lots more, shall I go on?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[VOR-DME[_4_]]

You are both partially right, but in my view, as an observer to the
dynamic of this argument, Jim P is "more" right. It is true, if it were to
come to the FAA’s attention that a sport pilot obtained that certificate
because he was aware of a clearly disqualifying medical condition they
would likely take action. However this is not what was suggested to the
original poster. It was suggested that if the older candidate had any
condition that "might preclude him from passing a third-class medical", he
should go straight to light sport. There is a big difference, and Jim is
right to point out that MX’s reaction is dogmatic and misses the nuance.
Jim is also correct in pointing out that the flexibility in the medical
rule is clearly an indication of application of a different standard,
based on a different category of risk, and MX’s narrow and rigid responses
appear to ignore this important difference.

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Ed writes:
>>
>>> Philip, If you have any known physical conditions which might preclude
>>> getting a third class medical you could go directly to sport pilot.
>>
>> Actually, this is illegal.
>
>No, it is not.
>
>The short answer is the medical requirements for sport pilot are not as
>strict as they are for a third class medical.
>
><snip pontification>
>
>
>--
>Jim Pennino
>
>Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Because the requirements for a medical are rather rigid while the requirements
> for a sport pilot is the rather flexible "safe to fly".

I've just explained why they are one and the same.

> Once again you see everything as black and white and can't decern shades of
> grey nor do you seem to be able to understand the concepts of two sets of
> standards.

Like a lawyer, in other words.

> You would fail your medical with a blood pressure reading of 156,
> which is 1 mm over the limit for the medical, but there is no one (except
> maybe you) who would make the claim that a person is safe to fly with a
> blood pressure of 155 but not with a blood pressure of 156.

Then why isn't the limit 157?

[a[_3_]]

On Dec 19, 10:00*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Because the requirements for a medical are rather rigid while the requirements
> > for a sport pilot is the rather flexible "safe to fly".
>
> I've just explained why they are one and the same.
>
> > Once again you see everything as black and white and can't decern shades of
> > grey nor do you seem to be able to understand the concepts of two sets of
> > standards.
>
> Like a lawyer, in other words.
>
> > You would fail your medical with a blood pressure reading of 156,
> > which is 1 mm over the limit for the medical, but there is no one (except
> > maybe you) who would make the claim that a person is safe to fly with a
> > blood pressure of 155 but not with a blood pressure of 156.
>
> Then why isn't the limit 157?

There is little doubt that the risk of a 'cardiovascular
accident' (stroking or MI) increases with increasing blood pressure.
Of minor interest is in a location I am familiar with when people are
subjected to a max effort treadmill test and their blood pressure as
well as EKG is being monitored, the test will stop when (ready for
this?) the BP exceeds 260 over I forgot what. The moral of the story
may be steady state hypertension does long term damage to organs, but
the chance of something sudden happening is probably fairly remote,
even for hypertensives.

The FAA thinks in terms of cut-offs, but we all know the risk increase
is gradual, not abrupt. I am not sure but wonder if the BP limit is
something for which one can get a waiver, just as I had gotten one for
vision to get a Class 2 medical instead of the Class 3 I would have
otherwise gotten.

It's a pleasure to see an occasional posting that is actually related
to aviation!

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Because the requirements for a medical are rather rigid while the requirements
>> for a sport pilot is the rather flexible "safe to fly".
>
> I've just explained why they are one and the same.

No, you did not, you just babbled on with some nonsense that totally missed
what happens in the real world.

>> Once again you see everything as black and white and can't decern shades of
>> grey nor do you seem to be able to understand the concepts of two sets of
>> standards.
>
> Like a lawyer, in other words.

No, like a "barracks lawyer", i.e. one able to read the letter of the law
but with no clue as to the spirit or intent.

>> You would fail your medical with a blood pressure reading of 156,
>> which is 1 mm over the limit for the medical, but there is no one (except
>> maybe you) who would make the claim that a person is safe to fly with a
>> blood pressure of 155 but not with a blood pressure of 156.
>
> Then why isn't the limit 157?

The point just keeps on going right over the top of your head, doesn't it?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

a > wrote:
> On Dec 19, 10:00Â*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>> > Because the requirements for a medical are rather rigid while the requirements
>> > for a sport pilot is the rather flexible "safe to fly".
>>
>> I've just explained why they are one and the same.
>>
>> > Once again you see everything as black and white and can't decern shades of
>> > grey nor do you seem to be able to understand the concepts of two sets of
>> > standards.
>>
>> Like a lawyer, in other words.
>>
>> > You would fail your medical with a blood pressure reading of 156,
>> > which is 1 mm over the limit for the medical, but there is no one (except
>> > maybe you) who would make the claim that a person is safe to fly with a
>> > blood pressure of 155 but not with a blood pressure of 156.
>>
>> Then why isn't the limit 157?
>
> There is little doubt that the risk of a 'cardiovascular
> accident' (stroking or MI) increases with increasing blood pressure.
> Of minor interest is in a location I am familiar with when people are
> subjected to a max effort treadmill test and their blood pressure as
> well as EKG is being monitored, the test will stop when (ready for
> this?) the BP exceeds 260 over I forgot what. The moral of the story
> may be steady state hypertension does long term damage to organs, but
> the chance of something sudden happening is probably fairly remote,
> even for hypertensives.
>
> The FAA thinks in terms of cut-offs, but we all know the risk increase
> is gradual, not abrupt. I am not sure but wonder if the BP limit is
> something for which one can get a waiver, just as I had gotten one for
> vision to get a Class 2 medical instead of the Class 3 I would have
> otherwise gotten.
>
> It's a pleasure to see an occasional posting that is actually related
> to aviation!

One can get a waiver for just about any condition with enough time and
money for doctors and lab work, none of which will be covered by insurance.

The rational alternative is to spend the money on a LSA.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

VOR-DME > wrote:
> You are both partially right, but in my view, as an observer to the
> dynamic of this argument, Jim P is "more" right. It is true, if it were to
> come to the FAA?s attention that a sport pilot obtained that certificate
> because he was aware of a clearly disqualifying medical condition they
> would likely take action. However this is not what was suggested to the
> original poster. It was suggested that if the older candidate had any
> condition that "might preclude him from passing a third-class medical", he
> should go straight to light sport. There is a big difference, and Jim is
> right to point out that MX?s reaction is dogmatic and misses the nuance.
> Jim is also correct in pointing out that the flexibility in the medical
> rule is clearly an indication of application of a different standard,
> based on a different category of risk, and MX?s narrow and rigid responses
> appear to ignore this important difference.

That's because MX sees everything in black and white.

The terms "nuance", "spirit", and "intent" have no meaning to him.

BTY, if a person flying under the light sport rules has a "clearly
disqualifying medical condition" and starts or continues to fly, then they
are in violation of the rules for light sport.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[george]

On Dec 20, 6:46*am, wrote:

> BTY, if a person flying under the light sport rules has a "clearly
> disqualifying medical condition" and starts or continues to fly, then they
> are in violation of the rules for light sport.
>
And the betting is that the 'unfit to fly' drove to the doctors :-(

[Ed]

On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 11:41:16 -0800 (PST), george >
wrote:

>On Dec 20, 6:46*am, wrote:
>
>> BTY, if a person flying under the light sport rules has a "clearly
>> disqualifying medical condition" and starts or continues to fly, then they
>> are in violation of the rules for light sport.
>>
> And the betting is that the 'unfit to fly' drove to the doctors :-(

It is my understanding that the only requirement to fly Light Sport be
that you can qualify for a drivers license. If there is any other
rules pertaining to ones medical condition I don't know what it is,
however I'm real old and certainly don't keep up with everything, I do
fly though.

[Ari Silverstein]

On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 12:33:59 -0800, Ed wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 11:41:16 -0800 (PST), george >
> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 20, 6:46*am, wrote:
>>
>>> BTY, if a person flying under the light sport rules has a "clearly
>>> disqualifying medical condition" and starts or continues to fly, then they
>>> are in violation of the rules for light sport.
>>>
>> And the betting is that the 'unfit to fly' drove to the doctors :-(
>
> It is my understanding that the only requirement to fly Light Sport be
> that you can qualify for a drivers license. If there is any other
> rules pertaining to ones medical condition I don't know what it is,
> however I'm real old and certainly don't keep up with everything, I do
> fly though.

No DL, then you have to have a 3rd class med cert. If your DL is
limited (must have glasses) so is your SPL.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[[email protected]]

Ed > wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 11:41:16 -0800 (PST), george >
> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 20, 6:46Â*am, wrote:
>>
>>> BTY, if a person flying under the light sport rules has a "clearly
>>> disqualifying medical condition" and starts or continues to fly, then they
>>> are in violation of the rules for light sport.
>>>
>> And the betting is that the 'unfit to fly' drove to the doctors :-(
>
> It is my understanding that the only requirement to fly Light Sport be
> that you can qualify for a drivers license. If there is any other
> rules pertaining to ones medical condition I don't know what it is,
> however I'm real old and certainly don't keep up with everything, I do
> fly though.

FAR 61.53 (b)
"Operations that do not require a medical certificate. For operations
provided for in 61.23(b) of this part, a person shall not act as pilot
in command, or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember,
while that person knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that
would make the person unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner."


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ron Wanttaja[_2_]]

On 12/19/2010 12:33 PM, Ed wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 11:41:16 -0800 (PST), >
> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 20, 6:46 am, wrote:
>>
>>> BTY, if a person flying under the light sport rules has a "clearly
>>> disqualifying medical condition" and starts or continues to fly, then they
>>> are in violation of the rules for light sport.
>>>
>> And the betting is that the 'unfit to fly' drove to the doctors :-(
>
> It is my understanding that the only requirement to fly Light Sport be
> that you can qualify for a drivers license.

Not quite... replace "can qualify for a driver's license" with "possess
a valid driver's license". If you have a medical condition where your
state does not allow you to drive, it's not valid for flight. If you
get too many points and the state suspends your driver's license, it is
no longer valid for flight.

> If there is any other
> rules pertaining to ones medical condition I don't know what it is,
> however I'm real old and certainly don't keep up with everything, I do
> fly though.

----------------
61.23 Medical certificates: Requirement and duration.

(2) A person using a current and valid U.S. driver’s license to meet
the requirements of this paragraph must--
.....
(iv) Not know or have reason to know of any medical condition that
would make that person unable to operate a light-sport aircraft in a
safe manner.
----------------
As others have said, if you are *aware* of a condition that would
prevent you from operating safely, you are expected to not "exercise the
privileges of a Sport Pilot license." As far as I am aware, the FAA has
not issued a list of disqualifying conditions, but they have reserved
the right to issue such a list.

The huge advantage, of course, is that this is self-certified. You are
expected to ground yourself when necessary, but you can fly again when
you are confident that the conditions is under control. You don't have
to jump through a bunch of FAA hoops.

Ron Wanttaja

[Mxsmanic]

a writes:

> There is little doubt that the risk of a 'cardiovascular
> accident' (stroking or MI) increases with increasing blood pressure.

So why would it increase more for a pilot who requires a medical than for a
pilot who does not? That's the issue for a light sport license. If you can't
pass the medical, then you're not fit to fly--that's what the medical is
designed to determine--and so you don't qualify for the light sport license.

The fact that some applicants engage in doublethink to avoid facing this
obvious reality doesn't mean that they are right in doing so. The fact that
the FAA chooses not to pursue this in many cases doesn't mean that it cannot
or won't do so in the future or at its discretion.

> Of minor interest is in a location I am familiar with when people are
> subjected to a max effort treadmill test and their blood pressure as
> well as EKG is being monitored, the test will stop when (ready for
> this?) the BP exceeds 260 over I forgot what. The moral of the story
> may be steady state hypertension does long term damage to organs, but
> the chance of something sudden happening is probably fairly remote,
> even for hypertensives.

Yes. A systolic pressure of 230 increases the chance of having a heart attack
in the next decade by only a few percent. But it is true that consistently
high BP does a lot of wear and tear, especially on things like the kidneys and
eyes. These won't cause sudden incapacitation, so they aren't relevant to
aviation, but they do affect general health, and may eventually affect fitness
to fly.

> The FAA thinks in terms of cut-offs, but we all know the risk increase
> is gradual, not abrupt. I am not sure but wonder if the BP limit is
> something for which one can get a waiver, just as I had gotten one for
> vision to get a Class 2 medical instead of the Class 3 I would have
> otherwise gotten.

I've never heard of a waiver for BP, but it's an interesting question. Perhaps
if you could prove that it was white-coat syndrome or something, you could get
a waiver.

Sometimes, if your BP is very high at the doctor's office, you can try
monitoring your BP several times a day at home over a period of weeks. The
results may be surprisingly normal, although that might not necessarily
satisfy the FAA (even though it should).

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> a writes:
>
>> There is little doubt that the risk of a 'cardiovascular
>> accident' (stroking or MI) increases with increasing blood pressure.
>
> So why would it increase more for a pilot who requires a medical than for a
> pilot who does not? That's the issue for a light sport license. If you can't
> pass the medical, then you're not fit to fly--that's what the medical is
> designed to determine--and so you don't qualify for the light sport license.

Wrong again.

You just can't seem to get it into your head that light sport has one set
of standards, basically a common sense definition, while the other certificates
have a different set of standards primarily based on numerical limits.

One set of standards has little to nothing to do with the other.

By your black and white, one size fits all interpretation, anyone that can't
pass the phyical for astronauts is "not fit to fly".

> The fact that some applicants engage in doublethink to avoid facing this
> obvious reality

It is only obvious to someone that can't understand the concept of having
two sets of standards for two set of circumstances.

<snip irrelevant babble>

> I've never heard of a waiver for BP

Because you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

> Sometimes, if your BP is very high at the doctor's office, you can try
> monitoring your BP several times a day at home over a period of weeks. The
> results may be surprisingly normal, although that might not necessarily
> satisfy the FAA (even though it should).

A home BP test will satisfy the FAA for the medical requirements for sport
pilot.

If the home test is normal, the person has no reason to believe they are
not fit to fly as defined by the rules which apply to sport pilot.

Look up the term "white coat hypertension".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> By your black and white, one size fits all interpretation, anyone that can't
> pass the phyical for astronauts is "not fit to fly".

No. By my interpretation, anyone who could not pass a third-class FAA medical
is not eligible to fly with a light sport license. That's the obvious
interpretation of the regulations, but it is clear that the FAA left a
loophole in them deliberately, by allowing pilots to certify themselves.

I suppose this is tacit recognition that the medical standards are too high,
but it avoids actually lowering the standards and risking the heat if a pilot
causes a crash due to medical issues. The FAA can always say that the pilot
didn't follow the regulations.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> By your black and white, one size fits all interpretation, anyone that can't
>> pass the phyical for astronauts is "not fit to fly".
>
> No. By my interpretation, anyone who could not pass a third-class FAA medical
> is not eligible to fly with a light sport license. That's the obvious
> interpretation of the regulations,

No, it is not obvious by any stretch of the imagination and it is just as
stupid as saying a private pilot is not fit to fly because they could not
pass a first class medical.

When you look at the rules taken as a whole, instead of through the blinders
you always wear, you discover that the FAA recognizes four different types
of flying with four different standards with respect to medical qualificaton:

That which requires a first class medical

That which requires a second class medical

That which requires a third class medical

That which requires the pilot to self certify as to fitness


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> When you look at the rules taken as a whole, instead of through the blinders
> you always wear, you discover that the FAA recognizes four different types
> of flying with four different standards with respect to medical qualificaton:
>
> That which requires a first class medical
>
> That which requires a second class medical
>
> That which requires a third class medical
>
> That which requires the pilot to self certify as to fitness

You don't need to be able to pass a first-class medical to fly in situations
that require only a second-class medical. But you need to be able to pass some
sort of medical to fly at all, either explicitly or (for the light sport
license) implicitly. The medical determines your fitness; if you cannot pass a
third-class medical, you are unfit. Otherwise having failed or lost a
third-class medical would not disqualify you from flying light sport. If the
FAA didn't care about your ability to pass a medical, that restriction would
not exist.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> When you look at the rules taken as a whole, instead of through the blinders
>> you always wear, you discover that the FAA recognizes four different types
>> of flying with four different standards with respect to medical qualificaton:
>>
>> That which requires a first class medical
>>
>> That which requires a second class medical
>>
>> That which requires a third class medical
>>
>> That which requires the pilot to self certify as to fitness
>
> You don't need to be able to pass a first-class medical to fly in situations
> that require only a second-class medical.

Yep, and you don't need to be able to pass a second class medical to fly in
situations that require only a third class medical.

And you don't need to be able to pass a third class medical to fly in
situations that don't require a medical, which by the way is more than
just light sport pilot.

>But you need to be able to pass some
> sort of medical to fly at all, either explicitly or (for the light sport
> license) implicitly.

Nope, there is nothing "implicit" in the rules and they are quite clear.

In relation to the FAA, the term "medical" means specific tests, specific
results, and performance by specific people as in for a third class medical
blood pressure is tested to be less than 155 under specific conditions and
done by an AME.

To fly as a light sport pilot there is no requirement that one has ever
seen a physican of any kind at any time in their life, only the requirement
that they be safe to fly.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> And you don't need to be able to pass a third class medical to fly in
> situations that don't require a medical, which by the way is more than
> just light sport pilot.

Yes, you do. You don't have to take the medical, but you need to be able to
pass it.

That's why failing the medical or having one suspended disqualifies you.

If you disagree, explain why you cannot fail a medical or have it suspended
and still fly as a sport pilot.

> Nope, there is nothing "implicit" in the rules and they are quite clear.

There is a great deal implicit in the rules. It looks exactly like a loophole
by design--one that can potentially trap pilots and one that can potentially
protect the FAA from liability.

> To fly as a light sport pilot there is no requirement that one has ever
> seen a physican of any kind at any time in their life, only the requirement
> that they be safe to fly.

Why does the FAA disqualify sport pilot applicants who have failed a medical,
if they can safely fly?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> And you don't need to be able to pass a third class medical to fly in
>> situations that don't require a medical, which by the way is more than
>> just light sport pilot.
>
> Yes, you do. You don't have to take the medical, but you need to be able to
> pass it.

No, you don't, there is no such rule, and there is no such thing as "the
medical".

>> Nope, there is nothing "implicit" in the rules and they are quite clear.
>
> There is a great deal implicit in the rules. It looks exactly like a loophole
> by design--one that can potentially trap pilots and one that can potentially
> protect the FAA from liability.

Babbling paranoia.

>> To fly as a light sport pilot there is no requirement that one has ever
>> seen a physican of any kind at any time in their life, only the requirement
>> that they be safe to fly.
>
> Why does the FAA disqualify sport pilot applicants who have failed a medical,
> if they can safely fly?

Because it is the rule, whether it makes sense or not, and is a separate
set of conditions.

To change that rule the FAA would have to establish standards for light
sport pilot which would in effect create a fourth class medical, which the
FAA has no apparent interest in doing.

There is a loophole for those that have failed a third class medical if
they wish to persue it.

If the reason for failing the third class is what most would concider
trivial, e.g. a blood pressure of 156, that is not obviously an unsafe
condition, you can spend lots of time and money getting a special issuance.

The bottom line is to fly as a light sport pilot, and as some other types
of pilot, there is no requirement that one has ever seen a physican of any
kind at any time in their life nor is there any requirement that they be
able to pass a third class medical.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.