More on the Sports Pilot/Medical Requirement issue

[[email protected]]

From the AOPA website:

AOPA meets with FAA to work toward resolution of sport pilot medical
Catch-22

AOPA staff attending AirVenture in Oshkosh today met with FAA
officials responsible for the sport pilot rule to work toward a
resolution of the medical "Catch-22." Both in questions to AOPA's
Pilot Information Center
(http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/040728sport.html) and at
various forums at EAA's AirVenture, pilots have expressed
disappointment that if they've been denied a medical in the past, they
can't use a driver's license in lieu of a medical to exercise sport
pilot privileges. However, a pilot with a similar medical condition
who has never applied for a medical, can.

"AOPA, along with EAA and other groups, is continuing the dialogue
with FAA to find a way to get back to the original intent of sport
pilot," said Andy Cebula, AOPA senior vice president of Government and
Technical Affairs. "If you're healthy enough to hold a driver's
license and you have no current medical condition that would make you
unsafe to fly a light-sport aircraft, you should be able to exercise
sport pilot privileges."

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
...
> From the AOPA website:
>
> AOPA meets with FAA to work toward resolution of sport pilot medical
> Catch-22

AOPA ought to go and actually read "Catch-22" so that they know what the
term really means.

Nothing undermines a legitimate effort more than using bad language.

[ET]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

> > wrote in message
> ...
>> From the AOPA website:
>>
>> AOPA meets with FAA to work toward resolution of sport pilot medical
>> Catch-22
>
> AOPA ought to go and actually read "Catch-22" so that they know what
> the term really means.
>
> Nothing undermines a legitimate effort more than using bad language.
>
>
>

Well, persistant incorrect use of a term eventually verify's the new
definition. While the Sport Pilot medical issue is not litterally a
catch-22 like in Joseph Heller’s novel, it "is" a Catch-22 as far as
common use of the term. Most of the Public see's Catch-22 as "your
damned if you do or your damned if you don't".

You can't fight the system and the system is us!

The Sport Pilot medical issue is simular for existing pilots who still
HAVE current medicals, really than for any other group. If there health
is at all questionable, they can choose to roll the dice on there next
medical, or just let it lapse and fly a 2 seater... so there damned if
they "do" go take a medical, in that they may not be able to fly
again... ever. They're damned if they don't, cause they won;t get to
fly that brand new SR-22 they bought a month ago.....

As far as current pilots that have failed medicals, ... as of now there
just damned... ;-)

I'm "certain" before Jan 15th there will be a one-time "sport-pilot"
medical that will probably involve more "how to recognise when you can't
fly" brochures, and a really long and involved contract absolving the
FAA, and the doctor of all responsibility when you go down in flames and
take innocent school children with you...., then actually proving you
can fly. If not, I would expect a bunch of older pilots who have lost
there medical for one reason or another that most of us would think is
silly, to get the ACLU or sum such as that and sue for equal protection
under the law.....

--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[G.R. Patterson III]

ET wrote:
>
> Well, persistant incorrect use of a term eventually verify's the new
> definition.

Yep. My favorite example is the misuse of "decimate". It actually means a 10%
casualty figure, but most people use it to mean near annihilation.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Bob Moore]

ET > wrote

> Well, persistant incorrect use of a term eventually verify's the new
> definition. While the Sport Pilot medical issue is not litterally a
> catch-22 like in Joseph Heller’s novel, it "is" a Catch-22 as far as
> common use of the term. Most of the Public see's Catch-22 as "your
> damned if you do or your damned if you don't".

Your persistant misuse of the apostrophe as in "verify's" and "see's"
will never become common useage. I'm certainly no English major, but
I believe that 60 years ago, I was taught to use the apostrophe in
contractions and for expressing the posessive case of a noun. Your
post is the first time that I have seen the apostrophe applied to a
verb.

Bob Moore

[ET]

Bob Moore > wrote in
. 168:

> ET > wrote
>
>> Well, persistant incorrect use of a term eventually verify's the new
>> definition. While the Sport Pilot medical issue is not litterally a
>> catch-22 like in Joseph Heller’s novel, it "is" a Catch-22 as far as
>> common use of the term. Most of the Public see's Catch-22 as "your
>> damned if you do or your damned if you don't".
>
> Your persistant misuse of the apostrophe as in "verify's" and "see's"
> will never become common useage. I'm certainly no English major, but
> I believe that 60 years ago, I was taught to use the apostrophe in
> contractions and for expressing the posessive case of a noun. Your
> post is the first time that I have seen the apostrophe applied to a
> verb.
>
> Bob Moore
>

and correcting one's grammer on usenet is bad form's's's....

when I get a newsreader with a spell checker, perhaps I'll use it.. but
until then you'll just have to suff'er

funny thing is though.. I don't remember typing it that way :-)

--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[zatatime]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:13:07 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>
>
>ET wrote:
>>
>> Well, persistant incorrect use of a term eventually verify's the new
>> definition.
>
>Yep. My favorite example is the misuse of "decimate". It actually means a 10%
>casualty figure, but most people use it to mean near annihilation.
>
>George Patterson
> If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
> he gives it to.

Interesting...I use that one wrong all the time! Time to find a new
word.

z

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 20:55:55 GMT, ET > wrote:

>Most of the Public see's Catch-22 as "your
>damned if you do or your damned if you don't".

Catch 22 is variously defined in the novel, but its ultimate
definition is this: "They can do anything to you that you can't stop
them from doing."

Ford's Corollary to Catch 22 is this: "You can do anything that they
can't stop you from doing." Personally, I find this a much more useful
guide to life than Mr. Heller's.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 20:55:55 GMT, ET > wrote:

>I'm "certain" before Jan 15th there will be a one-time "sport-pilot"
>medical

You didn't say January 15 of which year :)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 03:19:27 GMT, zatatime
> wrote:

>Interesting...I use that one wrong all the time! Time to find a new
>word.

Don't bother. Everyone uses it wrong, despite the fact that the word
practically shouts its own definition: decimate = one-tenth acted on.

I haven't looked it up in the dictionary lately, but I'll bet it has a
100 percent definition in there somewhere. Here goes!
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate 10th Edition:

Well, it's not as bad as I thought. 3b is "to destroy a large part
of." Followed by the example: "firebombs decimated large sections of
the city."

Have to tell you, though, as a veteran of Mr. Vaughan's sophomore
Latin class, I still wince when I read phrases like that. (It would be
much worse if the example had read "firebombs deciated the city.")

Sorry! Pet peeve.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Bill Denton]

I don't know where these other definitions are coming from, but "Catch 22"
is quite simple:

You can get out of the military if you are insane, but you have to ask to be
let out.

However, if you ask to be let out of the military, you aren't insane.




"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 20:55:55 GMT, ET > wrote:
>
> >Most of the Public see's Catch-22 as "your
> >damned if you do or your damned if you don't".
>
> Catch 22 is variously defined in the novel, but its ultimate
> definition is this: "They can do anything to you that you can't stop
> them from doing."
>
> Ford's Corollary to Catch 22 is this: "You can do anything that they
> can't stop you from doing." Personally, I find this a much more useful
> guide to life than Mr. Heller's.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
> Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com