Too Old?

[Gezellig]

Recently a 72 yo went blind in flight (stroke?) and safely landed in the
drink in FL. Several comments were that age should be considered in
keeping your PPL. I can see this makes sense /but/ it would prolly be
illegal.

Too old? If so, at what age do you place the cutoff?

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Gezellig > wrote:
> Recently a 72 yo went blind in flight (stroke?) and safely landed in the
> drink in FL. Several comments were that age should be considered in
> keeping your PPL. I can see this makes sense /but/ it would prolly be
> illegal.
>
> Too old? If so, at what age do you place the cutoff?

When you can't pass the medical; that's what it is for.

Everyone's biology is different.

I think just about everyone knows people who are healthy as a horse
and in their late 80's and people who've dropped dead in their 50's.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

Gezellig writes:

> Recently a 72 yo went blind in flight (stroke?) and safely landed in the
> drink in FL. Several comments were that age should be considered in
> keeping your PPL. I can see this makes sense /but/ it would prolly be
> illegal.

Pilots undergo a physical exam that verifies that they are in robust health.
As long as they can pass the exam, age is irrelevant.

> Too old? If so, at what age do you place the cutoff?

Most people will place the cutoff at their own age plus twenty years or so.

But there is no justification for a cutoff.

[Ramsey]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gezellig writes:
>
>> Recently a 72 yo went blind in flight (stroke?) and safely landed in the
>> drink in FL. Several comments were that age should be considered in
>> keeping your PPL. I can see this makes sense /but/ it would prolly be
>> illegal.
>
> Pilots undergo a physical exam that verifies that they are in robust
> health.
> As long as they can pass the exam, age is irrelevant.
>
>> Too old? If so, at what age do you place the cutoff?
>
> Most people will place the cutoff at their own age plus twenty years or
> so.
>
> But there is no justification for a cutoff.

What a dumb ass.

That's a lame attempt at a troll.

Let's see how many dumb ****s answer you.

[gorgon]

> Let's see how many dumb ****s answer you.

Looks like at least one did.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Gezellig" > wrote in message
...
> Recently a 72 yo went blind in flight (stroke?) and safely landed in the
> drink in FL. Several comments were that age should be considered in
> keeping your PPL. I can see this makes sense /but/ it would prolly be
> illegal.
>
> Too old? If so, at what age do you place the cutoff?

Steve Wittman went up and did an airshow for his guests at his 90'th
birthday party.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Ramsey]

"gorgon" > wrote in message
...
>> Let's see how many dumb ****s answer you.
>
> Looks like at least one did.

Don't look now, but I didn't answer him, and neither did you.

[Lou]

On Aug 31, 4:43 pm, "Ramsey" <@##@.^net> wrote:
> "gorgon" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> Let's see how many dumb ****s answer you.
>
> > Looks like at least one did.
>
> Don't look now, but I didn't answer him, and neither did you.

Your still the only one to answer.
Lou

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 31, 5:43*pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My
Sig.com> wrote:
> "Gezellig" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Recently a 72 yo went blind in flight (stroke?) and safely landed in the
> > drink in FL. Several comments were that age should be considered in
> > keeping your PPL. I can see this makes sense /but/ it would prolly be
> > illegal.
>
> > Too old? If so, at what age do you place the cutoff?
>
> Steve Wittman went up and did an airshow for his guests at his 90'th
> birthday party.
>
> --
> Geoff
> The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
> remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
> When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

Don't overlook the really firm medical cutoff that does exist for non
solo PIC. I think it's 16, but could be wrong.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

The physical exam does not verify anything, and is largely a screening tool.
Besides, you don't fly anyway, and it doesn't matter to the rest of us who
do.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Gezellig > wrote in news:6i0carFo8ma9U1
@mid.individual.net:

> Recently a 72 yo went blind in flight (stroke?) and safely landed in the
> drink in FL. Several comments were that age should be considered in
> keeping your PPL. I can see this makes sense /but/ it would prolly be
> illegal.

There have been people in their 90s with commercial certificates. I know
someone who taught after he retired well into his 80s and continued to fly
into his 90s.
Then there's Bob Hoover and Duane Cole...



Bertie

[Ramsey]

"Lou" > wrote in message
...
> On Aug 31, 4:43 pm, "Ramsey" <@##@.^net> wrote:
>> "gorgon" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >> Let's see how many dumb ****s answer you.
>>
>> > Looks like at least one did.
>>
>> Don't look now, but I didn't answer him, and neither did you.
>
> Your still the only one to answer.
> Lou

If you call that an answer, you're a dumb ass.

[JohnO]

On Sep 1, 1:51*pm, "Ramsey" <@##@.^net> wrote:
> "Lou" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Aug 31, 4:43 pm, "Ramsey" <@##@.^net> wrote:
> >> "gorgon" > wrote in message
>
> ....
>
> >> >> Let's see how many dumb ****s answer you.
>
> >> > Looks like at least one did.
>
> >> Don't look now, but I didn't answer him, and neither did you.
>
> > Your still the only one to answer.
> > * * * *Lou
>
> If you call that an answer, you're a dumb ass.

Just checking - did you answer him or not?

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

On Aug 31, 3:13*pm, Gezellig > wrote:
> Recently a 72 yo went blind in flight (stroke?) and safely landed in the
> drink in FL. Several comments were that age should be considered in
> keeping your PPL. I can see this makes sense /but/ it would prolly be
> illegal.
>
> Too old? If so, at what age do you place the cutoff?

I'm still flying 70-80 hours a month at 72. I will keep on flying
until I bust a physical. Flying seems to keep me younger than my
contemporaries or is it my 2x week workouts in Aikido (2nd degree
black belt)? Perhaps its my 2 year old son?
Some people age quickly and some don't. I don't.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
> On Aug 31, 3:13 pm, Gezellig > wrote:
>> Recently a 72 yo went blind in flight (stroke?) and safely landed in the
>> drink in FL. Several comments were that age should be considered in
>> keeping your PPL. I can see this makes sense /but/ it would prolly be
>> illegal.
>>
>> Too old? If so, at what age do you place the cutoff?
>
> I'm still flying 70-80 hours a month at 72. I will keep on flying
> until I bust a physical. Flying seems to keep me younger than my
> contemporaries or is it my 2x week workouts in Aikido (2nd degree
> black belt)? Perhaps its my 2 year old son?
> Some people age quickly and some don't. I don't.

Hi Rocky; Seems we have something else in common. Judo for me, Nidan.
Played for years until I had to give it up after my surgeries. Loved
martial arts training.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Gezellig > wrote in news:6i0carFo8ma9U1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
> > Recently a 72 yo went blind in flight (stroke?) and safely landed in the
> > drink in FL. Several comments were that age should be considered in
> > keeping your PPL. I can see this makes sense /but/ it would prolly be
> > illegal.
>
> There have been people in their 90s with commercial certificates. I know
> someone who taught after he retired well into his 80s and continued to fly
> into his 90s.
> Then there's Bob Hoover and Duane Cole...
>


I know somebody who was Chief Pilot for Eastern and still flies at 92 --
then we had another old Eastern guy who died at 102 -- he was flying his
Bonanza until shortly before his death. Car rental companies wouldn't
rent to him because he was too old!

I know quite a few pilots flying well into their 70s -- some in
high-performance planes.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> I know quite a few pilots flying well into their 70s -- some in
> high-performance planes.
>

Hell Orval, it took that long for some of us to get proficient :-)))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Orval Fairbairn > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Gezellig > wrote in news:6i0carFo8ma9U1
>> @mid.individual.net:
>>
>> > Recently a 72 yo went blind in flight (stroke?) and safely landed
>> > in the drink in FL. Several comments were that age should be
>> > considered in keeping your PPL. I can see this makes sense /but/ it
>> > would prolly be illegal.
>>
>> There have been people in their 90s with commercial certificates. I
>> know someone who taught after he retired well into his 80s and
>> continued to fly into his 90s.
>> Then there's Bob Hoover and Duane Cole...
>>
>
>
> I know somebody who was Chief Pilot for Eastern and still flies at 92
> -- then we had another old Eastern guy who died at 102 -- he was
> flying his Bonanza until shortly before his death. Car rental
> companies wouldn't rent to him because he was too old!
>
> I know quite a few pilots flying well into their 70s -- some in
> high-performance planes.


Yeah, and why not. I think Pappy chalk operated commercially into his
80's, for instance.

OTOH, I know a pilot who died suddenly just the other day at 47...

A commercial one too...



Bertie

[Stella Starr]

Ramsey wrote:

>
> If you call that an answer, you're a dumb ass.
>

Boy, you sure contribute a lot to the discussion.
Bet you're proud when people google all your thoughtful contributions.
Why bother?

[Zebulon]

"Stella Starr" > wrote in message
. ..
> Ramsey wrote:
>
>>
>> If you call that an answer, you're a dumb ass.
>
> Boy, you sure contribute a lot to the discussion.
> Bet you're proud when people google all your thoughtful contributions.
> Why bother?

You call this a discussion.

[Lou]

On Aug 31, 11:39 pm, Stella Starr > wrote:
> Ramsey wrote:
>
> > If you call that an answer, you're a dumb ass.
>
> Boy, you sure contribute a lot to the discussion.
> Bet you're proud when people google all your thoughtful contributions.
> Why bother?

Well Stella, what do you expect from someone
named after a condom?
Lou

[Zebulon]

"Lou" > wrote in message
...
> On Aug 31, 11:39 pm, Stella Starr > wrote:
>> Ramsey wrote:
>>
>> > If you call that an answer, you're a dumb ass.
>>
>> Boy, you sure contribute a lot to the discussion.
>> Bet you're proud when people google all your thoughtful contributions.
>> Why bother?
>
> Well Stella, what do you expect from someone
> named after a condom?
> Lou

A Ramsey condom? Yep, you're a dumb ass.

But not to worry, it's not too late.You and Stella can still answer him
directly and fill this thread out to 200 or 300 posts as usual.

Arguing the fine points of yanking the medical of thousands of healthy
pilots, just because of their age, could make a really nice fire that would
undoubtedly burn for days.

So by all means, have at it.

[RST Engineering]

It's the marital arts training that keeps me going {;-)

Jim

--
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it."
--Aristotle


"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...

Loved
> martial arts training.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

[Gezellig]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 19:53:20 -0700 (PDT), Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:

> On Aug 31, 3:13*pm, Gezellig > wrote:
>> Recently a 72 yo went blind in flight (stroke?) and safely landed in the
>> drink in FL. Several comments were that age should be considered in
>> keeping your PPL. I can see this makes sense /but/ it would prolly be
>> illegal.
>>
>> Too old? If so, at what age do you place the cutoff?
>
> I'm still flying 70-80 hours a month at 72. I will keep on flying
> until I bust a physical. Flying seems to keep me younger than my
> contemporaries or is it my 2x week workouts in Aikido (2nd degree
> black belt)? Perhaps its my 2 year old son?
> Some people age quickly and some don't. I don't.

Best of luck to you, I am mid 50s and would hate to think that there
might be a mandatory retirement for a PPL.

We fly in a hostile GA environment and I can see an airport manager like
the moron at VGT taking any ball he can and attempt to run with it. If
he can claim experimentals unsafe, training unsafe, why not elderly age
unsafe?

The PPL exam is pretty much a joke which doesn't help as a defense.

[Gezellig]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 20:25:08 GMT, wrote:

> In rec.aviation.piloting Gezellig > wrote:
>> Recently a 72 yo went blind in flight (stroke?) and safely landed in the
>> drink in FL. Several comments were that age should be considered in
>> keeping your PPL. I can see this makes sense /but/ it would prolly be
>> illegal.
>>
>> Too old? If so, at what age do you place the cutoff?
>
> When you can't pass the medical; that's what it is for.
>
> Everyone's biology is different.
>
> I think just about everyone knows people who are healthy as a horse
> and in their late 80's and people who've dropped dead in their 50's.

Jim, the medical isn't much comfort imo. Yes, everyone is different and
the same. We all age..at differing rates, for sure. My concern is that
much like all kinds of Federal legislation that an age is picked which
envelopes those that do need to be out of the air with a majority that
do not.

[Gezellig]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 18:12:33 -0500, Viperdoc wrote:

> The physical exam does not verify anything, and is largely a screening tool.
> Besides, you don't fly anyway, and it doesn't matter to the rest of us who
> do.

MOF I do (if you meant me) and I agree on the medical. Which draws
attention, imo, to a potential issue that could be use to support the
need for a PPL age cutoff.

[Viperdoc[_5_]]

No, I meant Anthony. He doesn't fly, and by his own admission couldn't pass
a medical or even the PPL test.

[Ben Jeffrey]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
>> I know quite a few pilots flying well into their 70s -- some in
>> high-performance planes.
>>
>
> Hell Orval, it took that long for some of us to get proficient :-)))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

I have a friend in our soaring club who flew Corsairs as a USMC pilot in WW2
and still flys regularly in our club - usually the first to launch and the
last to land. To top it off, most of the time he flys his Pitts to the club
from his home field.

Ben Jeffrey

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Ben Jeffrey wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>
>>> I know quite a few pilots flying well into their 70s -- some in
>>> high-performance planes.
>>>
>> Hell Orval, it took that long for some of us to get proficient :-)))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I have a friend in our soaring club who flew Corsairs as a USMC pilot in WW2
> and still flys regularly in our club - usually the first to launch and the
> last to land. To top it off, most of the time he flys his Pitts to the club
> from his home field.
>
> Ben Jeffrey
>
>

Some of the "older" pilots are in phenomenally good health. I deal with
a lot of them on a daily basis. They're amazing!

--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Gezellig > wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 20:25:08 GMT, wrote:
>
>> In rec.aviation.piloting Gezellig > wrote:
>>> Recently a 72 yo went blind in flight (stroke?) and safely landed in the
>>> drink in FL. Several comments were that age should be considered in
>>> keeping your PPL. I can see this makes sense /but/ it would prolly be
>>> illegal.
>>>
>>> Too old? If so, at what age do you place the cutoff?
>>
>> When you can't pass the medical; that's what it is for.
>>
>> Everyone's biology is different.
>>
>> I think just about everyone knows people who are healthy as a horse
>> and in their late 80's and people who've dropped dead in their 50's.
>
> Jim, the medical isn't much comfort imo. Yes, everyone is different and
> the same. We all age..at differing rates, for sure. My concern is that
> much like all kinds of Federal legislation that an age is picked which
> envelopes those that do need to be out of the air with a majority that
> do not.

Then you shall never have any comfort nor a guarantee.

I guy I knew in his mid 40's had recently passed his Army physical fitness
test with good scores, had a recent physical complete with EKG, treadmill,
and the whole 9 yards, and dropped dead while drinking a cup of coffee.

In these litigious days it is highly unlikely there will ever be an
absolute cut off age for flying, driving, or anything else.

About the only reasons one exists for airline pilots is international
treaties and a general lack of interest.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Gezellig]

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 13:12:54 -0400, Gezellig wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 20:25:08 GMT, wrote:
>
>> In rec.aviation.piloting Gezellig > wrote:
>>> Recently a 72 yo went blind in flight (stroke?) and safely landed in the
>>> drink in FL. Several comments were that age should be considered in
>>> keeping your PPL. I can see this makes sense /but/ it would prolly be
>>> illegal.
>>>
>>> Too old? If so, at what age do you place the cutoff?
>>
>> When you can't pass the medical; that's what it is for.
>>
>> Everyone's biology is different.
>>
>> I think just about everyone knows people who are healthy as a horse
>> and in their late 80's and people who've dropped dead in their 50's.
>
> Jim, the medical isn't much comfort imo. Yes, everyone is different and
> the same. We all age..at differing rates, for sure. My concern is that
> much like all kinds of Federal legislation that an age is picked which
> envelopes those that do need to be out of the air with a majority that
> do not.

Below is a perfect example of the aggressive behavior against GA pilots.
To think an age cutoff is unreasonable is to ignore the obvious.

<http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1201-full.html#198691>

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Gezellig > wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 13:12:54 -0400, Gezellig wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 20:25:08 GMT, wrote:
>>
>>> In rec.aviation.piloting Gezellig > wrote:
>>>> Recently a 72 yo went blind in flight (stroke?) and safely landed in the
>>>> drink in FL. Several comments were that age should be considered in
>>>> keeping your PPL. I can see this makes sense /but/ it would prolly be
>>>> illegal.
>>>>
>>>> Too old? If so, at what age do you place the cutoff?
>>>
>>> When you can't pass the medical; that's what it is for.
>>>
>>> Everyone's biology is different.
>>>
>>> I think just about everyone knows people who are healthy as a horse
>>> and in their late 80's and people who've dropped dead in their 50's.
>>
>> Jim, the medical isn't much comfort imo. Yes, everyone is different and
>> the same. We all age..at differing rates, for sure. My concern is that
>> much like all kinds of Federal legislation that an age is picked which
>> envelopes those that do need to be out of the air with a majority that
>> do not.
>
> Below is a perfect example of the aggressive behavior against GA pilots.
> To think an age cutoff is unreasonable is to ignore the obvious.
>
> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1201-full.html#198691>

Did you actually read the article?

The pilot involved sued the government for damages.

The ruling was he wasn't due any damages since he could not show any
loss.

What has this to do with anything?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

Gezellig writes:

> Below is a perfect example of the aggressive behavior against GA pilots.
> To think an age cutoff is unreasonable is to ignore the obvious.
>
> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1201-full.html#198691>

No mention of age, and he still has his license. The issue was one of
privacy, not flight restrictions.

[Mxsmanic]

Gezellig writes:

> The PPL exam is pretty much a joke which doesn't help as a defense.

The medical exams for licenses are a lot more restrictive than they need to
be.

[Viperdoc]

Anthony, have you ever taken a flying physical? What are the requirements?
How do they differ?

At best, they are a minimal screening, far from an extensive examination. Of
course, since you are not a physician or pilot, you wouldn't understand
these issues.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Gezellig writes:
>
>> The PPL exam is pretty much a joke which doesn't help as a defense.
>
> The medical exams for licenses are a lot more restrictive than they need to
> be.

In what respect?

What standards are too restrictive and what should the standards be?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gezellig writes:
>
>> The PPL exam is pretty much a joke which doesn't help as a defense.
>
> The medical exams for licenses are a lot more restrictive than they
> need to be.
>

You are an idiot.


Bertie

[Gezellig]

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 18:35:04 GMT, wrote:

>> Below is a perfect example of the aggressive behavior against GA pilots.
>> To think an age cutoff is unreasonable is to ignore the obvious.
>>
>> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1201-full.html#198691>
>
> Did you actually read the article?
>The pilot involved sued the government for damages.
>
> The ruling was he wasn't due any damages since he could not show any
> loss.
>
> What has this to do with anything?

"The FAA and Social Security Administration shared medical records and
personal information on the pilot in 2005 as part of "Operation Safe
Pilot." That FAA investigation examined the records of some 45,000
pilots in Northern California" which is a strict violation of "the
federal Privacy Act which protects individuals from such information
sharing". Did you read my post?

"This is a perfect example of the aggressive behavior against GA pilots.
To think an age cutoff is unreasonable is to ignore the obvious."

[Gezellig]

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:35:05 GMT, wrote:

> In these litigious days it is highly unlikely there will ever be an
> absolute cut off age for flying, driving, or anything else.
>
> About the only reasons one exists for airline pilots is international
> treaties and a general lack of interest.

I see little correlation to driving (a necessity) and flying (hardly
one) yet there have been attempts to enforce max driving age in many
states.

I *can* see that this age-PPL thing could easily become a political
football (Vegas for instance) where a very small minority takes it in
the chin "for the public good". hell, ppl don't want planes flying over
them for any reason, getting the codgers out of the air would get near
complete public approval imo.

Now, curious, how old are you? I'm mid 50s.

[Gezellig]

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:30:50 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:

> Ben Jeffrey wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>>
>>>> I know quite a few pilots flying well into their 70s -- some in
>>>> high-performance planes.
>>>>
>>> Hell Orval, it took that long for some of us to get proficient :-)))
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> I have a friend in our soaring club who flew Corsairs as a USMC pilot in WW2
>> and still flys regularly in our club - usually the first to launch and the
>> last to land. To top it off, most of the time he flys his Pitts to the club
>> from his home field.
>>
>> Ben Jeffrey
>>
>
> Some of the "older" pilots are in phenomenally good health. I deal with
> a lot of them on a daily basis. They're amazing!

And some aren't Dudley neither of which is the point. The point is that
Fed/FAA gets aggressive, age could come into question regardless. For
that matter, why not a local port like Vegas throwing up their own
rules?

[w]

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 20:55:04 GMT, wrote:

> In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Gezellig writes:
>>
>>> The PPL exam is pretty much a joke which doesn't help as a defense.
>>
>> The medical exams for licenses are a lot more restrictive than they need to
>> be.
>
> In what respect?
>
> What standards are too restrictive and what should the standards be?

Aside from Mx's trolling, you ask a fair question. The answer is "who
knows"?
--
http://tinyurl.com/yqm7bo

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Gezellig wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:30:50 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> Ben Jeffrey wrote:
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I know quite a few pilots flying well into their 70s -- some in
>>>>> high-performance planes.
>>>>>
>>>> Hell Orval, it took that long for some of us to get proficient :-)))
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> I have a friend in our soaring club who flew Corsairs as a USMC pilot in WW2
>>> and still flys regularly in our club - usually the first to launch and the
>>> last to land. To top it off, most of the time he flys his Pitts to the club
>>> from his home field.
>>>
>>> Ben Jeffrey
>>>
>> Some of the "older" pilots are in phenomenally good health. I deal with
>> a lot of them on a daily basis. They're amazing!
>
> And some aren't Dudley neither of which is the point. The point is that
> Fed/FAA gets aggressive, age could come into question regardless. For
> that matter, why not a local port like Vegas throwing up their own
> rules?

The one's that aren't should fail the medical. THAT is the point. The
"system" is supposed to discover and weed out those not medically fit to
fly.
As long as you can pass the medical, you fly. It's THAT simple!
Nobody says the system is perfect. There will always be those pilots who
slip through a medical check and then have a heart attack while flying.
Personally, I would be an advocate of more frequent medical checks for
pilots of a specific age determined by accident stats and medical
histories.
Of course if they went that route, you'd have the ACLU on their ass
screaming about "rights".
There is only one additional safety gap in the present system; that
being the individual choice of a pilot to voluntarily stop flying after
having a medical issue during the period between medicals.
As I said, it "ain't " a perfect system by a long shot!


--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Gezellig > wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:35:05 GMT, wrote:
>
>> In these litigious days it is highly unlikely there will ever be an
>> absolute cut off age for flying, driving, or anything else.
>>
>> About the only reasons one exists for airline pilots is international
>> treaties and a general lack of interest.
>
> I see little correlation to driving (a necessity) and flying (hardly
> one) yet there have been attempts to enforce max driving age in many
> states.

Look again.

Driving is a privilege by law in every state in the US; not a right,
not a necessity.

The legal status of private driving is no different then that of
private flying.

Every attempt to even enact a physical for driving past a certain
age has been shot down as age discrimination.

> I *can* see that this age-PPL thing could easily become a political
> football (Vegas for instance) where a very small minority takes it in
> the chin "for the public good". hell, ppl don't want planes flying over
> them for any reason, getting the codgers out of the air would get near
> complete public approval imo.

The Vegas thing is nothing more than a local bureaucrat in the pocket
of developers shooting off his mouth.

> Now, curious, how old are you? I'm mid 50s.

Early 60's.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Gezellig > wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 18:35:04 GMT, wrote:
>
>>> Below is a perfect example of the aggressive behavior against GA pilots.
>>> To think an age cutoff is unreasonable is to ignore the obvious.
>>>
>>> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1201-full.html#198691>
>>
>> Did you actually read the article?
>>The pilot involved sued the government for damages.
>>
>> The ruling was he wasn't due any damages since he could not show any
>> loss.
>>
>> What has this to do with anything?
>
> "The FAA and Social Security Administration shared medical records and
> personal information on the pilot in 2005 as part of "Operation Safe
> Pilot." That FAA investigation examined the records of some 45,000
> pilots in Northern California" which is a strict violation of "the
> federal Privacy Act which protects individuals from such information
> sharing". Did you read my post?
>
> "This is a perfect example of the aggressive behavior against GA pilots.
> To think an age cutoff is unreasonable is to ignore the obvious."

Actually, it was agressive behavior against people who were commiting
fraud.

And, if the actions were illegal, any half way competent lawyer should
have gotten all the fraud cases dismissed due to illegally obtained
and therefor inadmissable evidence, but that didn't happen.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Gezellig > wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:30:50 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> Ben Jeffrey wrote:
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I know quite a few pilots flying well into their 70s -- some in
>>>>> high-performance planes.
>>>>>
>>>> Hell Orval, it took that long for some of us to get proficient :-)))
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>
>>> I have a friend in our soaring club who flew Corsairs as a USMC pilot in WW2
>>> and still flys regularly in our club - usually the first to launch and the
>>> last to land. To top it off, most of the time he flys his Pitts to the club
>>> from his home field.
>>>
>>> Ben Jeffrey
>>>
>>
>> Some of the "older" pilots are in phenomenally good health. I deal with
>> a lot of them on a daily basis. They're amazing!
>
> And some aren't Dudley neither of which is the point. The point is that
> Fed/FAA gets aggressive, age could come into question regardless. For
> that matter, why not a local port like Vegas throwing up their own
> rules?

Because local airports can't make special rules just for them that are
contrary to FAA rules.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Stuart & Kathryn Fields]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Gezellig wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:30:50 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>
>>> Ben Jeffrey wrote:
>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I know quite a few pilots flying well into their 70s -- some in
>>>>>> high-performance planes.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hell Orval, it took that long for some of us to get proficient :-)))
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>> I have a friend in our soaring club who flew Corsairs as a USMC pilot
>>>> in WW2 and still flys regularly in our club - usually the first to
>>>> launch and the last to land. To top it off, most of the time he flys
>>>> his Pitts to the club from his home field.
>>>>
>>>> Ben Jeffrey
>>>>
>>> Some of the "older" pilots are in phenomenally good health. I deal with
>>> a lot of them on a daily basis. They're amazing!
>>
>> And some aren't Dudley neither of which is the point. The point is that
>> Fed/FAA gets aggressive, age could come into question regardless. For
>> that matter, why not a local port like Vegas throwing up their own
>> rules?
>
> The one's that aren't should fail the medical. THAT is the point. The
> "system" is supposed to discover and weed out those not medically fit to
> fly.
> As long as you can pass the medical, you fly. It's THAT simple!
> Nobody says the system is perfect. There will always be those pilots who
> slip through a medical check and then have a heart attack while flying.
> Personally, I would be an advocate of more frequent medical checks for
> pilots of a specific age determined by accident stats and medical
> histories.
> Of course if they went that route, you'd have the ACLU on their ass
> screaming about "rights".
> There is only one additional safety gap in the present system; that being
> the individual choice of a pilot to voluntarily stop flying after having a
> medical issue during the period between medicals.
> As I said, it "ain't " a perfect system by a long shot!
>
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques
Hell, I'm 72 and fly an experimental helicopter which, because of my
modifications involve a bit of "Test Flying". More than that, I recently
soloed an ultralight helicopter where the only check out possible was to get
the numbers for rpm and egt.
If they are going to put age limits on flying, they better start with age
limits for people driving and especially driving those huge motor homes just
a few feet from my car at closing velocities around 150mph and better.
Did you know that those motor homes have a refrigerator that can store cold
beer just a couple of feet behind the driver? It is obvious that you can
legally have an open container in your motor home.

[Mike Isaksen]

"Gezellig" wrote in message ...
> That FAA investigation examined the records of some
> 45,000 pilots in Northern California" which is a strict
> violation of "the Federal Privacy Act" which protects
> individuals from such information sharing.

I'm not sure that applies. The FAA physical is something you contract (pay)
for, but the Doctor works for the FAA and the results of the physical are
due the FAA (ie. I'm not sure you can negotiate with the doctor on what
portion of his finding will be forwarded).

So if the information is part of the gov't record, can it therefore not be
referenced to prevent fraud against the same gov't?

I view this differently if I have a relationship with a doctor who I
contract for my own needs. I view that information as private.

I have not reached the age where I have to think about the implication of
medicare/medicaid.

[Cubdriver]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:18:40 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>
>Most people will place the cutoff at their own age plus twenty years or so.

That means the cutoff is 96.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

[Lou]

On Sep 1, 8:07 am, "Zebulon" <@###@.^net> wrote:
> "Lou" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Aug 31, 11:39 pm, Stella Starr > wrote:
> >> Ramsey wrote:
>
> >> > If you call that an answer, you're a dumb ass.
>
> >> Boy, you sure contribute a lot to the discussion.
> >> Bet you're proud when people google all your thoughtful contributions.
> >> Why bother?
>
> > Well Stella, what do you expect from someone
> > named after a condom?
> > Lou
>
> A Ramsey condom? Yep, you're a dumb ass.
>
> But not to worry, it's not too late.You and Stella can still answer him
> directly and fill this thread out to 200 or 300 posts as usual.
>
> Arguing the fine points of yanking the medical of thousands of healthy
> pilots, just because of their age, could make a really nice fire that would
> undoubtedly burn for days.
>
> So by all means, have at it.

You really couldn't be this stupid, could you?
Lou

[Mxsmanic]

Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> writes:

> That means the cutoff is 96.

It will be higher next year.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> In what respect?

In almost every respect. One need only look at the numbers for sudden
incapacitation among automobile drivers to see that it's a very minor risk,
even with no physical.

> What standards are too restrictive and what should the standards be?

All the standards that attempt to weed out persons at higher risk of
incapacitation: restrictions on diabetes and epilepsy, hypertension, cancer,
kidney disease, headaches, allergies, and a long list of other conditions.
The physical should concentrate on the ability to fly an aircraft right now,
and not attempt to guess which people will or might be suddenly incapacitated
by some medical condition.

[K l e i n[_2_]]

On Sep 1, 3:36 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Gezellig wrote:
> > On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:30:50 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
> >> Ben Jeffrey wrote:
> >>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> >>>>> I know quite a few pilots flying well into their 70s -- some in
> >>>>> high-performance planes.
>
> >>>> Hell Orval, it took that long for some of us to get proficient :-)))
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>> I have a friend in our soaring club who flew Corsairs as a USMC pilot in WW2
> >>> and still flys regularly in our club - usually the first to launch and the
> >>> last to land. To top it off, most of the time he flys his Pitts to the club
> >>> from his home field.
>
> >>> Ben Jeffrey
>
> >> Some of the "older" pilots are in phenomenally good health. I deal with
> >> a lot of them on a daily basis. They're amazing!
>
> > And some aren't Dudley neither of which is the point. The point is that
> > Fed/FAA gets aggressive, age could come into question regardless. For
> > that matter, why not a local port like Vegas throwing up their own
> > rules?
>
> The one's that aren't should fail the medical. THAT is the point. The
> "system" is supposed to discover and weed out those not medically fit to
> fly.
> As long as you can pass the medical, you fly. It's THAT simple!
> Nobody says the system is perfect. There will always be those pilots who
> slip through a medical check and then have a heart attack while flying.
> Personally, I would be an advocate of more frequent medical checks for
> pilots of a specific age determined by accident stats and medical
> histories.
> Of course if they went that route, you'd have the ACLU on their ass
> screaming about "rights".
> There is only one additional safety gap in the present system; that
> being the individual choice of a pilot to voluntarily stop flying after
> having a medical issue during the period between medicals.
> As I said, it "ain't " a perfect system by a long shot!
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Well, you know, they already do that. A 3rd class medical is good for
substantially longer period of time if you are younger than 40. Also,
if you report certain conditions, etc, they give you a "special
issuance" with a 1 year limit for all classes, including 3rd.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

K l e i n wrote:
> On Sep 1, 3:36 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Gezellig wrote:
>>> On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:30:50 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>> Ben Jeffrey wrote:
>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>>>>>> I know quite a few pilots flying well into their 70s -- some in
>>>>>>> high-performance planes.
>>>>>> Hell Orval, it took that long for some of us to get proficient :-)))
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>> I have a friend in our soaring club who flew Corsairs as a USMC pilot in WW2
>>>>> and still flys regularly in our club - usually the first to launch and the
>>>>> last to land. To top it off, most of the time he flys his Pitts to the club
>>>>> from his home field.
>>>>> Ben Jeffrey
>>>> Some of the "older" pilots are in phenomenally good health. I deal with
>>>> a lot of them on a daily basis. They're amazing!
>>> And some aren't Dudley neither of which is the point. The point is that
>>> Fed/FAA gets aggressive, age could come into question regardless. For
>>> that matter, why not a local port like Vegas throwing up their own
>>> rules?
>> The one's that aren't should fail the medical. THAT is the point. The
>> "system" is supposed to discover and weed out those not medically fit to
>> fly.
>> As long as you can pass the medical, you fly. It's THAT simple!
>> Nobody says the system is perfect. There will always be those pilots who
>> slip through a medical check and then have a heart attack while flying.
>> Personally, I would be an advocate of more frequent medical checks for
>> pilots of a specific age determined by accident stats and medical
>> histories.
>> Of course if they went that route, you'd have the ACLU on their ass
>> screaming about "rights".
>> There is only one additional safety gap in the present system; that
>> being the individual choice of a pilot to voluntarily stop flying after
>> having a medical issue during the period between medicals.
>> As I said, it "ain't " a perfect system by a long shot!
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Well, you know, they already do that. A 3rd class medical is good for
> substantially longer period of time if you are younger than 40. Also,
> if you report certain conditions, etc, they give you a "special
> issuance" with a 1 year limit for all classes, including 3rd.

This is true, but not what I'm addressing exactly. I would have no
problem with medicals requiring a shorter active period based on a
proactive projection of accident stats vs health issues within a
specific age bracket graduated after say a beginning point of 40.
In other words, the older you get and/or when you enter into an age
bracket where stats put you at a higher risk factor, the period of your
medical shortens accordingly.

The rub in all this, even in my own projection, is that it assumes that
sooner or later a pilot will reach a "no further medicals allowed" point
where a mandatory retirement is indicated.
Considering present regulations, the engine to implement such a plan
would be extremely difficult to design and push through the required
legislation.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Ricky]

On Aug 31, 8:11*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Then there's Bob Hoover and Duane Cole...
>
> Bertie

Is Hoover still alive? Flying? Did the FAA ever give him his medical
back after whatever reason they took it years ago?
I had the honor of seeing his Commander routine several times as a kid/
teen. Awesome stuff. Watching vids of it these days almost brings
tears to my eyes.

Ricky

[Ricky]

On Aug 31, 9:53*pm, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:

> Perhaps its my 2 year old son?

?????? Adopted?

Ricky

[Viperdoc[_5_]]

Anthony, there's no cut-off for you, since you don't have a medical and
never will. Don't worry about the rest of us who actually do fly.

[Viperdoc[_5_]]

Anthony, it doesn't matter, since you don't understand the process, are not
a physician or AME, and have never held a medical, and never will.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:18:40 +0200, Mxsmanic >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Most people will place the cutoff at their own age plus twenty years or so.
>
> That means the cutoff is 96.

Works for me!

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> In what respect?
>
> In almost every respect. One need only look at the numbers for sudden
> incapacitation among automobile drivers to see that it's a very minor risk,
> even with no physical.
>
>> What standards are too restrictive and what should the standards be?
>
> All the standards that attempt to weed out persons at higher risk of
> incapacitation: restrictions on diabetes and epilepsy, hypertension, cancer,
> kidney disease, headaches, allergies, and a long list of other conditions.
> The physical should concentrate on the ability to fly an aircraft right now,
> and not attempt to guess which people will or might be suddenly incapacitated
> by some medical condition.

And if you were to actually look at the numbers, such as collected by
NHTSA, you would find that people with the above conditions have high
accident rates while driving, so your arguement is nonsense not based
on fact.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

On Sep 1, 7:52*pm, Ricky > wrote:
> On Aug 31, 9:53*pm, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
>
> > Perhaps its my 2 year old son?
>
> ?????? Adopted?
>
> Ricky

Nope. I guess 40 years of crop dusting didn't affect me adversly
either! <gg>

[Wayne Paul]

"Gezellig" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 18:35:04 GMT, wrote:
>
>>> Below is a perfect example of the aggressive behavior against GA pilots.
>>> To think an age cutoff is unreasonable is to ignore the obvious.
>>>
>>> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1201-full.html#198691>
>>
>> Did you actually read the article?
>>The pilot involved sued the government for damages.
>>
>> The ruling was he wasn't due any damages since he could not show any
>> loss.
>>
>> What has this to do with anything?
>
> "The FAA and Social Security Administration shared medical records and
> personal information on the pilot in 2005 as part of "Operation Safe
> Pilot." That FAA investigation examined the records of some 45,000
> pilots in Northern California" which is a strict violation of "the
> federal Privacy Act which protects individuals from such information
> sharing". Did you read my post?
>
> "This is a perfect example of the aggressive behavior against GA pilots.
> To think an age cutoff is unreasonable is to ignore the obvious."

It must be noted that Social Security covers more people then us "aged." In
the FAA / Social Security cross reference, it was the Social Security
Administration that initially was attempting to identify fraud relating to
disability claims. The check with the FAA showed many who claimed to be
disable with Social Security were in fact claiming to be able bodied with
the FAA.

When the fraud was noted a reverse check was made by the FAA. The results
are far above expectations.

As noted, it was proven in court that this cross check was in violation HIPA
legislation that protects the privacy of an individuals medical records.
Again the purpose was to identify fraud, not to remove pilots based on age.
In almost all cases a person failing the cross check had either lied on to
the Social Security Administration or lied to the FAA.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> And if you were to actually look at the numbers, such as collected by
> NHTSA, you would find that people with the above conditions have high
> accident rates while driving, so your arguement is nonsense not based
> on fact.

So do people who drink alcohol, but the FAA allows people who drink alcohol to
become pilots. The same can be said of smokers.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> And if you were to actually look at the numbers, such as collected by
>> NHTSA, you would find that people with the above conditions have high
>> accident rates while driving, so your arguement is nonsense not based
>> on fact.
>
> So do people who drink alcohol, but the FAA allows people who drink alcohol to
> become pilots. The same can be said of smokers.

Bzzzzt, wrong answer, you lose.

This is just a lame attempt to prove yourself correct in spite of evidence
to the contrary.

Both driving and flying under the influence of alcohol are illegal.

There is no correlation between smoking and accident rates for either
driving or flying.

Neither smoking nor drinking have anything to do with the medical
requirements for flying.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Steve Foley]

"Gezellig" > wrote in message
...

> Too old? If so, at what age do you place the cutoff?

120

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Ricky" > wrote in message
...
> Is Hoover still alive? Flying? Did the FAA ever give him his medical
> back after whatever reason they took it years ago?
> I had the honor of seeing his Commander routine several times as a kid/
> teen. Awesome stuff. Watching vids of it these days almost brings
> tears to my eyes.

Yes. Not sure, but he is retired from air shows. Yes - he got a medical in
Austrailia and continued with air shows for a while (just not in the US).
The FAA finally conceeded to restoring his medical after a round through
the courts.

"If they can do it to Bob Hoover, they can do it to anyone."

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Gezellig]

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:25:37 GMT, Mike Isaksen wrote:

> "Gezellig" wrote in message ...
>> That FAA investigation examined the records of some
>> 45,000 pilots in Northern California" which is a strict
>> violation of "the Federal Privacy Act" which protects
>> individuals from such information sharing.
>
> I'm not sure that applies. The FAA physical is something you contract (pay)
> for, but the Doctor works for the FAA and the results of the physical are
> due the FAA (ie. I'm not sure you can negotiate with the doctor on what
> portion of his finding will be forwarded).
>
> So if the information is part of the gov't record, can it therefore not be
> referenced to prevent fraud against the same gov't?
>
> I view this differently if I have a relationship with a doctor who I
> contract for my own needs. I view that information as private.
>
> I have not reached the age where I have to think about the implication of
> medicare/medicaid.

Good point, I wonder if HIPAA applies?

[Gezellig]

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 21:29:23 -0600, Wayne Paul wrote:

> When the fraud was noted a reverse check was made by the FAA. The results
> are far above expectations.
>
> As noted, it was proven in court that this cross check was in violation HIPA
> legislation that protects the privacy of an individuals medical records.
> Again the purpose was to identify fraud, not to remove pilots based on age.

Understand Wayne, all I am saying is that we have a general public
downturn in their opinion of GA. GA is an easy target, we have idiots
like the Vegas airport director looking for ways to undercut GA. Of the
ways, age cut-off dates appear to be one of the strong possibilities.
Who is going to cry foul if they shut down 80+ yos? How many 80+yo
pilots are there? 75yo? How much voice will they have against anti-GA
zealots?

[Gezellig]

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:36:28 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:

>>> Some of the "older" pilots are in phenomenally good health. I deal with
>>> a lot of them on a daily basis. They're amazing!
>>
>> And some aren't Dudley neither of which is the point. The point is that
>> Fed/FAA gets aggressive, age could come into question regardless. For
>> that matter, why not a local port like Vegas throwing up their own
>> rules?
>
> The one's that aren't should fail the medical. THAT is the point. The
> "system" is supposed to discover and weed out those not medically fit to
> fly.
> As long as you can pass the medical, you fly. It's THAT simple!
> Nobody says the system is perfect. There will always be those pilots who
> slip through a medical check and then have a heart attack while flying.
> Personally, I would be an advocate of more frequent medical checks for
> pilots of a specific age determined by accident stats and medical
> histories.

You and I are on opposites sides when considering the quality of the
medical check and its real abilities to flag relevant health problems
for pilots. That would be my point, that the quality level of the check
is a gaping hole in the qualification process and one that can be
successfully exploited by those who would argue in favor of a mandatory
age cutoff for a PPL>

[Gezellig]

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 14:58:12 -0700, Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:

> Hell, I'm 72 and fly an experimental helicopter which, because of my
> modifications involve a bit of "Test Flying". More than that, I recently
> soloed an ultralight helicopter where the only check out possible was to get
> the numbers for rpm and egt.
> If they are going to put age limits on flying, they better start with age
> limits for people driving and especially driving those huge motor homes just
> a few feet from my car at closing velocities around 150mph and better.

Apples and oranges imo Stu-Kath.

[Gezellig]

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 20:44:51 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:

> I would have no
> problem with medicals requiring a shorter active period based on a
> proactive projection of accident stats vs health issues within a
> specific age bracket graduated after say a beginning point of 40.
> In other words, the older you get and/or when you enter into an age
> bracket where stats put you at a higher risk factor, the period of your
> medical shortens accordingly.

This makes sense especially if the quality of the medical is increased
accordingly.

> The rub in all this, even in my own projection, is that it assumes that
> sooner or later a pilot will reach a "no further medicals allowed" point
> where a mandatory retirement is indicated.

Disagree. If you can pass a sophisticated and comprehensive medical,
there should be no approach points. Pass = fly regardless of age.

> Considering present regulations, the engine to implement such a plan
> would be extremely difficult to design and push through the required
> legislation.

Can't argue with this, don't have the expertise.

[Gezellig]

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 21:55:06 GMT, wrote:

>> And some aren't Dudley neither of which is the point. The point is that
>> Fed/FAA gets aggressive, age could come into question regardless. For
>> that matter, why not a local port like Vegas throwing up their own
>> rules?
>
> Because local airports can't make special rules just for them that are
> contrary to FAA rules.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

Good point. I wonder, are there any potential local, non FAA regs that
could workaround this ?

[george]

On Sep 2, 2:32*pm, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
> On Sep 1, 7:52*pm, Ricky > wrote:
>
> > On Aug 31, 9:53*pm, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
>
> > > Perhaps its my 2 year old son?
>
> > ?????? Adopted?
>
> > Ricky
>
> Nope. I guess 40 years of crop dusting didn't affect me adversly
> either! <gg>

Have a look at a mate of mine :-)

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411415/894297

[Gezellig]

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 04:23:01 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>>> There have been people in their 90s with commercial certificates. I
>>> know someone who taught after he retired well into his 80s and
>>> continued to fly into his 90s.
>>> Then there's Bob Hoover and Duane Cole...
>>>
>>
>> I know somebody who was Chief Pilot for Eastern and still flies at 92
>> -- then we had another old Eastern guy who died at 102 -- he was
>> flying his Bonanza until shortly before his death. Car rental
>> companies wouldn't rent to him because he was too old!
>>
>> I know quite a few pilots flying well into their 70s -- some in
>> high-performance planes.
>
> Yeah, and why not. I think Pappy chalk operated commercially into his
> 80's, for instanc

Don't shoot this messenger, I am not *for* age cutoffs but I am
approaching my 60s and have only been a pilot for a short time. I'd like
to think that there never will be age cutoffs but I want to explore the
realities of it before I commit to a plane purchase, for instance.

Another poster mentioned auto cos that won't rent to the elderly. If it
becomes an issue, I can see rentals to elderly pilots being cut off.
That leaves plane ownership and that means only the wealthy, well-heeled
in retirement types, that's a small # of elderly pilots.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Gezellig > wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 21:55:06 GMT, wrote:
>
>>> And some aren't Dudley neither of which is the point. The point is that
>>> Fed/FAA gets aggressive, age could come into question regardless. For
>>> that matter, why not a local port like Vegas throwing up their own
>>> rules?
>>
>> Because local airports can't make special rules just for them that are
>> contrary to FAA rules.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> Good point. I wonder, are there any potential local, non FAA regs that
> could workaround this ?

Are you familiar with the terms "Supremacy Clause" and "Federal Preemption"?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Lonnie[_3_]]

"Gezellig" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 14:58:12 -0700, Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:
>
>> Hell, I'm 72 and fly an experimental helicopter which, because of my
>> modifications involve a bit of "Test Flying". More than that, I recently
>> soloed an ultralight helicopter where the only check out possible was to
>> get
>> the numbers for rpm and egt.
>> If they are going to put age limits on flying, they better start with
>> age
>> limits for people driving and especially driving those huge motor homes
>> just
>> a few feet from my car at closing velocities around 150mph and better.
>
> Apples and oranges imo Stu-Kath.

It wouldn't be IMO. I have a much greater fear of getting creamed head on,
than dodging falling private aircraft.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Gezellig wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 20:44:51 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> I would have no
>> problem with medicals requiring a shorter active period based on a
>> proactive projection of accident stats vs health issues within a
>> specific age bracket graduated after say a beginning point of 40.
>> In other words, the older you get and/or when you enter into an age
>> bracket where stats put you at a higher risk factor, the period of your
>> medical shortens accordingly.
>
> This makes sense especially if the quality of the medical is increased
> accordingly.
>
>> The rub in all this, even in my own projection, is that it assumes that
>> sooner or later a pilot will reach a "no further medicals allowed" point
>> where a mandatory retirement is indicated.
>
> Disagree. If you can pass a sophisticated and comprehensive medical,
> there should be no approach points. Pass = fly regardless of age.

Make sure we're on the same page with the above. I might not have stated
this as accurately as I should have,
What I'm saying doesn't conflict with the Pass= fly regardless of age.
It simply RECOGNIZES that at a certain point while following the "plan",
a pilot WILL reach a specific point in time where the medical can no
longer be passed. In other words, Fail= no longer fly.
What I'm saying is simply that even my "plan" so to speak, ends up with
basically what we have now :-)) You fly until you can't pass the
physical then no more. The same issue remains. The "rub" is that no
matter what is done, the end of the road seems unchanged. There can very
well be a point where the pilot passes the physical at some ripe old
age, then has that heart attack in the air during the periods between
physicals.
This is the basis for what I have envisioned as a "plan" to shorten the
period between physicals as a pilot ages.
>
>> Considering present regulations, the engine to implement such a plan
>> would be extremely difficult to design and push through the required
>> legislation.
>
> Can't argue with this, don't have the expertise.

You're doing well :-))


--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Gezellig wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:36:28 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>>>> Some of the "older" pilots are in phenomenally good health. I deal with
>>>> a lot of them on a daily basis. They're amazing!
>>> And some aren't Dudley neither of which is the point. The point is that
>>> Fed/FAA gets aggressive, age could come into question regardless. For
>>> that matter, why not a local port like Vegas throwing up their own
>>> rules?
>> The one's that aren't should fail the medical. THAT is the point. The
>> "system" is supposed to discover and weed out those not medically fit to
>> fly.
>> As long as you can pass the medical, you fly. It's THAT simple!
>> Nobody says the system is perfect. There will always be those pilots who
>> slip through a medical check and then have a heart attack while flying.
>> Personally, I would be an advocate of more frequent medical checks for
>> pilots of a specific age determined by accident stats and medical
>> histories.
>
> You and I are on opposites sides when considering the quality of the
> medical check and its real abilities to flag relevant health problems
> for pilots. That would be my point, that the quality level of the check
> is a gaping hole in the qualification process and one that can be
> successfully exploited by those who would argue in favor of a mandatory
> age cutoff for a PPL>

We're not that far into disagreement really. I totally agree that in
many cases that I've witnessed over time, including my own physicals,
the "quality" of that physical was less than I would have expected from
a dedicated medical program in use by specialized medical examiners.

--
Dudley Henriques

[John Godwin]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Make sure we're on the same page with the above. I might not have
> stated this as accurately as I should have,
> What I'm saying doesn't conflict with the Pass= fly regardless of
> age. It simply RECOGNIZES that at a certain point while following
> the "plan", a pilot WILL reach a specific point in time where the
> medical can no longer be passed. In other words, Fail= no longer
> fly. What I'm saying is simply that even my "plan" so to speak,
> ends up with basically what we have now :-)) You fly until you
> can't pass the physical then no more. The same issue remains. The
> "rub" is that no matter what is done, the end of the road seems
> unchanged. There can very well be a point where the pilot passes
> the physical at some ripe old age, then has that heart attack in
> the air during the periods between physicals.
> This is the basis for what I have envisioned as a "plan" to
> shorten the period between physicals as a pilot ages.

My situation is one of cost. I can easily pass the FAA Medical (even
at my age) but have decided not to try after passing my last one.

I have a Special Issuance wherein the FAA required documentation from
each of my two physicians. My Medical Group charges nearly $100 per
"official" letter and then there's the AME fee. I felt that a little
under $300 each year was a tad much at this time so it may well be
that it's time to hang up the spurs or do other flying alternatives.

--

[Lonnie[_3_]]

"John Godwin" > wrote in message
...

>
> My situation is one of cost. I can easily pass the FAA Medical (even
> at my age) but have decided not to try after passing my last one.
>
> I have a Special Issuance wherein the FAA required documentation from
> each of my two physicians. My Medical Group charges nearly $100 per
> "official" letter and then there's the AME fee. I felt that a little
> under $300 each year was a tad much at this time so it may well be
> that it's time to hang up the spurs or do other flying alternatives.
>
> --

That a shame John, sorry to hear it.

How old are you, and why the special?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

John Godwin wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Make sure we're on the same page with the above. I might not have
>> stated this as accurately as I should have,
>> What I'm saying doesn't conflict with the Pass= fly regardless of
>> age. It simply RECOGNIZES that at a certain point while following
>> the "plan", a pilot WILL reach a specific point in time where the
>> medical can no longer be passed. In other words, Fail= no longer
>> fly. What I'm saying is simply that even my "plan" so to speak,
>> ends up with basically what we have now :-)) You fly until you
>> can't pass the physical then no more. The same issue remains. The
>> "rub" is that no matter what is done, the end of the road seems
>> unchanged. There can very well be a point where the pilot passes
>> the physical at some ripe old age, then has that heart attack in
>> the air during the periods between physicals.
>> This is the basis for what I have envisioned as a "plan" to
>> shorten the period between physicals as a pilot ages.
>
> My situation is one of cost. I can easily pass the FAA Medical (even
> at my age) but have decided not to try after passing my last one.
>
> I have a Special Issuance wherein the FAA required documentation from
> each of my two physicians. My Medical Group charges nearly $100 per
> "official" letter and then there's the AME fee. I felt that a little
> under $300 each year was a tad much at this time so it may well be
> that it's time to hang up the spurs or do other flying alternatives.
>
That's a CRIME. I'm VERY sorry this is happening to you. I never quite
know what to do or say when I see things like this happening to a pilot.
We're at the mercy of these damn doctors and they know it. You could
complain, but many times that simply ends up in an endless loop that
goes nowhere. Charging $100 to fill out a form is a gross over charge
and the only reason they can get away with it is because you HAVE to
have it.
This doctor could easily have been a lawyer!


--
Dudley Henriques

[Lonnie[_3_]]

"Lou" > wrote in message
...
> On Sep 1, 8:07 am, "Zebulon" <@###@.^net> wrote:
>> "Lou" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > On Aug 31, 11:39 pm, Stella Starr > wrote:
>> >> Ramsey wrote:
>>
>> >> > If you call that an answer, you're a dumb ass.
>>
>> >> Boy, you sure contribute a lot to the discussion.
>> >> Bet you're proud when people google all your thoughtful contributions.
>> >> Why bother?
>>
>> > Well Stella, what do you expect from someone
>> > named after a condom?
>> > Lou
>>
>> A Ramsey condom? Yep, you're a dumb ass.
>>
>> But not to worry, it's not too late.You and Stella can still answer him
>> directly and fill this thread out to 200 or 300 posts as usual.
>>
>> Arguing the fine points of yanking the medical of thousands of healthy
>> pilots, just because of their age, could make a really nice fire that
>> would
>> undoubtedly burn for days.
>>
>> So by all means, have at it.
>
> You really couldn't be this stupid, could you?
> Lou

No, but apparently you could.

[Gezellig]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 20:55:05 GMT, wrote:

> In rec.aviation.owning Gezellig > wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 21:55:06 GMT, wrote:
>>
>>>> And some aren't Dudley neither of which is the point. The point is that
>>>> Fed/FAA gets aggressive, age could come into question regardless. For
>>>> that matter, why not a local port like Vegas throwing up their own
>>>> rules?
>>>
>>> Because local airports can't make special rules just for them that are
>>> contrary to FAA rules.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Good point. I wonder, are there any potential local, non FAA regs that
>> could workaround this ?
>
> Are you familiar with the terms "Supremacy Clause" and "Federal Preemption"?

I'm familiar with "we don't rent airplanes to over 70s" which would be a
potential workaround the FAA.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"John Godwin" > wrote

> I have a Special Issuance wherein the FAA required documentation from
> each of my two physicians. My Medical Group charges nearly $100 per
> "official" letter and then there's the AME fee. I felt that a little
> under $300 each year was a tad much at this time so it may well be
> that it's time to hang up the spurs or do other flying alternatives.

Go find you a sexy little experimental homebuilt that fits in the Light
Sport class.

No more medicals!
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Gezellig > wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 20:55:05 GMT, wrote:
>
>> In rec.aviation.owning Gezellig > wrote:
>>> On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 21:55:06 GMT, wrote:
>>>
>>>>> And some aren't Dudley neither of which is the point. The point is that
>>>>> Fed/FAA gets aggressive, age could come into question regardless. For
>>>>> that matter, why not a local port like Vegas throwing up their own
>>>>> rules?
>>>>
>>>> Because local airports can't make special rules just for them that are
>>>> contrary to FAA rules.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jim Pennino
>>>
>>> Good point. I wonder, are there any potential local, non FAA regs that
>>> could workaround this ?
>>
>> Are you familiar with the terms "Supremacy Clause" and "Federal Preemption"?
>
> I'm familiar with "we don't rent airplanes to over 70s" which would be a
> potential workaround the FAA.

Apples and oranges.

What a private business does within the framework of discrimination
laws is entirely up to the private business.

The FBO may not rent to over 70 (never heard of such a thing in airplanes),
but the airport certainly can't ban over 70.

If anyone cared to press the point, I doubt that such practices by car
rental agencies would stand a court test.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mike[_22_]]

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Gezellig" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 14:58:12 -0700, Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:
>>
>>> Hell, I'm 72 and fly an experimental helicopter which, because of my
>>> modifications involve a bit of "Test Flying". More than that, I
>>> recently
>>> soloed an ultralight helicopter where the only check out possible was to
>>> get
>>> the numbers for rpm and egt.
>>> If they are going to put age limits on flying, they better start with
>>> age
>>> limits for people driving and especially driving those huge motor homes
>>> just
>>> a few feet from my car at closing velocities around 150mph and better.
>>
>> Apples and oranges imo Stu-Kath.
>
> It wouldn't be IMO. I have a much greater fear of getting creamed head on,
> than dodging falling private aircraft.

From behind the keyboard at mommy's house there's not much chance either
way, Maxie.

[Pietro]

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in
:

> How old are you, and why the special?

Pushing 70 and well-controlled Type II Diabetes (A1C=6.0 and
decreasing) and Chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

--

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Both driving and flying under the influence of alcohol are illegal.

But being a drinker or smoker is not. You can drink and smoke regularly (both
of which vastly increase the likelihood of problems that may incapacitate you
in the air), and the FAA doesn't care, as long as you don't drink in the eight
hours before flying (and there's no prohibition on smoking at all, so
conceivably you could smoke in the cockpit).

And yet, at the same time, if you've ever had, say, a bad headache, the FAA
can deny your medical.

> There is no correlation between smoking and accident rates for either
> driving or flying.

Smoking significantly increases the risk of incapacitating cardiovascular or
respiratory problems. It also increases the risk of altitude-related problems
that may be incapacitating.

About half of regular smokers ultimately die of conditions that are related to
their smoking.

The fact is, the FAA's assessment of possible incapacitation is extremely
lopsided. And there really isn't any way to predict incapacitation reliably
for any person in anywhere near normal health who is not already being
incapacitated.

[Gezellig]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 16:24:08 -0500, Lonnie wrote:

>> Apples and oranges imo Stu-Kath.
>
> It wouldn't be IMO. I have a much greater fear of getting creamed head on,
> than dodging falling private aircraft.

Flying isn't often the necessity that car Xport is.

[Mxsmanic]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com> writes:

> Yes. Not sure, but he is retired from air shows. Yes - he got a medical in
> Austrailia and continued with air shows for a while (just not in the US).
> The FAA finally conceeded to restoring his medical after a round through
> the courts.
>
> "If they can do it to Bob Hoover, they can do it to anyone."

On what basis did they deny his medical in the U.S.?

[Gezellig]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 17:29:39 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:

>>> Considering present regulations, the engine to implement such a plan
>>> would be extremely difficult to design and push through the required
>>> legislation.
>>
>> Can't argue with this, don't have the expertise.
>
> You're doing well :-))

lol

[Lonnie[_3_]]

"Pietro" > wrote in message
...
> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in
> :
>
>> How old are you, and why the special?
>
> Pushing 70 and well-controlled Type II Diabetes (A1C=6.0 and
> decreasing) and Chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
>
> --

I'm very sorry to hear that. I wish you the best of luck with your
situation.

I've always thought when I'm eventually facing the same dilemma, I'll look
for a younger pilot that wants to build some time to fly right seat.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Both driving and flying under the influence of alcohol are illegal.
>
> But being a drinker or smoker is not. You can drink and smoke regularly (both
> of which vastly increase the likelihood of problems that may incapacitate you
> in the air), and the FAA doesn't care, as long as you don't drink in the eight
> hours before flying (and there's no prohibition on smoking at all, so
> conceivably you could smoke in the cockpit).

Babbling nonsense.

If the smoking or drinking were to eventually cause a problem that could
become incapacitating, and that takes lots of years, the problem would
would be cause to fail the medical.

> And yet, at the same time, if you've ever had, say, a bad headache, the FAA
> can deny your medical.

More babbling nonsense.

You have no clue what the standards are.

>> There is no correlation between smoking and accident rates for either
>> driving or flying.
>
> Smoking significantly increases the risk of incapacitating cardiovascular or
> respiratory problems. It also increases the risk of altitude-related problems
> that may be incapacitating.

More babbling nonsense.

If one develops cardiovascular or respiratory problems, they fail the
medical because they have cardiovascular or respiratory problems, not
because they smoke.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Lonnie[_3_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com> writes:
>
>> Yes. Not sure, but he is retired from air shows. Yes - he got a medical
>> in
>> Austrailia and continued with air shows for a while (just not in the US).
>> The FAA finally conceeded to restoring his medical after a round through
>> the courts.
>>
>> "If they can do it to Bob Hoover, they can do it to anyone."
>
> On what basis did they deny his medical in the U.S.?

Google is your only friend, go argue with it.

http://meer.net/users/waa/freehoover.html

[Chris J]

Had to jump in on this one too. I have a good friend at my airport, Jon
Weiss, who is currently 89 depending on which day you ask him. He retired
from American when the new on the 707's hadn't worn off yet! He has a pace
maker and still has a medical, is a CFI (still does BFR's and tailwheel
checkouts), and an IA. He's at the airport every day or so and still flies
at least every couple of weeks. Just finished restoring a Fairchild 22 he's
owned since the early 50's. Got bored after that and bought a cub that
needed some TLC. He has a Super Cub, Fairchild 22, J-3, and a Beech Travel
Air. I fly with him occasionally and he's still got it. Last year while
flying a Champ for a friend of ours who wasn't tailwheel current, the engine
locked up between airports. He put it in a pretty short field without a
scratch. I'd fly with him anywhere, any time.
Hell I'm 35 and would be happy to have his energy and enthusiasm most days!
He isn't gonna win a marathon, but he still drives, flies, and works on his
own airplanes, and all competently as I see it. I could drop dead just as
easily as he could. If you're still able in mind and body, and doing it on
a personal, not for hire basis, I say keep em flying!
And a few months ago, he renewed the lease on his hangar. He said he didn't
want to take any chances, so he signed a 25 year lease!! Hell, he may make
it!
CJ

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Lou" > wrote in message
> news:63bef89e-9784-4a88-935e-fb5c9d4a35a3
@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com.
> ..
>> On Sep 1, 8:07 am, "Zebulon" <@###@.^net> wrote:
>>> "Lou" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:36d24c39-6ebe-41f2-b8b4-258ff78b05e0
@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.co
>>> m...
>>>
>>> > On Aug 31, 11:39 pm, Stella Starr > wrote:
>>> >> Ramsey wrote:
>>>
>>> >> > If you call that an answer, you're a dumb ass.
>>>
>>> >> Boy, you sure contribute a lot to the discussion.
>>> >> Bet you're proud when people google all your thoughtful
>>> >> contributions. Why bother?
>>>
>>> > Well Stella, what do you expect from someone
>>> > named after a condom?
>>> > Lou
>>>
>>> A Ramsey condom? Yep, you're a dumb ass.
>>>
>>> But not to worry, it's not too late.You and Stella can still answer
>>> him directly and fill this thread out to 200 or 300 posts as usual.
>>>
>>> Arguing the fine points of yanking the medical of thousands of
>>> healthy pilots, just because of their age, could make a really nice
>>> fire that would
>>> undoubtedly burn for days.
>>>
>>> So by all means, have at it.
>>
>> You really couldn't be this stupid, could you?
>> Lou
>
> No, but apparently you could.
>


Whoosh.


Bertie
>
>

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> This is the basis for what I have envisioned as a "plan" to shorten the
> period between physicals as a pilot ages.

The intervals should not be based on age; they should based on the results of
the previous medical exam.

In other words, someone who is on the borderline but passes at one point
should have another medical at an earlier date than someone who passes the
medical with nothing to be concerned about.

Age is largely irrelevant. There's no point in a medical every 90 days for a
person who is 80 years old if he passes each of the medicals with flying
colors. Conversely, a 20-year-old who just barely squeaks by the medical with
some borderline condition should have another medical fairly soon. The
interval could be adjusted after each medical as a function of how the medical
turns out, with the date of the following medical being advanced or postponed
as appropriate.

That would be a truly representative and rational way to schedule medicals,
and there's no need for any age barriers at all.

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Charging $100 to fill out a form is a gross over charge
> and the only reason they can get away with it is because you HAVE to
> have it.

Then again, if the doctor fills out the form and signs it for a pilot, and the
pilot later dies in flight, the doctor gets sued, even if the cause of death
had nothing to do with the doctor's evaluation. So it works both ways.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Are you familiar with the terms "Supremacy Clause" and "Federal Preemption"?

The mayor of Chicago seemed to have no problem with supremacy or preemption.
He destroyed an airport overnight and nothing happened, proving that anyone
can get away with it.

[Peter Dohm]

"Chris J" > wrote in message
...
> Had to jump in on this one too. I have a good friend at my airport, Jon
> Weiss, who is currently 89 depending on which day you ask him. He retired
> from American when the new on the 707's hadn't worn off yet! He has a
> pace maker and still has a medical, is a CFI (still does BFR's and
> tailwheel checkouts), and an IA. He's at the airport every day or so and
> still flies at least every couple of weeks. Just finished restoring a
> Fairchild 22 he's owned since the early 50's. Got bored after that and
> bought a cub that needed some TLC. He has a Super Cub, Fairchild 22, J-3,
> and a Beech Travel Air. I fly with him occasionally and he's still got
> it. Last year while flying a Champ for a friend of ours who wasn't
> tailwheel current, the engine locked up between airports. He put it in a
> pretty short field without a scratch. I'd fly with him anywhere, any
> time.
> Hell I'm 35 and would be happy to have his energy and enthusiasm most
> days! He isn't gonna win a marathon, but he still drives, flies, and works
> on his own airplanes, and all competently as I see it. I could drop dead
> just as easily as he could. If you're still able in mind and body, and
> doing it on a personal, not for hire basis, I say keep em flying!
> And a few months ago, he renewed the lease on his hangar. He said he
> didn't want to take any chances, so he signed a 25 year lease!! Hell, he
> may make it!
> CJ
>
Basically, he has a life; the and the safety-nuts and banners-of-everything
don't.

Peter

[Viperdoc[_5_]]

You're wrong again, and obviously know nothing about the medical process or
the practice of medicine.

[Viperdoc[_5_]]

You obviously know nothing about the process, since you have never had a
medical and never will. Go look up special issuance.

[Viperdoc[_5_]]

Dudley:

The OP is not at the mercy of a physician in the group- he simply could go
elsewhere to get his FCIII exam performed. However, it sounds like he needs
a complete new physical, a review of the records, and a submission via
computer on a regular basis for the special issuance.

Unfortunately, this all takes a fair amount of time. Performing the required
tests, especially Class II, requires an EKG, hearing test, vision screening,
etc, and between the equipment and time required this adds up to a lot of
expense. Then, you, or a paid assistant, has to log onto the FAA computer
and submit all of this stuff.

A special issuance requires an extensive review of records, along with
dictation of a letter (that has to be done by a paid transcriptionist) and
then submission to the FAA.

Most docs actually barely break even or lose money doing this service for
pilots.

So, yes, it's expensive, but so are a lot of other aspects of flying. I
personally would rather have someone identify a potential problem and
address the issue, rather than keep on flying until something breaks, just
as if my mechanic found some potential problem that would ultimately save
money or my life down the line.



"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> John Godwin wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>> Make sure we're on the same page with the above. I might not have
>>> stated this as accurately as I should have,
>>> What I'm saying doesn't conflict with the Pass= fly regardless of
>>> age. It simply RECOGNIZES that at a certain point while following
>>> the "plan", a pilot WILL reach a specific point in time where the
>>> medical can no longer be passed. In other words, Fail= no longer
>>> fly. What I'm saying is simply that even my "plan" so to speak,
>>> ends up with basically what we have now :-)) You fly until you
>>> can't pass the physical then no more. The same issue remains. The
>>> "rub" is that no matter what is done, the end of the road seems
>>> unchanged. There can very well be a point where the pilot passes
>>> the physical at some ripe old age, then has that heart attack in
>>> the air during the periods between physicals.
>>> This is the basis for what I have envisioned as a "plan" to
>>> shorten the period between physicals as a pilot ages.
>>
>> My situation is one of cost. I can easily pass the FAA Medical (even at
>> my age) but have decided not to try after passing my last one.
>>
>> I have a Special Issuance wherein the FAA required documentation from
>> each of my two physicians. My Medical Group charges nearly $100 per
>> "official" letter and then there's the AME fee. I felt that a little
>> under $300 each year was a tad much at this time so it may well be that
>> it's time to hang up the spurs or do other flying alternatives.
> That's a CRIME. I'm VERY sorry this is happening to you. I never quite
> know what to do or say when I see things like this happening to a pilot.
> We're at the mercy of these damn doctors and they know it. You could
> complain, but many times that simply ends up in an endless loop that goes
> nowhere. Charging $100 to fill out a form is a gross over charge and the
> only reason they can get away with it is because you HAVE to have it.
> This doctor could easily have been a lawyer!
>
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Charging $100 to fill out a form is a gross over charge
>> and the only reason they can get away with it is because you HAVE to
>> have it.
>
> Then again, if the doctor fills out the form and signs it for a pilot, and the
> pilot later dies in flight, the doctor gets sued, even if the cause of death
> had nothing to do with the doctor's evaluation. So it works both ways.

Can you cite one single case where that has ever happened to an AME?

[Lonnie[_3_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Godwin" > wrote
>
>> I have a Special Issuance wherein the FAA required documentation from
>> each of my two physicians. My Medical Group charges nearly $100 per
>> "official" letter and then there's the AME fee. I felt that a little
>> under $300 each year was a tad much at this time so it may well be
>> that it's time to hang up the spurs or do other flying alternatives.
>
> Go find you a sexy little experimental homebuilt that fits in the Light
> Sport class.
>
> No more medicals!
> --
> Jim in NC
>

I'm hoping when my time comes, to find a sexy little female copilot.

[Mike[_22_]]

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "John Godwin" > wrote
>>
>>> I have a Special Issuance wherein the FAA required documentation from
>>> each of my two physicians. My Medical Group charges nearly $100 per
>>> "official" letter and then there's the AME fee. I felt that a little
>>> under $300 each year was a tad much at this time so it may well be
>>> that it's time to hang up the spurs or do other flying alternatives.
>>
>> Go find you a sexy little experimental homebuilt that fits in the Light
>> Sport class.
>>
>> No more medicals!
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>>
>
> I'm hoping when my time comes, to find a sexy little female copilot.

First you'll have to finish puberty and obtain a credit card. Good luck,
Okie.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> Then again, if the doctor fills out the form and signs it for a pilot, and the
> pilot later dies in flight, the doctor gets sued, even if the cause of death
> had nothing to do with the doctor's evaluation. So it works both ways.

Wrong.

It is getting more and more obvious you don't know **** from shinola
about the medical process.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> This is the basis for what I have envisioned as a "plan" to shorten the
>> period between physicals as a pilot ages.
>
> The intervals should not be based on age; they should based on the results of
> the previous medical exam.
>
> In other words, someone who is on the borderline but passes at one point
> should have another medical at an earlier date than someone who passes the
> medical with nothing to be concerned about.
>
> Age is largely irrelevant. There's no point in a medical every 90 days for a
> person who is 80 years old if he passes each of the medicals with flying
> colors. Conversely, a 20-year-old who just barely squeaks by the medical with
> some borderline condition should have another medical fairly soon. The
> interval could be adjusted after each medical as a function of how the medical
> turns out, with the date of the following medical being advanced or postponed
> as appropriate.
>
> That would be a truly representative and rational way to schedule medicals,
> and there's no need for any age barriers at all.

I guess that would make sense to someone who has no idea how the current
system works.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Are you familiar with the terms "Supremacy Clause" and "Federal Preemption"?
>
> The mayor of Chicago seemed to have no problem with supremacy or preemption.
> He destroyed an airport overnight and nothing happened, proving that anyone
> can get away with it.

Wrong yet again.

The city was fined the maximum amount allowed at the time (the maximum
has since been increased from $1,100/day to $10,000/day) for closing
the airport without the required 30 day notice (the closing was legal,
the timing was not) as well as investigated for misappropriation of FAA
funds because of the early closing and had to repay over $1 million.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Gezellig]

On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 07:23:46 -0500, Viperdoc wrote:

> A special issuance requires an extensive review of records, along with
> dictation of a letter (that has to be done by a paid transcriptionist) and
> then submission to the FAA.
>
> Most docs actually barely break even or lose money doing this service for
> pilots.
>
> So, yes, it's expensive, but so are a lot of other aspects of flying. I
> personally would rather have someone identify a potential problem and
> address the issue, rather than keep on flying until something breaks, just
> as if my mechanic found some potential problem that would ultimately save
> money or my life down the line.

God knows I want to be the last to increase the cost of flying, or the
barrels that we have to jump over to get and keep a PPL, but if the
choice is a higher medical std (as Dudley suggested that might escalate
with age, I vote for that. Anything to keep an arbitray age cutoff date
out of flying.

[Gezellig]

On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 00:23:04 -0500, Chris J wrote:

> If you're still able in mind and body, and doing it on
> a personal, not for hire basis, I say keep em flying!

Amen to that.

> And a few months ago, he renewed the lease on his hangar. He said he didn't
> want to take any chances, so he signed a 25 year lease!! Hell, he may make
> it!
> CJ

Hope his estate can move the lease. lol

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Gezellig > wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 16:24:08 -0500, Lonnie wrote:
>
> >> Apples and oranges imo Stu-Kath.
> >
> > It wouldn't be IMO. I have a much greater fear of getting creamed head on,
> > than dodging falling private aircraft.
>
> Flying isn't often the necessity that car Xport is.

Depends on where you are, among other things.

[Mike Isaksen]

"Mike" wrote ...
> "Lonnie" wrote ...
>> "Morgans" wrote ...
>>> Go find you a sexy little experimental homebuilt that fits in
>>> the Light Sport class. No more medicals!
>>
>> I'm hoping when my time comes, to find a sexy little female copilot.
>
> First you'll have to finish puberty and obtain a credit card.
> Good luck, Okie.

I wish I could do puberty again. Rather zits & squeaky voice than all my
hair falling out. ;-)

Hey Mike, neat trick re-routing all Group replys into "alt.usenet.kooks".
Kinda gives you last word on everything. Not very friendly though.

[Mike[_22_]]

"Mike Isaksen" > wrote in message
news:BeAvk.444$jE1.168@trnddc03...
> "Mike" wrote ...
>> "Lonnie" wrote ...
>>> "Morgans" wrote ...
>>>> Go find you a sexy little experimental homebuilt that fits in
>>>> the Light Sport class. No more medicals!
>>>
>>> I'm hoping when my time comes, to find a sexy little female copilot.
>>
>> First you'll have to finish puberty and obtain a credit card.
>> Good luck, Okie.
>
> I wish I could do puberty again. Rather zits & squeaky voice than all my
> hair falling out. ;-)
>
> Hey Mike, neat trick re-routing all Group replys into "alt.usenet.kooks".
> Kinda gives you last word on everything. Not very friendly though.

Seeing as how Maxie is a kook that never has anything to offer this NG, can
you think of a better place for his posts?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Mike" > wrote in news:kCBvk.434$1a2.319@trnddc04:

> "Mike Isaksen" > wrote in message
> news:BeAvk.444$jE1.168@trnddc03...
>> "Mike" wrote ...
>>> "Lonnie" wrote ...
>>>> "Morgans" wrote ...
>>>>> Go find you a sexy little experimental homebuilt that fits in
>>>>> the Light Sport class. No more medicals!
>>>>
>>>> I'm hoping when my time comes, to find a sexy little female
>>>> copilot.
>>>
>>> First you'll have to finish puberty and obtain a credit card.
>>> Good luck, Okie.
>>
>> I wish I could do puberty again. Rather zits & squeaky voice than all
>> my hair falling out. ;-)
>>
>> Hey Mike, neat trick re-routing all Group replys into
>> "alt.usenet.kooks". Kinda gives you last word on everything. Not very
>> friendly though.
>
> Seeing as how Maxie is a kook that never has anything to offer this
> NG, can you think of a better place for his posts?
>
>

They're defiitely appreciated there.



Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Viperdoc wrote:
> Dudley:
>
> The OP is not at the mercy of a physician in the group- he simply could go
> elsewhere to get his FCIII exam performed. However, it sounds like he needs
> a complete new physical, a review of the records, and a submission via
> computer on a regular basis for the special issuance.
>
> Unfortunately, this all takes a fair amount of time. Performing the required
> tests, especially Class II, requires an EKG, hearing test, vision screening,
> etc, and between the equipment and time required this adds up to a lot of
> expense. Then, you, or a paid assistant, has to log onto the FAA computer
> and submit all of this stuff.
>
> A special issuance requires an extensive review of records, along with
> dictation of a letter (that has to be done by a paid transcriptionist) and
> then submission to the FAA.
>
> Most docs actually barely break even or lose money doing this service for
> pilots.
>
> So, yes, it's expensive, but so are a lot of other aspects of flying. I
> personally would rather have someone identify a potential problem and
> address the issue, rather than keep on flying until something breaks, just
> as if my mechanic found some potential problem that would ultimately save
> money or my life down the line.
>
>
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> John Godwin wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>> Make sure we're on the same page with the above. I might not have
>>>> stated this as accurately as I should have,
>>>> What I'm saying doesn't conflict with the Pass= fly regardless of
>>>> age. It simply RECOGNIZES that at a certain point while following
>>>> the "plan", a pilot WILL reach a specific point in time where the
>>>> medical can no longer be passed. In other words, Fail= no longer
>>>> fly. What I'm saying is simply that even my "plan" so to speak,
>>>> ends up with basically what we have now :-)) You fly until you
>>>> can't pass the physical then no more. The same issue remains. The
>>>> "rub" is that no matter what is done, the end of the road seems
>>>> unchanged. There can very well be a point where the pilot passes
>>>> the physical at some ripe old age, then has that heart attack in
>>>> the air during the periods between physicals.
>>>> This is the basis for what I have envisioned as a "plan" to
>>>> shorten the period between physicals as a pilot ages.
>>> My situation is one of cost. I can easily pass the FAA Medical (even at
>>> my age) but have decided not to try after passing my last one.
>>>
>>> I have a Special Issuance wherein the FAA required documentation from
>>> each of my two physicians. My Medical Group charges nearly $100 per
>>> "official" letter and then there's the AME fee. I felt that a little
>>> under $300 each year was a tad much at this time so it may well be that
>>> it's time to hang up the spurs or do other flying alternatives.
>> That's a CRIME. I'm VERY sorry this is happening to you. I never quite
>> know what to do or say when I see things like this happening to a pilot.
>> We're at the mercy of these damn doctors and they know it. You could
>> complain, but many times that simply ends up in an endless loop that goes
>> nowhere. Charging $100 to fill out a form is a gross over charge and the
>> only reason they can get away with it is because you HAVE to have it.
>> This doctor could easily have been a lawyer!
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>
I understand, and in an ideal world what you have stated would indeed be
the case.
My experience with some of these doctors personally and with some of my
students unfortunately hasn't exactly mirrored your own. :-))


--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> You're wrong again, and obviously know nothing about the medical process or
> the practice of medicine.

Well, if a licensed physician joins the group and cares to comment, I'll be
happy to read his posts.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

> Can you cite one single case where that has ever happened to an AME?

The average doctor can expect about one malpractice suit in his career, and
AMEs are not immune.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The city was fined the maximum amount allowed at the time (the maximum
> has since been increased from $1,100/day to $10,000/day) for closing
> the airport without the required 30 day notice (the closing was legal,
> the timing was not) as well as investigated for misappropriation of FAA
> funds because of the early closing and had to repay over $1 million.

So when did the airport reopen? Does the mayor pay the fines out of his
pocket?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> If the smoking or drinking were to eventually cause a problem that could
> become incapacitating, and that takes lots of years, the problem would
> would be cause to fail the medical.

Both can be immediately incapacitating.

> If one develops cardiovascular or respiratory problems, they fail the
> medical because they have cardiovascular or respiratory problems, not
> because they smoke.

Because the FAA doesn't care if you smoke, no matter how much it increases
your risk of sudden or subtle incapacitation. But smoking raises your risk of
heart attack and makes you more likely to be incapacitated at altitude.

[John[_22_]]

so no you can't
"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601Xl Builder writes:
>
>> Can you cite one single case where that has ever happened to an AME?
>
> The average doctor can expect about one malpractice suit in his career,
> and
> AMEs are not immune.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> The city was fined the maximum amount allowed at the time (the maximum
>> has since been increased from $1,100/day to $10,000/day) for closing
>> the airport without the required 30 day notice (the closing was legal,
>> the timing was not) as well as investigated for misappropriation of FAA
>> funds because of the early closing and had to repay over $1 million.
>
> So when did the airport reopen? Does the mayor pay the fines out of his
> pocket?

What part of the airport was already scheduled to be closed are you
having trouble understanding?

If you had stayed awake in high school civics you would know that
the governmental body is responsible for the actions of it's officials.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> If the smoking or drinking were to eventually cause a problem that could
>> become incapacitating, and that takes lots of years, the problem would
>> would be cause to fail the medical.
>
> Both can be immediately incapacitating.

Drinking can be, almost, which is why it illegal to drink and drive,
fly, or operate a boat.

As for smoking, that is utter, pulled out of your ass, nonsense.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Viperdoc[_5_]]

Well, if a licensed physician joins the group and cares to comment, I'll be
> happy to read his posts.

Anthony, as a licensed pilot, a physician, flight surgeon, and AME, I don't
need to even bother responding to your ridiculous challenge.

Besides, I thought you had little regard for credentials? Is there something
not factual in my comments that you are not a physician or pilot and have
never held a medical? If so, please enlighten the rest of us.

Seems like you're a little sensitive on the subject, or the fact that you
have no credibility-it certainly looked like an emotional response.

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
> wrote:
> Well, if a licensed physician joins the group and cares to comment, I'll be
>> happy to read his posts.
>
> Anthony, as a licensed pilot, a physician, flight surgeon, and AME, I don't
> need to even bother responding to your ridiculous challenge.

His next comment will be something along the lines of 'anyone could say that
on Usenet'

Andy

[Viperdoc[_5_]]

Anthony is getting boringly predictable isn't he?

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder writes:
>
>> Can you cite one single case where that has ever happened to an AME?
>
> The average doctor can expect about one malpractice suit in his career, and
> AMEs are not immune.

You twit, I didn't think you had anything to back up your comment.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Mxsmanic >
>
>>> If the smoking or drinking were to eventually cause a problem that could
>>> become incapacitating, and that takes lots of years, the problem would
>>> would be cause to fail the medical.
>>
>>Both can be immediately incapacitating.
>
> So can acting like an asshole.
>

I'm trying to envision all those people taking a hit off a Marlboro
and immediately keeling over...


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> As for smoking, that is utter, pulled out of your ass, nonsense.

Not when the air is thin.

[yaeedyaeegiisss]

Nomen Nescio wrote:

> From: Mxsmanic >
>
>>>If the smoking or drinking were to eventually cause a problem that could
>>>become incapacitating, and that takes lots of years, the problem would
>>>would be cause to fail the medical.
>>
>>Both can be immediately incapacitating.
>
> So can acting like an asshole.

It's not an act. It's all he has.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> As for smoking, that is utter, pulled out of your ass, nonsense.
>
> Not when the air is thin.

More ignorant nonsense; if it were true about half the population of Peru
would be incapacitated.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

> wrote in message
...
<...>
> I'm trying to envision all those people taking a hit off a Marlboro
> and immediately keeling over...
>


Well, a lot of people do keel over while exercising. But I've never heard
of anyone having heart attack while reaching for another donut.

Should the FAA disqualify anyone who has a membership at a gym?


--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
<...>
> What I'm saying doesn't conflict with the Pass= fly regardless of age. It
> simply RECOGNIZES that at a certain point while following the "plan", a
> pilot WILL reach a specific point in time where the medical can no longer
> be passed. In other words, Fail= no longer fly.

'cepen now there is the "let it expire and be a sport pilot" option. Or,
the "never did need a medical" glider option if you don't like some of the
sport pilot limitations (you are still stuck with 2 place). Some "self
launch gliders" will run circles around what a number of people here fly as
SEL... How about 140 knots at altitude from a turbo Rotax
http://www.stemmewest.com/pages/S10_E.pdf ?
(All this assuming, of course, that the reason for failing doesn't
compromise your ability to act as PIC).

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[BobR]

On Sep 4, 1:25*pm, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > writes:
>
> >> As for smoking, that is utter, pulled out of your ass, nonsense.
>
> > Not when the air is thin.
>
> More ignorant nonsense; if it were true about half the population of Peru
> would be incapacitated.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Your knowledge of this subject is so seriously limited that you really
need to drop out of the discussion before you make yourself look
really stupid. The people of Peru who live at high altitudes have
become acclimated to the altitude and are not as subject to altitude
sickness as those who live at lower altitudes. Smoking has the direct
effect of diminishing the ability of the lungs to absorb oxygen which
becomes especially critical at higher altitudes. Smokers who are not
acclimated to the altitude and who take off from lower altitudes and
asscend to altitude can easily become oxygen starved resulting in
numerous possible medical problems.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning BobR > wrote:
> On Sep 4, 1:25?pm, wrote:
>> In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>> > writes:
>>
>> >> As for smoking, that is utter, pulled out of your ass, nonsense.
>>
>> > Not when the air is thin.
>>
>> More ignorant nonsense; if it were true about half the population of Peru
>> would be incapacitated.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> Your knowledge of this subject is so seriously limited that you really
> need to drop out of the discussion before you make yourself look
> really stupid. The people of Peru who live at high altitudes have
> become acclimated to the altitude and are not as subject to altitude
> sickness as those who live at lower altitudes. Smoking has the direct
> effect of diminishing the ability of the lungs to absorb oxygen which
> becomes especially critical at higher altitudes. Smokers who are not
> acclimated to the altitude and who take off from lower altitudes and
> asscend to altitude can easily become oxygen starved resulting in
> numerous possible medical problems.

Point totally missed.

1) No one becomes "immediately incapacitated", whatever that means,
from smoking.

2) If smoking were "immediately incapacitating" from an altitude change,
every ski resort would be littered with bodies.

3) Everyone becomes oxygen starved as altitude increases. For the average
heavy smoker that will happen at a lower altitude than for the average
non-smoker.

4) Oxygen starvation doesn't result in medical problems, it causes
phyisological problems that are eliminated by increased oxygen.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Lonnie[_3_]]

5) FAA minimums on Ox usage are conservative enough to acomodate even heavy
smokers.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in :

> In rec.aviation.owning BobR > wrote:
>> On Sep 4, 1:25?pm, wrote:
>>> In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>
>>> > writes:
>>>
>>> >> As for smoking, that is utter, pulled out of your ass, nonsense.
>>>
>>> > Not when the air is thin.
>>>
>>> More ignorant nonsense; if it were true about half the population of
>>> Peru would be incapacitated.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jim Pennino
>>>
>>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>>
>> Your knowledge of this subject is so seriously limited that you
>> really need to drop out of the discussion before you make yourself
>> look really stupid. The people of Peru who live at high altitudes
>> have become acclimated to the altitude and are not as subject to
>> altitude sickness as those who live at lower altitudes. Smoking has
>> the direct effect of diminishing the ability of the lungs to absorb
>> oxygen which becomes especially critical at higher altitudes.
>> Smokers who are not acclimated to the altitude and who take off from
>> lower altitudes and asscend to altitude can easily become oxygen
>> starved resulting in numerous possible medical problems.
>
> Point totally missed.
>
> 1) No one becomes "immediately incapacitated", whatever that means,
> from smoking.
>


Depends on what you mean by that. Smoking will exacerbate any situation
where breathing sails close to the edge, like a sudden loss of
pressurisation or if the individual has been comprimised and breathing
becomes difficult. Like someone who has been badly inured and is
comatose. All other factors being equal, if the individual has been
pushed to the edge in a situation like this, a history of smoking will
push them over it.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in :
>
>> In rec.aviation.owning BobR > wrote:
>>> On Sep 4, 1:25?pm, wrote:
>>>> In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > writes:
>>>>
>>>> >> As for smoking, that is utter, pulled out of your ass, nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> > Not when the air is thin.
>>>>
>>>> More ignorant nonsense; if it were true about half the population of
>>>> Peru would be incapacitated.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jim Pennino
>>>>
>>>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>>>
>>> Your knowledge of this subject is so seriously limited that you
>>> really need to drop out of the discussion before you make yourself
>>> look really stupid. The people of Peru who live at high altitudes
>>> have become acclimated to the altitude and are not as subject to
>>> altitude sickness as those who live at lower altitudes. Smoking has
>>> the direct effect of diminishing the ability of the lungs to absorb
>>> oxygen which becomes especially critical at higher altitudes.
>>> Smokers who are not acclimated to the altitude and who take off from
>>> lower altitudes and asscend to altitude can easily become oxygen
>>> starved resulting in numerous possible medical problems.
>>
>> Point totally missed.
>>
>> 1) No one becomes "immediately incapacitated", whatever that means,
>> from smoking.
>>
>
>
> Depends on what you mean by that. Smoking will exacerbate any situation
> where breathing sails close to the edge, like a sudden loss of
> pressurisation or if the individual has been comprimised and breathing
> becomes difficult. Like someone who has been badly inured and is
> comatose. All other factors being equal, if the individual has been
> pushed to the edge in a situation like this, a history of smoking will
> push them over it.

And in what kind of situation is any of that likely to happen to a
private pilot?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in :

> In rec.aviation.owning Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in news:0046p5-c0p.ln1
@mail.specsol.com:
>>
>>> In rec.aviation.owning BobR > wrote:
>>>> On Sep 4, 1:25?pm, wrote:
>>>>> In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> >> As for smoking, that is utter, pulled out of your ass,
nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> > Not when the air is thin.
>>>>>
>>>>> More ignorant nonsense; if it were true about half the population
of
>>>>> Peru would be incapacitated.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jim Pennino
>>>>>
>>>>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>>>>
>>>> Your knowledge of this subject is so seriously limited that you
>>>> really need to drop out of the discussion before you make yourself
>>>> look really stupid. The people of Peru who live at high altitudes
>>>> have become acclimated to the altitude and are not as subject to
>>>> altitude sickness as those who live at lower altitudes. Smoking
has
>>>> the direct effect of diminishing the ability of the lungs to absorb
>>>> oxygen which becomes especially critical at higher altitudes.
>>>> Smokers who are not acclimated to the altitude and who take off
from
>>>> lower altitudes and asscend to altitude can easily become oxygen
>>>> starved resulting in numerous possible medical problems.
>>>
>>> Point totally missed.
>>>
>>> 1) No one becomes "immediately incapacitated", whatever that means,
>>> from smoking.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Depends on what you mean by that. Smoking will exacerbate any
situation
>> where breathing sails close to the edge, like a sudden loss of
>> pressurisation or if the individual has been comprimised and
breathing
>> becomes difficult. Like someone who has been badly inured and is
>> comatose. All other factors being equal, if the individual has been
>> pushed to the edge in a situation like this, a history of smoking
will
>> push them over it.
>
> And in what kind of situation is any of that likely to happen to a
> private pilot?
>

Well, there are a lot of private pilots operating airplanes at high
altitudes these days.
Leaving that aside, my intention as to highlight the damage done and how
that can comprimise someone operating at or near their limit. It's
something else stacked against you in a bad situation. .

What do peruvian mountain dwellers have to do with private pilots?

[Lonnie[_3_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, there are a lot of private pilots operating airplanes at high
> altitudes these days.
> Leaving that aside, my intention as to highlight the damage done and how
> that can comprimise someone operating at or near their limit. It's
> something else stacked against you in a bad situation. .
>
> What do peruvian mountain dwellers have to do with private pilots?

Point missed completely.

You're a dumb ass, and you're trolling, and doing a **** poor job of both.

[Jim Logajan]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote:
>> 1) No one becomes "immediately incapacitated", whatever that means,
>> from smoking.
>
> Depends on what you mean by that. Smoking will exacerbate any situation
> where breathing sails close to the edge, like a sudden loss of
> pressurisation or if the individual has been comprimised and breathing
> becomes difficult. Like someone who has been badly inured and is
> comatose. All other factors being equal, if the individual has been
> pushed to the edge in a situation like this, a history of smoking will
> push them over it.

ALERT THE PRESS! THE END OF THE WORLD IS NEAR! BERTIE HAS WRITTEN IN
SUPPORT OF A STATEMENT MADE BY MXSMANIC!!!!!

Ahhhh! WE ARE ALL DOOMED!!!!!! :-)

[Because up thread it were writ:]

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> If the smoking or drinking were to eventually cause a problem that
>> could become incapacitating, and that takes lots of years, the problem
>> would be cause to fail the medical.
>
> Both can be immediately incapacitating.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> More ignorant nonsense; if it were true about half the population of Peru
> would be incapacitated.

Above a certain altitude, the population _is_ at least partially
incapacitated.

[Mxsmanic]

BobR writes:

> Your knowledge of this subject is so seriously limited that you really
> need to drop out of the discussion before you make yourself look
> really stupid. The people of Peru who live at high altitudes have
> become acclimated to the altitude and are not as subject to altitude
> sickness as those who live at lower altitudes.

Beyond a certain altitude, human beings can never adapt fully to the thinner
air.

> Smoking has the direct
> effect of diminishing the ability of the lungs to absorb oxygen which
> becomes especially critical at higher altitudes.

Yes.

> Smokers who are not
> acclimated to the altitude and who take off from lower altitudes and
> asscend to altitude can easily become oxygen starved resulting in
> numerous possible medical problems.

Yes.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> 1) No one becomes "immediately incapacitated", whatever that means,
> from smoking.

A heart attack is immediately incapacitating, and smoking dramatically
increases the likelihood of a heart attack (something that the FAA ignores).

> 2) If smoking were "immediately incapacitating" from an altitude change,
> every ski resort would be littered with bodies.

High-altitude ski resorts have their share of problems with people who develop
altitude sickness, and many people without frank symptoms of illness still are
far from being in top form at altitude.

> 3) Everyone becomes oxygen starved as altitude increases. For the average
> heavy smoker that will happen at a lower altitude than for the average
> non-smoker.

Yes. And so will the consequences.

> 4) Oxygen starvation doesn't result in medical problems, it causes
> phyisological problems that are eliminated by increased oxygen.

Same thing. Not all of the problems can be fixed by increased oxygen, but
usually that helps.

[Mxsmanic]

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> writes:

> 5) FAA minimums on Ox usage are conservative enough to acomodate even heavy
> smokers.

Perhaps they are conservative enough to keep smokers from dying, but not
conservative enough to shield smokers from the effects of altitude. Heavy
smokers can hardly increase in altitude at all without suffering the effects
of altitude, beginning with vision impairment, usually.

[Lonnie[_3_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> ALERT THE PRESS! THE END OF THE WORLD IS NEAR! BERTIE HAS WRITTEN IN
> SUPPORT OF A STATEMENT MADE BY MXSMANIC!!!!!
>
> Ahhhh! WE ARE ALL DOOMED!!!!!! :-)
>

My guess would be a little to much ant poison in the chardonnay.

[Lonnie[_3_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> writes:
>
>> 5) FAA minimums on Ox usage are conservative enough to acomodate even
>> heavy
>> smokers.
>
> Perhaps they are conservative enough to keep smokers from dying, but not
> conservative enough to shield smokers from the effects of altitude. Heavy
> smokers can hardly increase in altitude at all without suffering the
> effects
> of altitude, beginning with vision impairment, usually.

No ****, when was the last time you flew a cabin load of heavy smokers to
altitude?

[Lonnie[_3_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> 1) No one becomes "immediately incapacitated", whatever that means,
>> from smoking.
>
> A heart attack is immediately incapacitating, and smoking dramatically
> increases the likelihood of a heart attack (something that the FAA
> ignores).
>
>> 2) If smoking were "immediately incapacitating" from an altitude change,
>> every ski resort would be littered with bodies.
>
> High-altitude ski resorts have their share of problems with people who
> develop
> altitude sickness, and many people without frank symptoms of illness still
> are
> far from being in top form at altitude.
>
>> 3) Everyone becomes oxygen starved as altitude increases. For the average
>> heavy smoker that will happen at a lower altitude than for the average
>> non-smoker.
>
> Yes. And so will the consequences.
>
>> 4) Oxygen starvation doesn't result in medical problems, it causes
>> phyisological problems that are eliminated by increased oxygen.
>
> Same thing. Not all of the problems can be fixed by increased oxygen, but
> usually that helps.

Nonsense, you're just a dumb ass, headed of on one of your usual trolls.
Nothing here relates to the original intent of your statement.

[Lonnie[_3_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> More ignorant nonsense; if it were true about half the population of Peru
>> would be incapacitated.
>
> Above a certain altitude, the population _is_ at least partially
> incapacitated.

That's where you have the advantage, you're incapacitated at any altitude.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic > wrote:
> BobR writes:
>
>> Your knowledge of this subject is so seriously limited that you really
>> need to drop out of the discussion before you make yourself look
>> really stupid. The people of Peru who live at high altitudes have
>> become acclimated to the altitude and are not as subject to altitude
>> sickness as those who live at lower altitudes.
>
> Beyond a certain altitude, human beings can never adapt fully to the thinner
> air.

And Mr. State the Bleeding Obvious chimes in with an irrelevancy.

And what would that altitude be?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> More ignorant nonsense; if it were true about half the population of Peru
>> would be incapacitated.
>
> Above a certain altitude, the population _is_ at least partially
> incapacitated.

And that statement is totally irrelevant to what was being discussed.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> writes:
>
>> 5) FAA minimums on Ox usage are conservative enough to acomodate even heavy
>> smokers.
>
> Perhaps they are conservative enough to keep smokers from dying, but not
> conservative enough to shield smokers from the effects of altitude. Heavy
> smokers can hardly increase in altitude at all without suffering the effects
> of altitude, beginning with vision impairment, usually.

Funny, I'm a heavy smoker by anyone's definition, live at 1300 feet, and
at 8500 feet there is no effect on my vision.

Once at 7500 feet at night things got a little blurry and I became
concerned it might be oxygen effects, so I dropped down lower and
nothing changed even after I landed, so I chalked it up to being
tired that late at night.

Maybe your black and white, one size fits all, blanket statements just
aren't true for everyone.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> 1) No one becomes "immediately incapacitated", whatever that means,
>> from smoking.
>
> A heart attack is immediately incapacitating, and smoking dramatically
> increases the likelihood of a heart attack (something that the FAA ignores).

Smoking increase the likelihood of a heart attack after decades of smoking,
by which time such effects will show up on the medical.

Decades is hardly "immediately".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> writes:
>>
>>> 5) FAA minimums on Ox usage are conservative enough to acomodate
>>> even heavy
>>> smokers.
>>
>> Perhaps they are conservative enough to keep smokers from dying, but
>> not conservative enough to shield smokers from the effects of
>> altitude. Heavy smokers can hardly increase in altitude at all
>> without suffering the effects
>> of altitude, beginning with vision impairment, usually.
>
> No ****, when was the last time you flew a cabin load of heavy smokers
> to altitude?

When's the last time you flew, Maxwell?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Well, there are a lot of private pilots operating airplanes at high
>> altitudes these days.
>> Leaving that aside, my intention as to highlight the damage done and
>> how that can comprimise someone operating at or near their limit.
>> It's something else stacked against you in a bad situation. .
>>
>> What do peruvian mountain dwellers have to do with private pilots?
>
> Point missed completely.


Yes, I know. Read it again.

>
> You're a dumb ass, and you're trolling, and doing a **** poor job of
> both.


Nope. I was offering my POV based on knowledge and some personal
experience.


But I could troll you if you like.





Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> 1) No one becomes "immediately incapacitated", whatever that means,
>>> from smoking.
>>
>> Depends on what you mean by that. Smoking will exacerbate any situation
>> where breathing sails close to the edge, like a sudden loss of
>> pressurisation or if the individual has been comprimised and breathing
>> becomes difficult. Like someone who has been badly inured and is
>> comatose. All other factors being equal, if the individual has been
>> pushed to the edge in a situation like this, a history of smoking will
>> push them over it.
>
> ALERT THE PRESS! THE END OF THE WORLD IS NEAR! BERTIE HAS WRITTEN IN
> SUPPORT OF A STATEMENT MADE BY MXSMANIC!!!!!

Nope. Don't give a **** what he says and what I said is quite different to
what he said in any case.

All of the statement above is based on personal experience, wheras
Anthony's **** comes from the usual sources.



>
> Ahhhh! WE ARE ALL DOOMED!!!!!!


Well of course!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> ALERT THE PRESS! THE END OF THE WORLD IS NEAR! BERTIE HAS WRITTEN IN
>> SUPPORT OF A STATEMENT MADE BY MXSMANIC!!!!!
>>
>> Ahhhh! WE ARE ALL DOOMED!!!!!! :-)
>>
>
> My guess would be a little to much ant poison in the chardonnay.
>
>

Of course it is, Maxine. Why would you guess anything else?


Berite

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> writes:
>>
>>> More ignorant nonsense; if it were true about half the population of
>>> Peru would be incapacitated.
>>
>> Above a certain altitude, the population _is_ at least partially
>> incapacitated.
>
> That's where you have the advantage, you're incapacitated at any
> altitude.

And you're a dick.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> More ignorant nonsense; if it were true about half the population of
>> Peru would be incapacitated.
>
> Above a certain altitude, the population _is_ at least partially
> incapacitated.
>

You are an idiot.


Bertie

[Lonnie[_3_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Logajan > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>> 1) No one becomes "immediately incapacitated", whatever that means,
>>>> from smoking.
>>>
>>> Depends on what you mean by that. Smoking will exacerbate any situation
>>> where breathing sails close to the edge, like a sudden loss of
>>> pressurisation or if the individual has been comprimised and breathing
>>> becomes difficult. Like someone who has been badly inured and is
>>> comatose. All other factors being equal, if the individual has been
>>> pushed to the edge in a situation like this, a history of smoking will
>>> push them over it.
>>
>> ALERT THE PRESS! THE END OF THE WORLD IS NEAR! BERTIE HAS WRITTEN IN
>> SUPPORT OF A STATEMENT MADE BY MXSMANIC!!!!!
>
> Nope. Don't give a **** what he says and what I said is quite different to
> what he said in any case.
>
> All of the statement above is based on personal experience, wheras
> Anthony's **** comes from the usual sources.
>
>
>
>>
>> Ahhhh! WE ARE ALL DOOMED!!!!!!
>
>
> Well of course!
>
> Bertie

Fine, prove it.

[Lonnie[_3_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :
>
>>
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> writes:
>>>
>>>> More ignorant nonsense; if it were true about half the population of
>>>> Peru would be incapacitated.
>>>
>>> Above a certain altitude, the population _is_ at least partially
>>> incapacitated.
>>
>> That's where you have the advantage, you're incapacitated at any
>> altitude.
>
> And you're a dick.
>
>
> Bertie

So now you are taking up for Anthony as well.

[Lonnie[_3_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> writes:
>>
>>> More ignorant nonsense; if it were true about half the population of
>>> Peru would be incapacitated.
>>
>> Above a certain altitude, the population _is_ at least partially
>> incapacitated.
>>
>
> You are an idiot.
>
>
> Bertie

One minute you're taking-up for him, the next throwing rocks at him. Ya got
a hangover or what?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jim Logajan > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 1) No one becomes "immediately incapacitated", whatever that
>>>>> means, from smoking.
>>>>
>>>> Depends on what you mean by that. Smoking will exacerbate any
>>>> situation where breathing sails close to the edge, like a sudden
>>>> loss of pressurisation or if the individual has been comprimised
>>>> and breathing becomes difficult. Like someone who has been badly
>>>> inured and is comatose. All other factors being equal, if the
>>>> individual has been pushed to the edge in a situation like this, a
>>>> history of smoking will push them over it.
>>>
>>> ALERT THE PRESS! THE END OF THE WORLD IS NEAR! BERTIE HAS WRITTEN IN
>>> SUPPORT OF A STATEMENT MADE BY MXSMANIC!!!!!
>>
>> Nope. Don't give a **** what he says and what I said is quite
>> different to what he said in any case.
>>
>> All of the statement above is based on personal experience, wheras
>> Anthony's **** comes from the usual sources.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Ahhhh! WE ARE ALL DOOMED!!!!!!
>>
>>
>> Well of course!
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Fine, prove it.
>

Everybody dies eventually, you moron.


Bertie

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> writes:
>>
>>> 5) FAA minimums on Ox usage are conservative enough to acomodate even heavy
>>> smokers.
>> Perhaps they are conservative enough to keep smokers from dying, but not
>> conservative enough to shield smokers from the effects of altitude. Heavy
>> smokers can hardly increase in altitude at all without suffering the effects
>> of altitude, beginning with vision impairment, usually.
>
> Funny, I'm a heavy smoker by anyone's definition, live at 1300 feet, and
> at 8500 feet there is no effect on my vision.
>
> Once at 7500 feet at night things got a little blurry and I became
> concerned it might be oxygen effects, so I dropped down lower and
> nothing changed even after I landed, so I chalked it up to being
> tired that late at night.
>
> Maybe your black and white, one size fits all, blanket statements just
> aren't true for everyone.
>
>

Jim, you must be mistaken. It must be true be because Anthony read about
it on the internet.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> And in what kind of situation is any of that likely to happen to a
> private pilot?

Occult cardiovascular disease, typically.

[Tim[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote...
> writes:
>
> > And in what kind of situation is any of that likely to happen to a
> > private pilot?
>
> Occult cardiovascular disease, typically.

Heredity plays an equally important role in all of this - a person's
vulnerability to disease as a result of environmental factors (smoking,
drinking, breathing in asbestos fibers, etc.) is highly dependent on
genetics, as is your likelihood to suffer a stroke from smoking excessively,
or a heart attack from eating too much bacon, eggs, donuts, etc., or just
plain being overweight.

Where do you draw the line?

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> And in what kind of situation is any of that likely to happen to a
>> private pilot?
>
> Occult cardiovascular disease, typically.

And if a person had occult cardiovascular disease, they would fail
the medical and wouldn't be a pilot.

Therefore it is not likely to happen to a pilot.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> If the smoking or drinking were to eventually cause a problem that could
>> become incapacitating, and that takes lots of years, the problem would
>> would be cause to fail the medical.
>
> Both can be immediately incapacitating.
>

Show me one example from here http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Mxsmanic]

Tim writes:

> Heredity plays an equally important role in all of this - a person's
> vulnerability to disease as a result of environmental factors (smoking,
> drinking, breathing in asbestos fibers, etc.) is highly dependent on
> genetics, as is your likelihood to suffer a stroke from smoking excessively,
> or a heart attack from eating too much bacon, eggs, donuts, etc., or just
> plain being overweight.

True ... but the FAA doesn't look at that, either.

> Where do you draw the line?

My point is that the FAA criteria are badly skewed. Airline pilots with
first-class medicals still drop dead from time to time, and people who are
denied medicals still live to be 95 years old without ever being suddenly
incapacitated by anything.

The FAA criteria seem to be inherited from military test-pilot programs or
astronaut medicals, but they are far too draconian. The FAA could increase
safety a lot more by testing pilot competence more extensively and forgetting
the over-the-top medical criteria. In fact, the best way to determine pilot
aptitude is by testing it directly, not by inferring it from other
information, and since pilots are tested individually, this is a completely
practical goal.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> And if a person had occult cardiovascular disease, they would fail
> the medical and wouldn't be a pilot.

No, they would pass. That's why it's called "occult."

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tim writes:
>
>> Heredity plays an equally important role in all of this - a person's
>> vulnerability to disease as a result of environmental factors (smoking,
>> drinking, breathing in asbestos fibers, etc.) is highly dependent on
>> genetics, as is your likelihood to suffer a stroke from smoking excessively,
>> or a heart attack from eating too much bacon, eggs, donuts, etc., or just
>> plain being overweight.
>
> True ... but the FAA doesn't look at that, either.

Of course not as it is all irrelevant just as is everything you've
been whinning about.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> And if a person had occult cardiovascular disease, they would fail
>> the medical and wouldn't be a pilot.
>
> No, they would pass. That's why it's called "occult."

Yeah, sure Dr. Mxsmanic.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Tim writes:
>
>> Heredity plays an equally important role in all of this - a person's
>> vulnerability to disease as a result of environmental factors
>> (smoking, drinking, breathing in asbestos fibers, etc.) is highly
>> dependent on genetics, as is your likelihood to suffer a stroke from
>> smoking excessively, or a heart attack from eating too much bacon,
>> eggs, donuts, etc., or just plain being overweight.
>
> True ... but the FAA doesn't look at that, either.
>
>> Where do you draw the line?
>
> My point is that the FAA criteria are badly skewed. Airline pilots
> with first-class medicals still drop dead from time to time, and
> people who are denied medicals still live to be 95 years old without
> ever being suddenly incapacitated by anything.
>
> The FAA criteria seem to be inherited from military test-pilot
> programs or astronaut medicals, but they are far too draconian. The
> FAA could increase safety a lot more by testing pilot competence more
> extensively and forgetting the over-the-top medical criteria. In
> fact, the best way to determine pilot aptitude is by testing it
> directly, not by inferring it from other information, and since pilots
> are tested individually, this is a completely practical goal.
>

You have no idea what you're talking about.

you are an idiot.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> And if a person had occult cardiovascular disease, they would fail
>> the medical and wouldn't be a pilot.
>
> No, they would pass. That's why it's called "occult."
>

You are an idiot.


Bertie

[george]

On Sep 5, 3:03 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > More ignorant nonsense; if it were true about half the population of Peru
> > would be incapacitated.
>
> Above a certain altitude, the population _is_ at least partially
> incapacitated.

For Anthony it's sea level

[Peter Dohm]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
(in part)
> Airline pilots with first-class medicals still drop dead from time to
> time...

Actually, it is quite unusual for anyone to drop dead more than once.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

But of course, Anthony knows nothing about flying or the physical
examination process associated with getting a medical. He certainly, by his
own admission, could not pass one regardless.

His opinion on the subject counts for even less.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Let's all remember that Anthony is not a physiologist and knows nothing
cardiology, let alone flying.

[a[_3_]]

On Sep 5, 7:19*pm, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> Let's all remember that Anthony is not a physiologist and knows nothing
> cardiology, let alone flying.

It's unlikely he stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night, either,
all the more reason to ignore him.

[JG]

On Sep 3, 10:49*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > The city was fined the maximum amount allowed at the time (the maximum
> > has since been increased from $1,100/day to $10,000/day) for closing
> > the airport without the required 30 day notice (the closing was legal,
> > the timing was not) as well as investigated for misappropriation of FAA
> > funds because of the early closing and had to repay over $1 million.
>
> So when did the airport reopen? *Does the mayor pay the fines out of his
> pocket?

Its use has expanded:

"GOOD CAUSES: To help launch Children's Memorial Hospital's biggest-
ever fund-raising campaign at Northerly Island tonight, hospital
supporters will be entertained by an all-star lineup, including Tony
Award winner Heather Headley, former Styx mainstay Dennis DeYoung and
blues god Buddy Guy -- with Mary Ann Childers serving as the lucky
emcee. ... "

[David Lesher]

Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> writes:

>>Most people will place the cutoff at their own age plus twenty years or so.

>That means the cutoff is 96.

I think the cutoff should be greater than the oldest POTUS candidate....
After all, suppose he wants to save us money and fly N28000 himself?


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[David Lesher]

The age of the aircraft in the GA field worries me more than
that of the pilots...




--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 22:48:11 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher
> wrote:

>
>
>The age of the aircraft in the GA field worries me more than
>that of the pilots...

age is nothing but a number.

fatigue is the worry and it usually arrives numberless (randomly)

Stealth Pilot

[Mick[_2_]]

Howard Jones aka "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in
message ...
| On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 22:48:11 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher
| > wrote:
|
| >
| >
| >The age of the aircraft in the GA field worries me more than
| >that of the pilots...
|
| age is nothing but a number.
|
| fatigue is the worry and it usually arrives numberless (randomly)
|
| Stealth Pilot

Sounds like the voice of experience, Howard. That's what happens when guys
like you get over the hill.

[Mike Spera]

Gezellig wrote:

> Recently a 72 yo went blind in flight (stroke?) and safely landed in the
> drink in FL. Several comments were that age should be considered in
> keeping your PPL. I can see this makes sense /but/ it would prolly be
> illegal.
>
> Too old? If so, at what age do you place the cutoff?

I place the cutoff at 5 years older than me....

[Wayne Paul]

"Mike Spera" > wrote in message
...
> Gezellig wrote:
>
>> Recently a 72 yo went blind in flight (stroke?) and safely landed in the
>> drink in FL. Several comments were that age should be considered in
>> keeping your PPL. I can see this makes sense /but/ it would prolly be
>> illegal.
>>
>> Too old? If so, at what age do you place the cutoff?
>
> I place the cutoff at 5 years older than me....

I agree; therefore, the cut-off age becomes a "moving target."

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 20:25:08 GMT, wrote:

>In rec.aviation.piloting Gezellig > wrote:
>> Recently a 72 yo went blind in flight (stroke?) and safely landed in the
>> drink in FL. Several comments were that age should be considered in
>> keeping your PPL. I can see this makes sense /but/ it would prolly be
>> illegal.
>>
>> Too old? If so, at what age do you place the cutoff?
>
Lordy...My uncle still looked to be under 50 when he turned 80.
He didn't show his age until about 85-86 where the arthritis started
bending him out of shape. OTOH his grand kids took him out for dinner
a week after his 99th birthday. The women were still hitting on him.
They went home, he sat down in an easy chair and died.

The cut off should be based on whether he knows what day it is...er
no, most of us who are retired don't know that. I guess I'd say if
they can see, aren't senile, have reasonable reflexes, and good
judgmental skills they'd qualify. I realize I just eliminated about
half the drivers on the road though<:-))

>When you can't pass the medical; that's what it is for.
>
>Everyone's biology is different.
>
>I think just about everyone knows people who are healthy as a horse
>and in their late 80's and people who've dropped dead in their 50's.

My ex wife's dad was roofing those big hip roofed barns in his middle
80's. I'd bet he was near 100 when he kicked the bucket. He was too
ornery to let go.



Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 17:29:39 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Gezellig wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 20:44:51 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>
>>> I would have no
>>> problem with medicals requiring a shorter active period based on a
>>> proactive projection of accident stats vs health issues within a
>>> specific age bracket graduated after say a beginning point of 40.
>>> In other words, the older you get and/or when you enter into an age
>>> bracket where stats put you at a higher risk factor, the period of your
>>> medical shortens accordingly.
>>
>> This makes sense especially if the quality of the medical is increased
>> accordingly.
>>
>>> The rub in all this, even in my own projection, is that it assumes that
>>> sooner or later a pilot will reach a "no further medicals allowed" point
>>> where a mandatory retirement is indicated.
>>
>> Disagree. If you can pass a sophisticated and comprehensive medical,
>> there should be no approach points. Pass = fly regardless of age.
>
>Make sure we're on the same page with the above. I might not have stated
>this as accurately as I should have,
>What I'm saying doesn't conflict with the Pass= fly regardless of age.
>It simply RECOGNIZES that at a certain point while following the "plan",
>a pilot WILL reach a specific point in time where the medical can no
>longer be passed. In other words, Fail= no longer fly.
>What I'm saying is simply that even my "plan" so to speak, ends up with
>basically what we have now :-)) You fly until you can't pass the
>physical then no more. The same issue remains. The "rub" is that no
>matter what is done, the end of the road seems unchanged. There can very
>well be a point where the pilot passes the physical at some ripe old

Of 30 or so.

Yes the odds of a medical condition do go up with age, but life style
(exercise and diet) play a major part now day.

Probably most of us know people *appeared* to be in good health that
had heart attacks in their 30's and 40's.

But statistically speaking when age AND lifestyle are taken into
account the results are pretty accurate. The main anomaly being
genetic disorders.

Another is strokes. They have been though to be age related, but I
found they happen to about 1% of the Caucasian population as a TIA
prior to adult hood. To some races that is as high as 10% and they
appear to be pretty well distributed across ages up through some where
between 50 and 60. Even after that most tend to be related to high
blood pressure and/or high cholesterol with plaque buildup in the
arteries. OTOH there are exceptions even to that.

>age, then has that heart attack in the air during the periods between
>physicals.
>This is the basis for what I have envisioned as a "plan" to shorten the
>period between physicals as a pilot ages.
>>
>>> Considering present regulations, the engine to implement such a plan
>>> would be extremely difficult to design and push through the required
>>> legislation.
>>
>> Can't argue with this, don't have the expertise.
>
>You're doing well :-))
Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com