An Unexpected Finding Among Commercial Pilots

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

nobody writes:

No.

If drinking and driving isn't addiction, what is? Risking your life
just to take a recreational drug sounds like quite an obsession to me.

It's clear that you don't understand addiction at all. There is ample
information available on the web that you should be able to enlighten
yourself about addiction without too much difficulty.

There are *many* reasons why flying after even a single drink is not
equivalent to driving under the same conditions. I know of no one of the
hundreds of members in our flying club who will fly after a drink.

There is also a reason why no DUI laws begin at 0.001%. Apparently, you
don't understand any of those reasons, either.

Neil

Mx's "virtue" may be driven by his circumstances -- middle aged, poor,
unable to afford wine, and often not even a Big Mac.

But, there is one virtue we can cheer: he doesn't socialize. There may
be no one in Paris worthy of his company: he seeks recognition and
peership here. The plea for recognition is most likely the only reason
for his many posts: he is NOT a reliable source of information.

Which of course raises an interesting point. His website offers his
services as a tour guide. Potential customers, doing due diligence, if
they google him, will learn something of the personality he presents
here compared to the one he uses when he offers his services there.

They will have to decide if they want this arrogant obese shorts and
hiking boot wearing person serving as their guide. .

He's really augering in, isn't he?



On Dec 2, 11:53 am, "Neil Gould" wrote:
Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

nobody writes:

No.

If drinking and driving isn't addiction, what is? Risking your life
just to take a recreational drug sounds like quite an obsession to me.

It's clear that you don't understand addiction at all. There is ample
information available on the web that you should be able to enlighten
yourself about addiction without too much difficulty.

There are *many* reasons why flying after even a single drink is not
equivalent to driving under the same conditions. I know of no one of the
hundreds of members in our flying club who will fly after a drink.

There is also a reason why no DUI laws begin at 0.001%. Apparently, you
don't understand any of those reasons, either.

Neil

"Tina" wrote

Which of course raises an interesting point. His website offers his
services as a tour guide. Potential customers, doing due diligence, if
they google him, will learn something of the personality he presents
here compared to the one he uses when he offers his services there.

They will have to decide if they want this arrogant obese shorts and
hiking boot wearing person serving as their guide. .

He's really augering in, isn't he?

This brings up an important fact that he does not realize.

The first rule for getting yourself out of a hole, is to stop digging.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Tina" wrote

Which of course raises an interesting point. His website offers his
services as a tour guide. Potential customers, doing due diligence, if
they google him, will learn something of the personality he presents
here compared to the one he uses when he offers his services there.

They will have to decide if they want this arrogant obese shorts and
hiking boot wearing person serving as their guide. .

He's really augering in, isn't he?

This brings up an important fact that he does not realize.

The first rule for getting yourself out of a hole, is to stop digging.

He's addicted to digging.

Neil Gould writes:

It's clear that you don't understand addiction at all. There is ample
information available on the web that you should be able to enlighten
yourself about addiction without too much difficulty.

There's also plenty of information on the Web indicating why it's stupid to
take drugs and operate vehicles at the same time.

There are *many* reasons why flying after even a single drink is not
equivalent to driving under the same conditions. I know of no one of the
hundreds of members in our flying club who will fly after a drink.

And they are willing to drive after drinking?

There is also a reason why no DUI laws begin at 0.001%.

Some do. They are called zero-tolerance laws, and are based on the premise
that no impairment is small enough to be acceptable impairment.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Neil Gould writes:

It's clear that you don't understand addiction at all. There is ample
information available on the web that you should be able to enlighten
yourself about addiction without too much difficulty.

There's also plenty of information on the Web indicating why it's stupid to
take drugs and operate vehicles at the same time.

There are *many* reasons why flying after even a single drink is not
equivalent to driving under the same conditions. I know of no one of the
hundreds of members in our flying club who will fly after a drink.

And they are willing to drive after drinking?

There is also a reason why no DUI laws begin at 0.001%.

Some do. They are called zero-tolerance laws, and are based on the premise
that no impairment is small enough to be acceptable impairment.

Then they must get a lot of cases that go to court because that's bad science. You
can get a non-zero reading without consuming alcohol, even with lab-grade equipment.
That's why the FAA allows up to a .02% BAC reading before flying. (Balloon tests,
often used in driving enforcement, are inherently less accurate than lab
breathalyzers or a blood sample, which is why they aren't used in enforcing the
FARs.)

John Mazor writes:

Then they must get a lot of cases that go to court because that's bad science.

They get a lot of cases because some people still cannot prevent themselves
from drinking and driving. Those people often go to jail. There's nothing
wrong with the science.

You can get a non-zero reading without consuming alcohol, even with
lab-grade equipment.

All you have to do is prove that it's not alcohol.

That's why the FAA allows up to a .02% BAC reading before flying.

It should be zero.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

John Mazor writes:

Then they must get a lot of cases that go to court because that's bad
science.

They get a lot of cases because some people still cannot prevent
themselves from drinking and driving. Those people often go to jail.
There's nothing wrong with the science.

You can get a non-zero reading without consuming alcohol, even with
lab-grade equipment.

All you have to do is prove that it's not alcohol.

That's why the FAA allows up to a .02% BAC reading before flying.

It should be zero.


no it souldn't moron.

Besides, you don't fly so it's none of your business


Bertie

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
John Mazor writes:

Then they must get a lot of cases that go to court because that's bad science.

They get a lot of cases because some people still cannot prevent themselves
from drinking and driving. Those people often go to jail. There's nothing
wrong with the science.

If the law will convict anyone on 0.01% BAC then the law is a ass.

You can get a non-zero reading without consuming alcohol, even with
lab-grade equipment.

All you have to do is prove that it's not alcohol.

1. One kind of false positive doesn't involve ingestible alcohol.
2. And "consuming" is a clue to a second source of false positives.

That's why the FAA allows up to a .02% BAC reading before flying.

It should be zero.

Nope. That would be bad science.

John Mazor writes:

If the law will convict anyone on 0.01% BAC then the law is a ass.

Why? Because it inconveniences people who want to take drugs all the time,
even while driving or flying?