Too Old?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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."

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.

"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.

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?