![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|