Too Old?

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?

"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

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?