Too Old?

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


"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.

Nope.


He's as big an idiot as you are.


Bertie

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


"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?


Nope. I never "took up for him" you cretin.

Learn to read.


Bertie

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.

writes:

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

Occult cardiovascular disease, typically.

"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?

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.

"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.

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.

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."

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.