Am I too old to fly?

writes:

No, it is not.

I could say that the sky is blue and someone here would argue with me.

Hopefully the original poster will look it up and find out for himself.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

No, it is not.

I could say that the sky is blue and someone here would argue with me.

Likely so, but that has nothing to do with the fact that your blanket
statement was wrong.

Hopefully the original poster will look it up and find out for himself.

FAR 61.53 (a) which applies to holders of a medical certificate:

"...any medical condition that would make the person unable to meet the
requirements for the medical certificate..."

FAR 61.53 (b) which applies to no medical certificate:

"...any medical condition that would make the person unable to operate
the aircraft in a safe manner..."

A trivial example showing your blanket statement to be false:

A person could have a blood pressure of 156 which exceeds the limit for
a third class medical certificate by 1mm but be perfectly able to fly
an aircraft in a safe manner.

Since you made an all encompassing, blanket statement, one trivial example
is sufficient to show you were once again pulling it out of your ass.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

You are both partially right, but in my view, as an observer to the
dynamic of this argument, Jim P is "more" right. It is true, if it were to
come to the FAA’s attention that a sport pilot obtained that certificate
because he was aware of a clearly disqualifying medical condition they
would likely take action. However this is not what was suggested to the
original poster. It was suggested that if the older candidate had any
condition that "might preclude him from passing a third-class medical", he
should go straight to light sport. There is a big difference, and Jim is
right to point out that MX’s reaction is dogmatic and misses the nuance.
Jim is also correct in pointing out that the flexibility in the medical
rule is clearly an indication of application of a different standard,
based on a different category of risk, and MX’s narrow and rigid responses
appear to ignore this important difference.

In article ,
says...


Mxsmanic wrote:
Ed writes:

Philip, If you have any known physical conditions which might preclude
getting a third class medical you could go directly to sport pilot.

Actually, this is illegal.

No, it is not.

The short answer is the medical requirements for sport pilot are not as
strict as they are for a third class medical.

snip pontification


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

VOR-DME wrote:
You are both partially right, but in my view, as an observer to the
dynamic of this argument, Jim P is "more" right. It is true, if it were to
come to the FAA?s attention that a sport pilot obtained that certificate
because he was aware of a clearly disqualifying medical condition they
would likely take action. However this is not what was suggested to the
original poster. It was suggested that if the older candidate had any
condition that "might preclude him from passing a third-class medical", he
should go straight to light sport. There is a big difference, and Jim is
right to point out that MX?s reaction is dogmatic and misses the nuance.
Jim is also correct in pointing out that the flexibility in the medical
rule is clearly an indication of application of a different standard,
based on a different category of risk, and MX?s narrow and rigid responses
appear to ignore this important difference.

That's because MX sees everything in black and white.

The terms "nuance", "spirit", and "intent" have no meaning to him.

BTY, if a person flying under the light sport rules has a "clearly
disqualifying medical condition" and starts or continues to fly, then they
are in violation of the rules for light sport.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 22:31:26 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

Ed writes:

Philip, If you have any known physical conditions which might preclude
getting a third class medical you could go directly to sport pilot.

Actually, this is illegal. You are not eligible for a sport pilot license if
you are medically unfit to fly (and the inability to pass an aviation medical
is prima facie evidence of this). If you know you don't qualify medically, you
must not attempt to obtain the sport pilot license, as that would be
fraudulent.

Horse****, the determination of "fit for flight" is a medical one
performed only by a physician so approved. Once you flunked the
medical, /then/ you are screwed for the PPPL.

So don't take the medical /if/ you think you are going to flunk it.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

Ari Silverstein writes:

Horse****, the determination of "fit for flight" is a medical one
performed only by a physician so approved. Once you flunked the
medical, /then/ you are screwed for the PPPL.

So don't take the medical /if/ you think you are going to flunk it.

If the medical determines your fitness for flight, and you don't take it
because you know you would fail it, then you know you are unfit for flight,
and thus you are not eligible for a Light Sport license. That's why having a
revoked or suspended medical isn't allowed, either.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Ari Silverstein writes:

Horse****, the determination of "fit for flight" is a medical one
performed only by a physician so approved. Once you flunked the
medical, /then/ you are screwed for the PPPL.

So don't take the medical /if/ you think you are going to flunk it.

If the medical determines your fitness for flight, and you don't take it
because you know you would fail it, then you know you are unfit for flight,
and thus you are not eligible for a Light Sport license. That's why having a
revoked or suspended medical isn't allowed, either.

Nope, it means you are not eligible for a medical certificate.

FAR 61.53 (b) which covers light sport pilots says "...any medical condition
that would make the person unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner."

A blood pressure of 156 is 1mm over the limit for a medical certificate
but hardly makes a person "unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 00:07:40 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

Ari Silverstein writes:

Horse****, the determination of "fit for flight" is a medical one
performed only by a physician so approved. Once you flunked the
medical, /then/ you are screwed for the PPPL.

So don't take the medical /if/ you think you are going to flunk it.

If the medical determines your fitness for flight, and you don't take it
because you know you would fail it, then you know you are unfit for flight,

Bull****, back in the killfile you go, Simmy.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

On 12/13/2010 5:39 AM, Philip Mellinger wrote:
I was thinking about taking up flying, but
not sure if I'm too old. I'm 62. Is this a bad
idea or should I go for it?

---
Philip Mellinger
My instructor is a lady and I think she is about 74 years old. She has
been flying for about 20 or 25 years.
I am 39 and started taking lessons back in April and having a ball with it.

Cheers,
Chris

"Chris AKA (Dude)" wrote:
On 12/13/2010 5:39 AM, Philip Mellinger wrote:
I was thinking about taking up flying, but
not sure if I'm too old. I'm 62. Is this a bad
idea or should I go for it?

---
Philip Mellinger
My instructor is a lady and I think she is about 74 years old. She has
been flying for about 20 or 25 years.
I am 39 and started taking lessons back in April and having a ball
with it.

I saw your post on a.g.m.f-s that you have resumed flying after a long
layoff due to someone bending your training plane. Have you managed to solo
yet?

Between Thanksgiving travel by me, some travel by my instructor, and
typical Oregon weather I last flew Nov. 17 and only finally flew again
today (Dec. 15). (I soloed Nov. 3)

Solo was thankfully unremarkable and with no angst at all - the nice parts
being that I didn't feel as cramped (it's a C-152) and less dead weight
made the climb rate a bit better. :-)