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.

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:
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.

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!

writes:

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.

Then why would that person be rejected for a medical, when the sole purpose of
the medical is to determine whether or not the person is able to fly in a safe
manner?

The FAA currently tends to look the other way on this, but it's clear that it
is covering itself and giving itself a way to pull the license of someone who
causes a problem. Legally, it would be virtually impossible for someone to
successfully assert that he could fly safely even though he would fail a
medical, when, by definition, failing a medical is proof that one cannot fly
safely.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

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.

Then why would that person be rejected for a medical, when the sole purpose of
the medical is to determine whether or not the person is able to fly in a safe
manner?

Because the requirements for a medical are rather rigid while the requirements
for a sport pilot is the rather flexible "safe to fly".

You said:

"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)."

Once again you see everything as black and white and can't decern shades of
grey nor do you seem to be able to understand the concepts of two sets of
standards.

You would fail your medical with a blood pressure reading of 156,
which is 1 mm over the limit for the medical, but there is no one (except
maybe you) who would make the claim that a person is safe to fly with a
blood pressure of 155 but not with a blood pressure of 156.

Here are some other things that are grounds for having the medical denied
which no one (except again, maybe you) would claim make a person unsafe to
fly as a light sport pilot:

Any head or facial deformity that would interfere with the proper fit of
an oxygen mask.

Stuttering.

A surgical scar not reported to the FAA.

There are lots more, shall I go on?



--
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.

writes:

Because the requirements for a medical are rather rigid while the requirements
for a sport pilot is the rather flexible "safe to fly".

I've just explained why they are one and the same.

Once again you see everything as black and white and can't decern shades of
grey nor do you seem to be able to understand the concepts of two sets of
standards.

Like a lawyer, in other words.

You would fail your medical with a blood pressure reading of 156,
which is 1 mm over the limit for the medical, but there is no one (except
maybe you) who would make the claim that a person is safe to fly with a
blood pressure of 155 but not with a blood pressure of 156.

Then why isn't the limit 157?

On Dec 19, 10:00*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
Because the requirements for a medical are rather rigid while the requirements
for a sport pilot is the rather flexible "safe to fly".

I've just explained why they are one and the same.

Once again you see everything as black and white and can't decern shades of
grey nor do you seem to be able to understand the concepts of two sets of
standards.

Like a lawyer, in other words.

You would fail your medical with a blood pressure reading of 156,
which is 1 mm over the limit for the medical, but there is no one (except
maybe you) who would make the claim that a person is safe to fly with a
blood pressure of 155 but not with a blood pressure of 156.

Then why isn't the limit 157?

There is little doubt that the risk of a 'cardiovascular
accident' (stroking or MI) increases with increasing blood pressure.
Of minor interest is in a location I am familiar with when people are
subjected to a max effort treadmill test and their blood pressure as
well as EKG is being monitored, the test will stop when (ready for
this?) the BP exceeds 260 over I forgot what. The moral of the story
may be steady state hypertension does long term damage to organs, but
the chance of something sudden happening is probably fairly remote,
even for hypertensives.

The FAA thinks in terms of cut-offs, but we all know the risk increase
is gradual, not abrupt. I am not sure but wonder if the BP limit is
something for which one can get a waiver, just as I had gotten one for
vision to get a Class 2 medical instead of the Class 3 I would have
otherwise gotten.

It's a pleasure to see an occasional posting that is actually related
to aviation!