pilots that lost medicals are you on the LSA group?

Just a note for any of the thousands of pilots out there that can't fly
because they don't have a medical. If you are one or know someone then have
them join the Sport-Aircraft group.

Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/

"Gilan" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Just a note for any of the thousands of pilots out there that can't fly
because they don't have a medical. If you are one or know someone then
have
them join the Sport-Aircraft group.

Of course, for many pilots that have lost their medical, there's a good
reason for it, one that would prevent them from legally flying anything.

People selling the sport plane certification rules as a "you don't need a
medical to fly" solution are only telling half the story.

Pete

In a previous article, "Peter Duniho" said:
Of course, for many pilots that have lost their medical, there's a good
reason for it, one that would prevent them from legally flying anything.

On the other hand, I used an anti-depressant for 3 months, and after I
stopped it took me two years and a lot of leg work to get my medical back.
If LSA had been available, I might not have bothered.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Zero Tolerance" in this case meaning "We're too stupid to be able to
apply conscious thought on a case-by-case basis".
-- Mike Sphar

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
Of course, for many pilots that have lost their medical, there's a good
reason for it, one that would prevent them from legally flying anything.

Really? Can you point to the reg in Part 103 that prevents someone
from operating an ultralight for medical reasons?

People selling the sport plane certification rules as a "you don't need a
medical to fly" solution are only telling half the story.

Pete

And here we see Mr. Duniho pontificating at his best. Despite the fact
that the final Sport Pilot rule has not been published, and, hence, no
one knows what the final rule says about medical requirements, he
somehow has the ability to not only speculate, but actually predict
what will be decided.

No need to reply since you already know what the future holds...

Ace Pilot wrote:

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message

Of course, for many pilots that have lost their medical, there's a good
reason for it, one that would prevent them from legally flying anything.


Really? Can you point to the reg in Part 103 that prevents someone
from operating an ultralight for medical reasons?\

an ultralight is different from a light sport aircraft.



People selling the sport plane certification rules as a "you don't need a
medical to fly" solution are only telling half the story.

Pete


And here we see Mr. Duniho pontificating at his best. Despite the fact
that the final Sport Pilot rule has not been published, and, hence, no
one knows what the final rule says about medical requirements, he
somehow has the ability to not only speculate, but actually predict
what will be decided.


Even the people pushing the Light Sport rule acknowledge that what Mr.
Duniho says is correct. They don't trumpet it, but they acknowledge it.

Buried in http://www.sportpilot.org/nprm/sectional_analysis.html:

Under the proposal if a pilot knows or has reason to know of
any medical condition that would affect his or her ability to
operate a light-sport aircraft, then the pilot would have to
refrain from acting as a pilot in command

So if I lose my medical, do I not know or have reason to know of "any
medical condition that would affect" my ability to operate a light-sport
aircraft?

In rec.aviation.owning TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:
So if I lose my medical, do I not know or have reason to know of "any
medical condition that would affect" my ability to operate a light-sport
aircraft?

"Losing your medical" can come in different forms. I know of several
older friends who developed a medical condition that could have been
waivered (special issuance), but didn't want (or could afford) the
endless testing that they'd have to endure every 6 or 12 months. In the
case of the Light Sport Aircraft, if they still had a driver's license,
and their personal doctor said its OK to fly, they could probably fly.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

"Ace Pilot" wrote in message
om...
Really? Can you point to the reg in Part 103 that prevents someone
from operating an ultralight for medical reasons?

Who said anything about ultralights?

And here we see Mr. Duniho pontificating at his best. Despite the fact
that the final Sport Pilot rule has not been published, and, hence, no
one knows what the final rule says about medical requirements, he
somehow has the ability to not only speculate, but actually predict
what will be decided.

It hasn't been finalized, no. But to say it hasn't been published is pretty
silly. We have had a pretty good idea of what is likely to be in the final
rulemaking for some time now. In particular, we have every reason to expect
the medical requirements will be more like those required for glider and
balloon ratings, than for flying ultralights.

No need to reply since you already know what the future holds...

Ahh, but do YOU know?

Pete

TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:

So if I lose my medical, do I not know or have reason to know of "any
medical condition that would affect" my ability to operate a light-sport
aircraft?

Perhaps you do, perhaps not. A medical can be denied because a person has a criminal
record. It can be denied because of a history of substance abuse. Neither of these
is, IMO, a medical condition at all.

A friend of mine has a pacemaker. He sold his 182 because the tests he had to take
every six months to retain his medical became too expensive. He flies gliders now. He
does not know or have reason to know of any medical condition that would affect his
ability to fly. As far as he's concerned, he spent several years and a ton of money
proving that he is no more likely to have one than I do.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:

So if I lose my medical, do I not know or have reason to know of "any
medical condition that would affect" my ability to operate a light-sport
aircraft?

We don't know the exact rules, but if they are similar to
gliders, as expected, there are lots of ways you might lose
a medical and still be able to fly. All of the waiverable
medical problems would allow you to fly. Another big
difference is that a medical requires you to be medically
fit during the entire period of the medical, whereas the
glider/balloon criteria only requires you to be fit during
the flight. Progressive diseases, and periodic medical
problems with sufficient warning to permit landing may
disqualify you from a medical even though you could safely
fly either prior to the full progression of the disease or
between bouts of the problem. At least with respect to the
glider and balloon medical standard, the official position
of the FAA is that loss of a medical is not a disqualifying
condition for flight.

Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

A medical can be denied because a person has a criminal
record.

Does the AME make this call, or someone in OKC? And what would be a
disqualifying set of circumstances?