Soaring on unapproved prescription drugs, and conditions, legal??

Some thoughts, and not necessarily PC for this group...

I've never been a big fan of litigation, but here is a case where it
serves an important purpose. The FAA has made medical
self-certification avialable to glider pilots. This leaves a great
deal of grey in determining one's own physical/mental competency.
However, if anyone were harmed by a glider pilot taking drugs for a
condition that precluded him/her from obtaining a third-class medical,
I would heartily endorse suing the pilot or his estate.

We will all someday be faced with the choice of giving up flying, or
continuing with risk to ourselves, and therefore, others. Love of
flight, individual rights, denial are poor excuses if you do damage to
others as a result of physical or mental incompetence brought on by
drugs and/or disease and/or diminishing capacity. While I believe it
is your right to make up your own mind, I also believe strongly that
you should be fully responsible for any damage your willful negligence
may cause.

Continue to fly if you want. But consider the effects upon your estate
and your heirs. While the regs leave you some room to quibble, a jury
of your peers will not.

Fortunately, you don't get to decide whether others can fly or not.
It has nothing to do with Political Correctness, it has to do with
individual responsibility.
No one is suggesting that a pilot should fly when he or she is ill or
affected by medications,
but the "one size fits all" solution that FAA medical requirements impose do
not apply to gliders, period!
If this is such a hard concept to grasp, one wonders how one ever passed the
written and
practical tests to get a certificate in the first place.

There many reasons for not having a FAA medical, among which is the
impossibility of documenting
many of things in one's medical history. Many folks have not lost their
medical, it merely ran out and
they chose not to renew it. In addition, prescription drugs affect people
in different ways.
What might put you under the table, could go unnoticed by me.

Since you are so devoted to solutions that require a law suit, perhaps we
should do as some Doctors are doing; they
are refusing to treat malpractice lawyers for routine or non-essential
medical conditions. As a proponent of law suits to
get your way, perhaps the gliding community ought not to allow you to have
tows or operate your glider. After all, one
does not wish to be sued. Let me say it again so that you understand: no
element of Part 67 applies to glider pilots.
The reasons are myriad and have been discussed often here. Why is it so
hard to grasp?

Allan

"Chris OCallaghan" wrote in message
om...

However, if anyone were harmed by a glider pilot taking drugs for a
condition that precluded him/her from obtaining a third-class medical,
I would heartily endorse suing the pilot or his estate.

Gosh, Allan, did a bug crawl up someplace private? I know at least a
dozen pilots who continue to fly with health problems that make them a
danger to themselves and others. Most continue to fly without
incident. Others have broken gliders, themsleves, and in one case I
know of, another person.

All I'm doing is stating the facts... Pilots choose to fly with these
conditions. The law does not currently preclude this; it is not
criminal. But the law also provides the injured with recourse. Perhaps
more aging and infirm pilots would gracefully leave the sport if they
recognized that they were risking their estates? It's amazing that for
so many, money is more important than life (theirs and others).

I think it's fair to say that if I did you financial harm through my
willful negligence, with or without criminal intent, you'd be shaking
the lawyer tree hard and fast in an attempt to recoup your losses. (Or
perhaps you are far more Christian -- read the "patiance of Job" --
than I give you credit...) Regardless, the threat of litigation is a
powerful tool, one that helps people weigh the outcomes of their
actions. One perhaps that might cut through the absurd
rationalizations some pilots practice.

And just to keep you on my straight and narrow, I've offered up the
right to choose, based on how the law is currently framed. And your
reaction proves my intoduction. Speaking favorably of litigation is
not politically correct in any aviation forum. Unless, of course, you
happen to be the injured party. Litigation is a just a tool...
granted, some abuse it, but it has its place in a society of personal
freedoms AND accountabilities.

"ADP" wrote in message ...


Let me say it again so that you understand: no
element of Part 67 applies to glider pilots.
The reasons are myriad and have been discussed often here. Why is it so
hard to grasp?

Allan



Let's assume we agree that Part 67 does not apply. How do you deny
the applicability of 91.17 a) 3). Don't you operate under part 91
when you fly? How is possible to operate a certificated glider in USA
without being subject to part 91?


Andy

No Chris,

It is simply the tendency of some to frame their interpretations based on
their world view
and not realize that there are as many world views as there are people.

Since I am not immune to that tendency, you get to learn about my prejudices
as well.

Seemingly every time someone submits a question that involves FARs,
responses come
out of the woodwork that appear to come from that room full of monkeys
trying to
reproduce Shakespeare's plays.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised since, for 228 years, folks haven't
figured out what
the US constitution means.

Unfortunately, you are not stating facts, you are stating assumptions based
upon
faulty interpretations of the FARs.

There is no negligence if there is no standard to base it on.

There is nothing "Politically Correct" about my opinion.

A case in point: 14 CFR 91.175(c) specifies the rules for takeoff and
landing under IFR.
Ignoring for the moment part 121 and part 135 rules, the specification for
descending
below MDA or DH describes "flight visibility". This is not a RVR value or
measured
value, this is the visibility that the pilot sees from the cockpit. So, if
the pilot can see well enough
to land at DH or MDA, then the pilot may land regardless of the reported
visibility.
(This assertion ought to be enough to start a 300 response thread.)
Nevertheless, it is a fact.

The controlling FAR for glider pilot health gives the pilot, and no one
else, the authority
and the responsibility to determine his fitness for flight.

If there are those who abuse this authority, then that is their problem.
Since I do not
and I presume you do not, abuse this authority, then what is the point of
trotting out
potential lawyer threats?

You state that you know of many who abuse this authority. I know no one who
does.
Which of us is closer to reality? I don't know and. I suspect, neither do
you.

Now, while I reach around for that bug, let us go fly and have fun.

Allan




"Chris OCallaghan" wrote in message
om...
Gosh, Allan, did a bug crawl up someplace private? I know at least a
dozen pilots who continue to fly with health problems that make them a
danger to themselves and others. Most continue to fly without
incident. Others have broken gliders, themsleves, and in one case I
know of, another person.

Of course it applies. All of Part 91 applies as qualified for gliders.
91.17 covers alcohol and " substances (any drug) "that affects the person's
faculties in any way contrary to safety."
Since we know that illegal substances are included here, i.e., you may not
fly while under their influence, that leaves
us with OTC and prescription drugs that might have that affect.
The difference between piloting operations which require a medical and
piloting a glider which does not, is that the PILOT gets
to make the determination whether or not a legal drug affects his ability to
fly.
If you take antihistamines and they do not make you sleepy or interfere with
your ability to fly, you may fly.

It is a valuable and important distinction and I agree with every one who
suggests that we ought not to abuse it
or let it slip away.

Allan

"Andy Durbin" wrote in message
om...
"ADP" wrote in message
...


Let's assume we agree that Part 67 does not apply. How do you deny
the applicability of 91.17 a) 3). Don't you operate under part 91
when you fly? How is possible to operate a certificated glider in USA
without being subject to part 91?


Andy

You state that you know of many who abuse this authority. I know no one who
does.
Which of us is closer to reality?

OK, how about max gross weight and seat limits? Just hang around my gliderport
for three hours during any Saturday or Sunday when we have flight instruction
and you will routinely see people exceeding the max gross capacity of the
aircraft. Their solution is to rip out the placards that showed the carrying
capacity.

You're lucky if you fly at a place where PICs don't abuse their authority.

Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ
illspam

ADP wrote:

You state that you know of many who abuse this authority.
I know no one who does.
Which of us is closer to reality?
I don't know and, I suspect, neither do you.

Now...let us go fly and have fun.


But, that's not the purpose of a NewsGroup -- to Fly and Have Fun. The purpose
of a NG is to balance one's own prejudices against everyone else's, or, in my
case, to enlighten the benighted. ;

There are those who do abuse their "authority", both in the power- and in the
glider-world. We have witnessed here recently individuals with an admittedly
questionable grasp of that which the rest of us loosely agree is reality,
stumbling about verbally while hoping against hope for someone to give them
permission to do that which even they know is wrong.

If the FARs say one must not fly when a reasonable person would know that one is
impaired in some manner, then all the verbal acrobatics in the world will not
change the fact that one is morally and legally liable if one injures someone
else while operating with said impairment.

As always, if they have to ask then the answer is, "No."



Jack

Jim,
I certainly can't argue with that assertion. I was only referencing medical
issues.
I suspect that there is not an older Grob 103 that does not fly overgross
with two people
onboard.

I'm also not saying that glider (or any) pilots are angels, but to
arbitrarily limit your
ability to fly based on false assumption does not enhance your enjoyment of
flight.
I may be in the minority here, I fly because I enjoy it -no, I love it.
Perhaps I can find a news group called "The joy of flying".

Allan


"Jim Vincent" wrote in message
...
You state that you know of many who abuse this authority. I know no one
who
does.
Which of us is closer to reality?

OK, how about max gross weight and seat limits? Just hang around my
gliderport
for three hours during any Saturday or Sunday when we have flight
instruction
and you will routinely see people exceeding the max gross capacity of the
aircraft. Their solution is to rip out the placards that showed the
carrying
capacity.

You're lucky if you fly at a place where PICs don't abuse their authority.

Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ
illspam

Let me see, rec.aviation.soaring, if having fun is not at least part of the
purpose of this newsgroup,
then I am in the wrong place. (I'm certain that some would argue that I'm
in the wrong place
Anyway.)

Let's cut directly to the crux of the matter:

You state:

If the FARs say one must not fly when a reasonable person would know that
one is
impaired in some manner, then all the verbal acrobatics in the world will
not
change the fact that one is morally and legally liable if one injures
someone
else while operating with said impairment.

As always, if they have to ask then the answer is, "No."

The FARs do not say that. They do not mention reasonable persons, doctors
or publish a prohibited medication list
when referring to gliders. The only verbal acrobatics practiced here are by
those who can not read and understand
plain (bureaucratic) English.
It's rather like arguing about the meaning of the 2nd amendment. If you can
read, it is quite clear.
The FARs are similar, if you can read, it's quite clear.

Allan

"Jack" wrote in message
gy.com...
ADP wrote: