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

On 6/21/04 10:18 AM, in article ,
"Jim" wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:21:58 -0400, Bob Greenblatt
wrote:

I don't know what method others use, but I require my new students to get
their student pilot license via a third class medical.

For some reason, I find this deeply troubling. I can certainly see
the concern behind it, and it's a personal decision you have all the
right in the world to make, and no one has to employ you as an
instructor if your requirement for a third class medical is something
they choose not to comply with, since it is expressly not an FAA
requirement. So people can accomplish the goal of a certificate to
fly gliders without conforming to your personal requirements that they
acquire a thrid class medical. But for all that, I still find your
approach very upsetting. I wish I could find the words to express my
feelings better about this.

I am not sure why you find it upsetting. None of my students ever had. Their
reaction is just the contrary. They are glad to get the medical. I have
never had anyone express the even the slightest doubts or hesitation about
this.

Another post said this could be a reason for the decline in soaring. I
seriously doubt it.

--
Bob
bobgreenblattATmsnDOTcom --fix this before responding

Well, you hold those opinions so strongly that you're willing to cast
off my experience as suited to the moment. (There is a whole
subculture of aging, ailing pilots flying motorgliders to circumvent
medical certification.) But you are right, this argument is
degenerating. Let's save it for sometime when we're in the same room
and can put on the beer goggles and so pursue it to its ineluctable
anticlimax.

Cheers,

Chris

Chris,

Anyone who can use ineluctable correctly in a sentence can't be all bad.

Maybe I'll see you in Ontario at the next convention.

Cheers yourself,

Allan



"Chris OCallaghan" wrote in message
om...
Well, you hold those opinions so strongly that you're willing to cast
off my experience as suited to the moment. (There is a whole
subculture of aging, ailing pilots flying motorgliders to circumvent
medical certification.) But you are right, this argument is
degenerating. Let's save it for sometime when we're in the same room
and can put on the beer goggles and so pursue it to its ineluctable
anticlimax.

Cheers,

Chris

At 17:18 17 June 2004, Tony Verhulst wrote:
Nyal Williams wrote:
I will not fly a glider while using medication
that the FAA finds deleterious to the operation of
a C-172. It is just common sense.


It's not common sense bcause, as Rich pointed out,
the decision as to
what medication is 'deleterious to the operation of
a C-172' is
sometimes more political than medical.

Tony V.


Tony, I never meant to say the medical decision was
common sense; as was correctly pointed out, regulations
can never keep up with medical research.

The common sense part is not to accept a risk that
some attorney will read the PDR to an ignorant jury
and persuade the jury to convict me of gross negligence.
Have an accident and let the NTSB find traces of medication
in your blood that are not proscribed for gliders,
but are so for C-172s, and that jury will nail you.
Because of the PDR and the disclaimers and side effects
descriptions that come with all medications -- OTC
or otherwise. 'You should have known, you with your
expensive toys, flaunting them over a poor, unsuspecting
public.'