Arguments Against DL Medical

QuiQuog

QuiQuog

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
145
Display Name
Display name:
Hobo Djoe
What are some serious arguments against the DL medical bill that we may hear if this gets debated in more mainstream media?

I've heard a lot of support for the DL medical bill, but very little against it. I know there are the "fear through ignorance" folks who think that think flaming planes will rain down on schoolhouses if pilots aren't checked out by doctors, but there has to be some rational arguments against it.

On the lighter side, what are some totally irrational, yet no less serious arguments you've heard?
 
B'crats gotta b'crat. No safety price too high. Really the only thing it does it ground some of the bipolar headcase types and a few of the walking dead cardiac type cases. Probably not a lot of people in those categories with the will and means to go flying.
 
I had a talk with one of my friends in an aviation major at my college who is currently trying to get his CFI. We had a little bit of a heated debate on drivers license medical with me being the pro side and him being a little bit of the con side. My friend said he does want to expand the DL medical but is worried about those people who would be unfit to fly now legally be allowed to fly. I explained Dr. Bruce's proposal of a super light sport with a CDL medical and he thinks that one is a good compromise.
 
QuiQuog said:
What are some serious arguments against the DL medical bill that we may hear if this gets debated in more mainstream media?

I've heard a lot of support for the DL medical bill, but very little against it. I know there are the "fear through ignorance" folks who think that think flaming planes will rain down on schoolhouses if pilots aren't checked out by doctors, but there has to be some rational arguments against it.

On the lighter side, what are some totally irrational, yet no less serious arguments you've heard?
Click to expand...

Daniel A Bernath.
 
Death will rain down from the sky. We will all perish in the ensuing fireball.








or not.
 
The existing system keeps a lot of perfectly qualified pilots out of the air and thereby reduces the chances of midair collisions.
 
Slightly more serious fallout.

After the change, an accident will happen with one or more deaths on the ground. The media will go into a feeding frenzy, find out the FAA/DOT recently changed the law and let people fly with a DL medical state of affairs. The media will go into overdrive on speculation because the pilot took an antihistamine the day before the accident, where the plane ran out of gas, and killed a few folks. It will be a 'contributing factor' in almost every GA accident in NTSB findings and the circle of life will go back to an approximation of the current 3rd class system.

The inmates cannot, ever, be allowed to run the asylum.
 
Same old "I have to get a medical so everyone else should too."

Same old "What do you think will happen with the first accident?"

What is going to happen when a King Air pilot dies at the controls? Probably the same thing as the last time it happened to a pilot with a medical.
 
As we can see from this thread there are no serious arguments against it that are valid.
 
Geico266 said:
As we can see from this thread there are no serious arguments against it that are valid.
Click to expand...

Really? You think the stuff I posted isn't serious? I could write the banner headline:

"Eight dead in Omaha suburb after plane crash. FAA lets 'anyone' fly a SIX thousand pound, 250MPH death missile with no medical certification at all!"
 
because then someone would say "eman1200, they let you drive a CAR with this thing...no less an ay-ro-plane?!?"
 
docmirror said:
Slightly more serious fallout.

After the change, an accident will happen with one or more deaths on the ground. The media will go into a feeding frenzy, find out the FAA/DOT recently changed the law and let people fly with a DL medical state of affairs. The media will go into overdrive on speculation because the pilot took an antihistamine the day before the accident, where the plane ran out of gas, and killed a few folks. It will be a 'contributing factor' in almost every GA accident in NTSB findings and the circle of life will go back to an approximation of the current 3rd class system.

The inmates cannot, ever, be allowed to run the asylum.
Click to expand...

So someone with a medical won't take the same antihistamine and crash the plane?
I don't see the point in your argument?
What does taking an over the counter medication have to do with changing the current system?
 
docmirror said:
Really? You think the stuff I posted isn't serious? I could write the banner headline:

"Eight dead in Omaha suburb after plane crash. FAA lets 'anyone' fly a SIX thousand pound, 250MPH death missile with no medical certification at all!"
Click to expand...

I rest my case. :D
 
markb5900 said:
So someone with a medical won't take the same antihistamine and crash the plane?
I don't see the point in your argument?
What does taking an over the counter medication have to do with changing the current system?
Click to expand...

They will. Maybe you missed the part where I said it would be a 'contributing factor'(even when it wasn't).
The point is that only the uninformed media will care, and will use it as a cudgel to damage the GA community.
Lather, rinse, repeat. We'll be back where we were in the 40s where the aero-medical expansion took place.
 
No I didn't miss it, but what does that have to do with having a CURRENT medical or not?
There is nothing that stop someone with a 3rd class medical from doing the same thing.
I understand what you are saying about changing the rule, but changing rule has nothing to do with your argument and there will be plenty of pilots on Fox saying that.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
I'm waiting to hear one that doesn't involve a "sky will fall" type of argument.
Click to expand...


It will make thousands of scofflaw pilots legal. Just as the mogas STC made thousands of scofflaw pilots legal.:D
 
bartmc said:
Daniel A Bernath.
Click to expand...
You win!:lol:

In all seriousness, I think the DL medical is silly because it's no different than self-certification. Either allow self-certification for PPs or don't. The DL adds nothing.
 
bullwinkle said:
"If it will save even a single life, it's worth it."
Click to expand...

This. We've become an aggressively risk-averse society. Sooner or later someone will keel over in the cockpit and augur into the wrong building. The Cleveland Air Races shut down after one of the racers crashed into a neighboring house and inadvertently killed a pregnant woman, for example.

The third class medical has the appearance of addressing the issue, which is good enough for our pals in the government. And if you want to know who's driving it, look around you. Ask a few non pilots if they wouldn't mind someone crashing an airplane into their house.

I suspect if the bills actually enter debate on the floor of the house or Senate they'll be quashed by this sort of reasoning. The Congresscritters will be right to squash it to. They're just representing their constituents.
 
docmirror said:
Really? You think the stuff I posted isn't serious? I could write the banner headline:

"Eight dead in Omaha suburb after plane crash. FAA lets 'anyone' fly a SIX thousand pound, 250MPH death missile with no medical certification at all!"
Click to expand...
With respect, yours isn't an argument against the DL medical, unless the argument is that it's a bad idea because the media will rip on it.
 
The only valid argument is that someone may believe they are fit to fly, but have some lingering illness that is just waiting for the right conditions to spring. This is predicated on being something that would have been caught by an AME.

If those conditions happen in an airplane, they could die and take out something on the ground.

Additionally, there is the economic factor of eliminating a large portion of work for a number of AMEs who no longer have 3rd class customers.
 
docmirror said:
Slightly more serious fallout.

After the change, an accident will happen with one or more deaths on the ground. The media will go into a feeding frenzy, find out the FAA/DOT recently changed the law and let people fly with a DL medical state of affairs. The media will go into overdrive on speculation because the pilot took an antihistamine the day before the accident, where the plane ran out of gas, and killed a few folks. It will be a 'contributing factor' in almost every GA accident in NTSB findings and the circle of life will go back to an approximation of the current 3rd class system.

The inmates cannot, ever, be allowed to run the asylum.
Click to expand...

Why then has little if anything been done when between 3000 and 5000 (depending on the source you are to believe) homocides annually are committed by illegal ailens? This could be reduced by 70% if we had "real" border security.

So lets say this:

1) Devil's advocate, we have a ONE TIME accident where a guy w/o a medical crashes into a school, killing himself and 10 others (some childern) and there is a huge outcry......

VERSUS:

2) 10 people murdered EVERY SINGLE DAY by an illegal ailen, that would easily be reduced by 70 or 75% if we had adequate border security.

Pretty silly for one RARE event (crashing into school, and killing 10) vs a very COMMON event such a 10 ppl murdered every day by an illegal immigrant.
 
beestforwardspeed said:
1) Devil's advocate, we have a ONE TIME accident where a guy w/o a medical crashes into a school, killing himself and 10 others (some childern) and there is a huge outcry......

VERSUS:

2) 10 people murdered EVERY SINGLE DAY by an illegal ailen, that would easily be reduced by 70 or 75% if we had adequate border security.

Pretty silly for one RARE event (crashing into school, and killing 10) vs a very COMMON event such a 10 ppl murdered every day by an illegal immigrant.
Click to expand...


Must... resist... posting reply comment that really would belong in spinzone :devil:
 
beestforwardspeed said:
Why then has little if anything been done when between 3000 and 5000 (depending on the source you are to believe) homocides annually are committed by illegal ailens? .
Click to expand...

I don't know. I think you should look into that carefully. Please start an in-depth examination of the factors involved, the history of illegal immigration in the US, the roles that the govt, the citizens, businesses, and the laborers. Get back to us with a 40,000 word expose' on your work and we can discuss it.

I love philosophy. Why can some ants lift 10 times their body weight? Why do people fall in love? Why did the Phoenicians decline? Why, I ask you - why?
 
beestforwardspeed said:
Why then has little if anything been done when between 3000 and 5000 (depending on the source you are to believe) homocides annually are committed by illegal ailens? This could be reduced by 70% if we had "real" border security.
Click to expand...

Airplane accidents are spectacular and get lots of media attention. Think about 911. Those guys could have all rented vans and bought rifles and John Lee Malvo'd a bunch of US cities, possibly indefinitely. Instead they crashed jets into the WTC.

The government knows this. So they make us jump through medical hoops so they can claim they are less blamable. The citizens of our fair nation blindly accept this and go on about their day.
 
beestforwardspeed said:
Why then has little if anything been done when between 3000 and 5000 (depending on the source you are to believe) homocides annually are committed by illegal ailens? This could be reduced by 70% if we had "real" border security.

So lets say this:

1) Devil's advocate, we have a ONE TIME accident where a guy w/o a medical crashes into a school, killing himself and 10 others (some childern) and there is a huge outcry......

VERSUS:

2) 10 people murdered EVERY SINGLE DAY by an illegal ailen, that would easily be reduced by 70 or 75% if we had adequate border security.

Pretty silly for one RARE event (crashing into school, and killing 10) vs a very COMMON event such a 10 ppl murdered every day by an illegal immigrant.
Click to expand...

I think your point is:
If illegal aliens can kill people with little media coverage, GA should be able to also?
 
steingar said:
This. We've become an aggressively risk-averse society. Sooner or later someone will keel over in the cockpit and augur into the wrong building. The Cleveland Air Races shut down after one of the racers crashed into a neighboring house and inadvertently killed a pregnant woman, for example.

The third class medical has the appearance of addressing the issue, which is good enough for our pals in the government. And if you want to know who's driving it, look around you. Ask a few non pilots if they wouldn't mind someone crashing an airplane into their house.

I suspect if the bills actually enter debate on the floor of the house or Senate they'll be quashed by this sort of reasoning. The Congresscritters will be right to squash it to. They're just representing their constituents.
Click to expand...

We don't always agree on this board, but we agree on this! :yes:
 
QuiQuog said:
I think your point is:
If illegal aliens can kill people with little media coverage, GA should be able to also?
Click to expand...

That's a strange answer. Having had some experience in the field of risk management, I'd say that his point is that resources would be better spent reducing murders by illegal aliens than by airplane crashes. And that perhaps media coverage is skewed towards highly visible but very unlikely events. Yeah, that's it.
 
QuiQuog said:
I think your point is:
If illegal aliens can kill people with little media coverage, GA should be able to also?
Click to expand...

I think the real point is that equal risks should receive equal coverage, regardless of how "sexy" the issue is. It's called objective journalism, and we don't have any.
 
bullwinkle said:
I think the real point is that equal risks should receive equal coverage, regardless of how "sexy" the issue is. It's called objective journalism, and we don't have any.
Click to expand...
Yes. You said it differently, but this is what I said.
Dang, you tawk gud.:)
 
Old Geek said:
That's a strange answer. Having had some experience in the field of risk management, I'd say that his point is that resources would be better spent reducing murders by illegal aliens than by airplane crashes. And that perhaps media coverage is skewed towards highly visible but very unlikely events. Yeah, that's it.
Click to expand...

^^THIS^^
 
bullwinkle said:
I think the real point is that equal risks should receive equal coverage, regardless of how "sexy" the issue is. It's called objective journalism, and we don't have any.
Click to expand...

Nope, because journalists focus on what people most want to watch. That's why the near laser focus on the latest celebrity gossip for example, while all sorts of important things happen in the world.

Again, if you want to know why look around you and look in the mirror. Those who report the news aren't beholden to the truth. Oh, they can't bollux it without consequence, they can't overtly lie. But still, those who report the news are beholden to those who advertise on it. Thus they have to increase their audience as much as they can get away with. Hence the stories they report. One solution is public broadcasting, though that is truly anathema around here.

So look in the mirror and look around you. No one wants good, deep substantive and informed journalism. If that's what people wanted that's what you'd be watching. People want inane celebrity gossip punctuated by feel good stories involving family pets. Airplane crashes make for good stories, despite their rarity and inconsequentiality. Thus they get featured.
 
N918KT said:
I had a talk with one of my friends in an aviation major at my college who is currently trying to get his CFI. We had a little bit of a heated debate on drivers license medical with me being the pro side and him being a little bit of the con side. My friend said he does want to expand the DL medical but is worried about those people who would be unfit to fly now legally be allowed to fly. I explained Dr. Bruce's proposal of a super light sport with a CDL medical and he thinks that one is a good compromise.
Click to expand...


Where can I read the Dr. Bruce proposal you mentioned? In my experience, anything he writes is very much worth reading.
 
markb5900 said:
So someone with a medical won't take the same antihistamine and crash the plane?
I don't see the point in your argument?
What does taking an over the counter medication have to do with changing the current system?
Click to expand...


I think his point is the sensationalism commonly whipped up by the media.
 
MBDiagMan said:
Where can I read the Dr. Bruce proposal you mentioned? In my experience, anything he writes is very much worth reading.
Click to expand...

I think you can search around here on POA forums but he also posted about his idea on the AOPA Forums as well (must be an AOPA member to join the AOPA Forums though).

I think around the time AOPA was planning to announce their original AOPA/EAA 3rd class medical exemption, Dr. Bruce brought the idea up with Craig Fuller, but Fuller rejected his idea because the proposal does not go far enough and was more restrictive than what AOPA and EAA was proposing at the time. Dr. Bruce even brought it up with the Federal Air Surgeon and if I remember correctly, the Federal Air Surgeon would have accepted the CDL medical proposal.

I don't think Dr. Bruce wrote anything about his idea in writing officially.

Guys help me out here, am I correct on what I said about Dr. Bruce's CDL medical proposal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top