JeffDG
Touchdown! Greaser!
I wasn't necessarily suggesting you...you're too valuable in what you do! More suggestion a general course of action.
I wasn't necessarily suggesting you...you're too valuable in what you do! More suggestion a general course of action.
There are other factors there as well, the people flying VQ planes privately are quite wealthy for the most part, and you have a total population in Aus that is around 21MM. Then there is the factor of public medicine. If you can't pass a medical, you keep going to the doc till it gets fixed.
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
Well, Prof. W, you and I both know that the burden of proof in an area where proper gathering of data is unfunded is....well quite a burden. Until then, our elected congress critters will continue to stand up and say, "We will tolerate no more accidents!" and "I want the guy who let that man fly his airplane into Newark before my committee!" and "IF the State of Michigan can do it (pic on the airman cert) why can't the FAA? (John Dingle-bingle, D-Mi)"....well you get it.
Actually the congress critters passed the PBOR which explicitly calls for a GAO audit to get the med branch back in their box.
The medical exemption will pass, more for budget savings than anything else, but it will pass......
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
Whatever you say.....do you have any idea who will be the expert auditor? A committee of the Aviation subcommittee, none of whom know anything about aviation. And so who will they have testify? YGBFSM.
What will happen is the same thing that happened with part 135. It will get held hostage. SI's will take 120 days. 135 apps will take three years instead of two.
No congresscritter will want to be known as the representative that voted against safety. Michigan Rep Dingle is a prime example. of how this works.
"I wish it were I wish it were I wish it were....and so it must be!" Yuh.
What will happen is the same thing that happened with part 135. It will get held hostage. SI's will take 120 days. 135 apps will take three years instead of two.
No congresscritter will want to be known as the representative that voted against safety. Michigan Rep Dingle is a prime example. of how this works.
"I wish it were I wish it were I wish it were....and so it must be!" Yuh.
RJM62
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 13,157
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Display Name
Display name:
Geek on the Hill
This is one of the problems with a democratic republic form of government that Plato pointed out in Republic: Demagoguery replaces wisdom (which is actually the rough translation of "politics") in determining public policy, as politicians pander to the whims of the masses rather than thoughtfully considering issues.
It's also why the CDL medical actually makes some sort of sense, to address Michael's question. It creates the appearance of public safety, and can also be justified on the basis of economics. Low-risk aviators who fly little airplanes for non-commercial purposes with few souls on board could use that zero-cost (to the taxpayers) option, freeing CAMI free to handle the cases of airmen whose aviation activities have more potential public safety significance.
It also would have some actual safety benefit, even if merely because it would force aviators using that option to see a doctor every year or two, potentially alerting them to conditions they didn't even know they had so they could get them treated -- without those conditions (literally) creating a federal case.
So there's certainly enough good about the CDL medical for it to be "marketed" by our elected
A free-for-all, on the other hand, would be impossible to sell. No legislator is going to sign off on that. It's just not politically viable.
-Rich
steingar
Taxi to Parking
Can't disagree with you Dr. C, just rubs my rhubarb when folks ignore data. Especially folks in power.
Data and reality mean nothing in a country where the electorate is dumb as a box of rocks and the media rules the day with emotion raising sound bites.
edmeis3
Filing Flight Plan
Sounds good to me
I don't fly if there are reasons not to, because I fly for fun. I'm not worried about those who do, because it's my responsibility to stay out of their way. Those who think that small givebacks on 1st and 2nd amendment rights won't result in bigger ones need only look at the FAA---pilot's rights are arbitrarily restricted based upon minuscule probabilities that are rooted in flawed, statistically-biased analysis, with pilots given the impossible task of proving a negative. Rant off...
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
Folks in power do whatever the sheeple take to stay in power. Education is NOT high on the list.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
I would suggest that folks watch how the gun control debate is going down - it is a perfect example of how the system you described works in-practice.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
Yup, banning assault weapons when most of the violence is carried out with hand guns. I feel really badly for firearm enthusiasts, but I do think it's inevitable. More people means more wackos doing more publicly horrible things. The politicians have to be seen as "doing something".
They'll regulate us out of business the same way. I just hope I don't live to see it, though I think I will.
U
Unregistered
Guest
I am 62 years old and just want to fly day VFR for fun. I am patiently waiting for the FAA to make a decison on the medical exemption petition. Has anyone heard of a date yet?
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
This is one of the dis-services of Craig Fuller to Airmen. It has no chance of adoptation. It is my belief that (formerly from the inside) that the leadership desired to cement the need for AOPA into place. Why he didn't go for the internally recommended Super-light-sport-with-state-CDL otherwise doesn't make sense.
Administratively, the largest group of airmen ever "exempted" from anything is SEVEN.
When wanting to sail into a 360 wind, one does not assume heading 360. One assumes heading 045, tacks back, and eventually gets there.
Get thee into an Aeronca.
Administratively, the largest group of airmen ever "exempted" from anything is SEVEN.
When wanting to sail into a 360 wind, one does not assume heading 360. One assumes heading 045, tacks back, and eventually gets there.
Get thee into an Aeronca.
Old Geek
Pattern Altitude
Is there any significant difference between a CDL and a 3rd class medical? One of my employees used to drive trucks and from what he said, it sounded pretty much the same.
Geico266
Touchdown! Greaser!
Fly LSA.
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
I don't know about your state. But in mine, the family doc signs a form that has nine organ systems. Each is checked off as "no disease"; it there is he has to specify and sign that the condition is controlled. You have to see 20/40. We even had assn. general counsel support from Yodice for this suggestion.
MUCH simpler, gets the liability and responsiblity out of Washington.
Last edited:
Old Geek
Pattern Altitude
California here. My truck driver employee said BP, urine glucose, heart rate and sound, vision and hearing. Just like the 3rd class. OTOH, being able to resolve stuff like routine hypertension without a bunch of tests would be a big improvement.
Either that or fly the course you want with the speed you want and stay under the radar.
pemora
Filing Flight Plan
Here are my questions with the (wrong) assumption that one of the missions of the FAA is to promote civil aviation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Act_of_1958
"The CAA continued to have authority for air traffic control, safety, and promotion of civil aviation." (Does anyone see a recent mission statement from the FAA that states that their mission is to promote aviation?)
Are limitations placed on pilots for the reasons of public safety? If not, why not? Any limitations should be based on scientific study and risk assessments.
Shouldn't the public safety risk vary with the size and amount of fuel that an aircraft can carry? (Gliders safer than balloons safer than ultralights safer than LSA safer than small then large airplanes)
If a (new) category of airplane is deemed OK to fly during the day or VFR conditions, how does the public risk change if it is night or in IMC conditions?
Shouldn't the risk to public safety vary with the type of possible pilot medical conditions? For example, flying with a condition that is pilot regulated in a sparse area shouldn't be considered the same as flying in a more densely populated area (with well-defined and possibly charted areas)?
If flying is a science, then apply some science and risk assessments and not just seat-of-your pants politicking.
S. Morgan
"The CAA continued to have authority for air traffic control, safety, and promotion of civil aviation." (Does anyone see a recent mission statement from the FAA that states that their mission is to promote aviation?)
Are limitations placed on pilots for the reasons of public safety? If not, why not? Any limitations should be based on scientific study and risk assessments.
Shouldn't the public safety risk vary with the size and amount of fuel that an aircraft can carry? (Gliders safer than balloons safer than ultralights safer than LSA safer than small then large airplanes)
If a (new) category of airplane is deemed OK to fly during the day or VFR conditions, how does the public risk change if it is night or in IMC conditions?
Shouldn't the risk to public safety vary with the type of possible pilot medical conditions? For example, flying with a condition that is pilot regulated in a sparse area shouldn't be considered the same as flying in a more densely populated area (with well-defined and possibly charted areas)?
If flying is a science, then apply some science and risk assessments and not just seat-of-your pants politicking.
S. Morgan
RJM62
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 13,157
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Display Name
Display name:
Geek on the Hill
steingar
Taxi to Parking
You might try reviewing some of the posts in this thread between myself and the inestimable Dr. Chien.
aviatingfool
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2012
- Messages
- 201
- Display Name
Display name:
aviatingfool
in·es·ti·ma·ble
/inˈestəməbəl/
Adjective
Too great to calculate.
Synonyms
invaluable - priceless - incalculable
steingar
Taxi to Parking
Unsurprising that you use a dictionary to read what I write. You might try talking to some of the aviators Bruce has got back in the air before waving your little flag.
flyingcheesehead
Taxi to Parking
BIG difference. CDL medical is pretty much you're warm, you have most of your limbs (I think you have to have at least one arm), etc. They last two years, or if you have high blood pressure or a few other things they can give you one that lasts for less.
No crazy expensive tests after cardiac events, no checking your entire medical history, no listing off every doctor visit, etc. Pee in a cup, get your eyes and vitals checked, turn around and get the whisper test for hearing, and you're done.
RJM62
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 13,157
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Display Name
Display name:
Geek on the Hill
All of the science- and logic-based arguments overlook one very important reality, namely, that one of the utmost priorities of any bureaucrat (or of the bureaucracy itself, for that matter) is to avoid accountability. This has been true pretty much forever, but in recent years has become even more important.
The reason is that too many of the most recent generation of American adults suffer from excessive aversion to risk. They want a perfect world, where nothing bad ever happens to anyone. Worse yet, they actually believe such a world is attainable -- a belief that those of us who live in the real world recognize as clearly delusional.
Unfortunately, our politicians are all too happy to pander to delusions in the name of votes. Whenever some tragedy occurs, they race each other to the nearest stumps or soapboxes, from whereupon they proclaim promises to enact legislation to assure that "[fill in bad thing here] never happens again." Of course, they know it's bull****; but since when has that stopped a politician?
So picture the following scenario: A middle-aged pilot has a valid medical, which included an ECG because of his age. Everything checked out fine, and no disqualifying conditions were discovered. Nonetheless, he suffers a massive heart attack while flying, immediately loses consciousness, falls forward onto the yoke, and crashes into a schoolyard. No one is hurt (not even the pilot, who was already dead by the time he crashed), but the incident draws wide publicity nonetheless.
Now listen: Do you hear the stampede of footsteps? That's politicians racing for the nearest stumps and soapboxes all across this great land to promise legislation to insure that such a thing will "never happen again." However, the NTSB report will eventually reveal that as far as anyone knew, the pilot was in good health and had a current medical, and there certainly was no reason to suspect that he would suffer an MI in flight.
Now, even idiot voters know that it's impossible to predict every single heart attack. Most of them, in fact, will know someone who keeled over dead shortly after receiving a "clean bill of health," so the bureaucracy will be pretty much off the hook. Everything reasonably possible was done to insure the airman's fitness, so no heads need roll in OKC.
But now let's assume that the pilot is question was flying under some regulatory provision intended to allow pilots in less-than-perfect health to fly nonetheless, whether it be a DL medical, a "fourth-class" medical as Canada has, a CDL medical, or whatever. Some journalist who actually has a brain and is capable of independent thought (yes, there are a few of them left) does a little research -- and next thing you know:
So... whatever eventually is done (if anything) has to be done in such a way that it at appears to enhance public safety -- or at the very least, doesn't endanger the public.
In a practical sense, I suspect that if the medical requirements for domestic, non-commercial flight were abolished altogether, little would change. Most pilots don't want to screw the pooch, after all.
In fact, in a practical sense, if the entire third-class medical requirement for domestic flight were tossed out the window in favor of a law requiring only that every private pilot get a thorough physical exam every year, and discuss the aviation ramifications of the results with his or her personal physician, I doubt that small airplanes would suddenly start raining down around us.
Combine that with some provision to allow physicians to report pilots who were patently unfit to fly, and I truly believe we'd get the same amount of safety at a fraction of the cost. So see? I can fantasize, too! The reason it's a fantasy is that, politically speaking, it will never fly.
And that's what it really comes down to in the end. Any considerations of science, statistics, studies, and common sense will take a back seat to ass-covering and avoidance of accountability, simply because that's the reality of how government works.
Still, all these suggestions do make for interesting discussion. Just don't hold your breath waiting for any of them to become reality.
-Rich
The reason is that too many of the most recent generation of American adults suffer from excessive aversion to risk. They want a perfect world, where nothing bad ever happens to anyone. Worse yet, they actually believe such a world is attainable -- a belief that those of us who live in the real world recognize as clearly delusional.
Unfortunately, our politicians are all too happy to pander to delusions in the name of votes. Whenever some tragedy occurs, they race each other to the nearest stumps or soapboxes, from whereupon they proclaim promises to enact legislation to assure that "[fill in bad thing here] never happens again." Of course, they know it's bull****; but since when has that stopped a politician?
So picture the following scenario: A middle-aged pilot has a valid medical, which included an ECG because of his age. Everything checked out fine, and no disqualifying conditions were discovered. Nonetheless, he suffers a massive heart attack while flying, immediately loses consciousness, falls forward onto the yoke, and crashes into a schoolyard. No one is hurt (not even the pilot, who was already dead by the time he crashed), but the incident draws wide publicity nonetheless.
Now listen: Do you hear the stampede of footsteps? That's politicians racing for the nearest stumps and soapboxes all across this great land to promise legislation to insure that such a thing will "never happen again." However, the NTSB report will eventually reveal that as far as anyone knew, the pilot was in good health and had a current medical, and there certainly was no reason to suspect that he would suffer an MI in flight.
Now, even idiot voters know that it's impossible to predict every single heart attack. Most of them, in fact, will know someone who keeled over dead shortly after receiving a "clean bill of health," so the bureaucracy will be pretty much off the hook. Everything reasonably possible was done to insure the airman's fitness, so no heads need roll in OKC.
But now let's assume that the pilot is question was flying under some regulatory provision intended to allow pilots in less-than-perfect health to fly nonetheless, whether it be a DL medical, a "fourth-class" medical as Canada has, a CDL medical, or whatever. Some journalist who actually has a brain and is capable of independent thought (yes, there are a few of them left) does a little research -- and next thing you know:
THIS JUST IN. INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER TED SOUNDBITE UNCOVERS SHOCKING FACT: PILOT WHO PLOWED PLANE INTO SCHOOLYARD MAY NOT HAVE BEEN FIT TO FLY! Story at 11.
Now the situation takes on a different tone, as politicians across the land again race for stumps and soapboxes, promising to decapitate (figuratively, of course) the "idiots" at the FAA who knowingly put into place an alternative means for individuals who didn't meet the medical requirements to "endanger the public" by flying anyway.
So... whatever eventually is done (if anything) has to be done in such a way that it at appears to enhance public safety -- or at the very least, doesn't endanger the public.
In a practical sense, I suspect that if the medical requirements for domestic, non-commercial flight were abolished altogether, little would change. Most pilots don't want to screw the pooch, after all.
In fact, in a practical sense, if the entire third-class medical requirement for domestic flight were tossed out the window in favor of a law requiring only that every private pilot get a thorough physical exam every year, and discuss the aviation ramifications of the results with his or her personal physician, I doubt that small airplanes would suddenly start raining down around us.
Combine that with some provision to allow physicians to report pilots who were patently unfit to fly, and I truly believe we'd get the same amount of safety at a fraction of the cost. So see? I can fantasize, too! The reason it's a fantasy is that, politically speaking, it will never fly.
And that's what it really comes down to in the end. Any considerations of science, statistics, studies, and common sense will take a back seat to ass-covering and avoidance of accountability, simply because that's the reality of how government works.
Still, all these suggestions do make for interesting discussion. Just don't hold your breath waiting for any of them to become reality.
-Rich
Last edited:
JeffDG
Touchdown! Greaser!
Concur entirely with your assessment of Dr. B. He's given more to the aviation community than hundreds of others combined.
RJM62
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 13,157
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Display Name
Display name:
Geek on the Hill
aviatingfool
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2012
- Messages
- 201
- Display Name
Display name:
aviatingfool
He has helped some guys keep flying and given cancer screening advice that could get some people dead. Obviously you've made your choice on what's more important and so have I. Add me to your ignore list as I have both of you.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
Please point out Bruce's dangerous cancer screening advice. I hope someone not on your ignore list quotes this, so you see and respond to it. I am far from ignorant about cancer biology, as many on this board can tell you. I'd like to see where Bruce got it so far wrong.
RJM62
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 13,157
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Display Name
Display name:
Geek on the Hill
flyingcheesehead
Taxi to Parking
JeffDG
Touchdown! Greaser!
Sweet!
I don't know that I've been added to anyone's "Ignore" list before, and I hang out in the Spin Zone!
I don't know that I've been added to anyone's "Ignore" list before, and I hang out in the Spin Zone!
steingar
Taxi to Parking
I put the whole Spin Zone on ignore for awhile there. Have to admit, first time I've been been put on ignore for the use of the world "inestimable".
Last edited:
PilotAlan
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,775
- Display Name
Display name:
PilotAlan
I'll try to keep my mourning over being on that list to a minimum.
-Rich
He's been on my ignore list since about post #5.
RJM62
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 13,157
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Display Name
Display name:
Geek on the Hill
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
What David Viglierchio (Aviating Fool) doesn't realize is that there always will be a group of individuals for whom agressive seeking of a prostate cancer will save. But if you apply that to a population as awhole, you will be doing an unconscionalbe # of negative biopsies. The current recommendations of the NIH taskfore are, population wide, in favor of manual digital exam and periodic but not annual PSA. We'll do too much overall harm that way.
This isn't medical advice, it's public policy.
Also it's of negative value, David to harass me through my professional email as you have thrice done in the past.
PilotAlan
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,775
- Display Name
Display name:
PilotAlan
Doc, just put him on your ignore list. There's nothing to be gained by feeding the troll, and we don't need an explanation to know who's who in this matter.
RJM62
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 13,157
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Display Name
Display name:
Geek on the Hill
Just out of curiosity, doc...
Why would annual PSA be inappropriate? My guess is that it's because it might lead to the unnecessary biopsies?
The PSA certainly seems less invasive to me than the DRE... which, incidentally, is why I started liking female doctors once I hit my 50's. They tend to have smaller fingers.
-Rich