txflyer
En-Route
- Joined
- May 3, 2013
- Messages
- 4,509
- Location
- Wild Blue Yonder
- Display Name
Display name:
Fly it like you STOL it ♦
or more likely writing letters to foreign countries.
Yeah no joke.
What's good for the gander ...
or more likely writing letters to foreign countries.
Tin foil hat time, but if they ever just came out and said "no 3rd class reform/drivers license medical EVER", the GA market would go straight into the toilet. A metric crap load of planes for sale and no buyers .
I don't relish the decline of GA, but there it is. I doubt medical reform will slow it much.
Heck, my plane can almost do that now. If I slave my TruTrack autopilot to a highway in the sky approach (which my GRT Horizon HXr can create for any runway in North America -- even grass strips) it will fly me right to it. That last 100' will come, soon enough.
Can't imagine why you'd want any of that in that incredible airplane. With that view I''d want my eyes to be anywhere but staring at the panel. If I had a fun airplane like that I'd want little more than a six pack of instruments, and I doubt I'd spend much time looking at them.
Then people who just care about getting places, and don't like to fly just to fly, could get into it.
Yeah, but we have a much cheaper means of doing that already, and you only pay when you fly. And with seat back entertainment and WIFI onboard, all the gamer/phone people can surf themselves silly while the guys up front drive.
According to this article, bills with more cosponsors have less chance of passing than bills with none.Is this a bad sign? HR 3708 (General Aviation Pilot Protection Act of 2013) had 163 cosponsors and seems to have gone nowhere so far. This new bill only has 15 house cosponsors. I don't know D.C. politics, but from this perspective it doesn't look so good.
On second look, 3708 took 3 months or so to get most of the co-sponsors. 1062 was introduced less than a month ago.
Still, why did HR 3708 result in no action, and why are we hopeful that this one will? Enlighten a flyover state resident.
Is this a bad sign? HR 3708 (General Aviation Pilot Protection Act of 2013) had 163 cosponsors and seems to have gone nowhere so far. This new bill only has 15 house cosponsors. I don't know D.C. politics, but from this perspective it doesn't look so good.
On second look, 3708 took 3 months or so to get most of the co-sponsors. 1062 was introduced less than a month ago.
Still, why did HR 3708 result in no action, and why are we hopeful that this one will? Enlighten a flyover state resident.
Yes, but they have made commercial flying so very unpleasant that there surely must be a pretty big group of people thinking to themselves "Damn, if only I had a plane and could just GO."Yeah, but we have a much cheaper means of doing that already, and you only pay when you fly. And with seat back entertainment and WIFI onboard, all the gamer/phone people can surf themselves silly while the guys up front drive.
First, you can always turn it off.Can't imagine why you'd want any of that in that incredible airplane. With that view I''d want my eyes to be anywhere but staring at the panel. If I had a fun airplane like that I'd want little more than a six pack of instruments, and I doubt I'd spend much time looking at them.
Yeah, but we like to fly. His point (or my understanding of it) is that the only way to grow GA activity is to get all that cool stuff in the cockpit. Then people who just care about getting places, and don't like to fly just to fly, could get into it.
I don't have access to Dr Chien's financial records, but he has abandoned his anesthetic and pain practice in favor of aero-medical so I can assume that it is financially worth his while.
Dr Chien has always been opposed to third class medical reform.
Other doctors seem to have survived. Like I said I don't know his reasons, but we do know that he currently has an aeromedical practice and (presumably) makes money from doing pilot medicals. Nothing wrong with that at all, but a strong motivator to resist abolition.I don't think he does it for the money. What he charges probably barely covers his costs.
He retired from his full time practice because of the paperwork nightmare and liability issues caused by the onrushing freight train known as Obamacare.
Defending it ad infinitum will not make it untrue.Repeating this false charge ad infinitum will not make it true. Give it a rest.
Other doctors seem to have survived. Like I said I don't know his reasons, but we do know that he currently has an aeromedical practice and (presumably) makes money from doing pilot medicals. Nothing wrong with that at all, but a strong motivator to resist abolition.
I do not have, nor do I wish to have any knowledge at all of the good doctor's personal finances. I am sure that in the years when he was able to make a very good living from his vocation he did so and, by his own admission, when Obamacare threatened that lucrative income he decided to work in a different area of medicine.Do you really think that he has not provided for his retirement over his lucrative years of private, non-FAA practice, do you realize he no doubt has a helpful military pension for his years of dedicated service? He isn't doing it for the money.
The red board is largely an irrelevance. At the time of writing this the red board has a total of 44 participants, this board has around 1000. Dr Chien has the backing of AOPA to ban anyone he likes who upsets him on the Medical Forum. Here he does not enjoy that privilege so he claims not to visit here and only posts anonymously.Your continual harping on Bruce Chien betrays a personal vendetta and attack that has no place on POA or anywhere else. Your banning on the red board was completely justified and probably needs permanence.
...I actually don't have a vendetta against him
Too bad you only know him from his online persona. In real life, he's quite capable of arguing the point in a reasoned way. In fact, he's quite a charming, likeable guy in person. As others have said, there's a Jekyll/Hyde duality there that's hard to fathom. I don't know him well enough in person to say for sure that his "Hyde" side doesn't come out there from time to time, but so far the only setting where I've seen it is online, and particularly in the RB medical forum. And he's far from the only person I know who comes across totally differently online vs in person. You're the psychologist, Stephen, have there been any studies of this phenomenon? I'd be astonished if there haven't.I just sometimes wish he could put the God complex aside and act like a mere mortal who when challenged could argue the point instead of throwing a tantrum or (where he has the authority) implementing a ban.
And he's far from the only person I know who comes across totally differently online vs in person. You're the psychologist, Stephen, have there been any studies of this phenomenon? I'd be astonished if there haven't.
I've met Bruce. I like Bruce a lot.
I've not met Jay. I don't like Jay much.
But I must admit that this is a very accurate assessment.
These days Dr Bruce only posts on this board as 'anonymous' so we will never really know what he thinks about it.
Stephen.
...It's got advantages for those with medical issues, or potential medical issues, that don't want to lose their flying privileges...
...The standard of having a drivers license is ridiculous. I see patients with Alzheimer's that have valid drivers license, people with uncontrolled seizure disorders, psychiatric issues and uncontrolled diabetes....same thing.
The current proposal would allow non-commercial VFR and IFR ops, in airplanes up to 6000# and six seats, to be operated by pilots without a medical certificate and frankly, that's too risky.
I've been researching accident statistics for the past 5 year period and the number of fatal accidents that are contributed to by medical issues or medications that pilots shouldn't be taking is not insignificant.
I read one where the pilot took off IFR, his medical expired 2 years prior and he crashed and killed himself and a couple of other hapless people that I am sure never realized that he shouldn't have been flying.
Another was flying on an anti-depressant, a muscle relaxer and a controlled pain medication, crashed, killing himself and passengers.
There needs to be a check and balance, even if it's your own PCP signing off on a form listing disqualifying conditions and medications that you have to keep in your possession.
If anything, the best would be the PCP option. Who better to know you[']r[e] relatively fit, what medications you take, etc.
I know...everyone has their own point of view. In keeping with human nature, most don't consider the other side of the coin, only what they want. As far as the proposal, these tidbits came from the AOPA website. I wouldn't think that gout would affect anyone's ability to fly...though an acute episode would be inconvenient.
The people on the dangerous meds can't be stopped because they won't report this to the AME. If anything, the best would be the PCP option. Who better to know your relatively fit, what medications you take, etc. The Third class medical was never really effective.
There are real dangers, but like I said...people are people. Everyone thinks they're the exception, or that it won't happen to them. They're not and eventually it could. That's reality. Sport and light GA aircraft do have limited damage potential to be sure, but Sport privileges limit the risk to others by restricting the number of passengers...recreational privileges by the same standard...OK, 1 passenger, non-complex, non-high performance, day VFR only...that would be lower risk too. However there needs to be something.
In 5 years about 3.3% of fatal accidents were categorized as medically related. It would be nice to reduce those. Obviously the FAA 3rd class doesn't work, but I sure that there could be some process that might catch some of these without disenfranchising some pilots that should otherwise be fit to fly.
Like I said, to a hammer everything seems like a nail.
Bet if you met him you'd like him more. Same with Ed, Me, and probably a bunch of others - There's so much context missing in an internet post that it's probably a lie to call it communicating.
I got my first response back from my senator....
Dear Ben,
Thank you for taking the time to contact me about aviation issues. It is good to hear from you.
I appreciate hearing your support for S. 571, the Pilot's Bill of Rights 2 Act, introduced by Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK). You will be pleased to know that I am an original cosponsor of this bill. On February 25, 2015, S. 571was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Ben, too often, our government settles for more regulations rather than smarter regulations. Americans in the aviation community and across our nation should not have their lives and livelihoods impacted by unnecessary, burdensome federal regulations. Please know that I will keep your support for this legislation in mind as I continue my work in the Senate.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact me. I value your input.
John Barrasso, M.D.
United States Senator
I practice medicine and I am a CFII and I see both sides. Basically, the push here it to remove any medical oversight for pilots flying non-commercially. It's got advantages for those with medical issues, or potential medical issues, that don't want to lose their flying privileges, but there are disadvantages too. I understand the supporters because, now approaching my mid-50's, I don't want to get in a situation were I couldn't fly, but on the downside, people being what they are, hide much of their real medical history from the AMEs and self-certification has been an abysmal failure. The standard of having a drivers license is ridiculous. I see patients with Alzheimer's that have valid drivers license, people with uncontrolled seizure disorders, psychiatric issues and uncontrolled diabetes....same thing. The current proposal would allow non-commercial VFR and IFR ops, in airplanes up to 6000# and six seats, to be operated by pilots without a medical certificate and frankly, that's too risky. I've been researching accident statistics for the past 5 year period and the number of fatal accidents that are contributed to by medical issues or medications that pilots shouldn't be taking is not insignificant. I read one where the pilot took off IFR, his medical expired 2 years prior and he crashed and killed himself and a couple of other hapless people that I am sure never realized that he shouldn't have been flying. Another was flying on an anti-depressant, a muscle relaxer and a controlled pain medication, crashed, killing himself and passengers. There needs to be a check and balance, even if it's your own PCP signing off on a form listing disqualifying conditions and medications that you have to keep in your possession. Letting people fly 6 people around in a 3 ton aircraft in IFR is a less than ideal situation. Congress will do whatever gets them re-election money and support...whether it makes sense of not. There it is, but unlike a whole lot of pilots, when I think I would be unsafe to fly, I'll sell the plane. If I don't have a medical condition that affects my judgment, but then who would know? See?
It's just more government regulation that fails to do what it is supposed to.
One of the problems with the 3rd class medical or any other "protective" measure is the eliement of common sense. Society has become so pedantic that we are willing to take draconian measures to go after that last 1% of risk. Many of the hot button political topics are of a nature that suggests ANY risk is too much. I believe this stems from our unwillingness to accept the random nature of life, which can never be fully satisfied even if we put people in plastic safety bubbles. The best answer I can think of is for our leaders to quit pandering to every call for increased safety and start talking about balance and common sense. From that stance we could begin to eliminate useless things like the 3rd class medical.
However there needs to be something.
In 5 years about 3.3% of fatal accidents were categorized as medically related.