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

Allan,

I do believe you have missed an important point in
this discussion. You are arguing the point that the
CFRs make no statement about medical factors for glider
pilots and thus you cannot be held liable for violating
the CFRs. You might well be 100% correct. (NB, though,
that the law, regulations, and their interpretation
are not always logical.)

The point is well taken that in the event of a serious
accident involving life, limb, or substantial financial
damage, a criminal and/or civil trial could ensue.
In such a case, a clever lawyer will undoubtedly bring
in the medical requirements for SEL pilots, set them
before a jury, and demand a common-sense decision.
He will not be arguing before the FAA, nor the NTSB.
If he can sway that jury, said pilot will have lost
his assets.



At 21:30 15 June 2004, Adp wrote:
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
igy.com...
ADP wrote: