![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 1, 11:38*am, wrote:
Even a broken clock is right twice a day... Yes, but a broken clock "been there and done it twice a day" Mx hasn't been through a medical exam so he is not qualified to even know. I never took a medical to play MSFS. I have had an exam that essentially was place a mirror under my nose, I'm breathing, I came in the office so I can see, and I am talking to the examiner so I can hear to the full fledge "the way it's suppose to be done exam" hence me bringing up Mx's lack of qualification on saying it's too strict or not. He has no clue what happens behind the closed doors. IMHO for private and below I agree. There already exists the obligation to self certify before each flight and there is nothing that requires one to run to a doctor to get evaluated when you get sick or injured. Agree and this applies to sports as well to PPL. What I would propose is that the FAA medical exam for private and below be replaced with a requirement to get a physical from a real doctor, any doctor, once a year, which everyone should do anyway, and based on that you self certify your general fitness to fly. My take has always been, the damage on the ground will most likely be the same whether it be a 110 hp plane or a 180. So, why not convert the medical requirement based on equipment rather then certificate type would be my take. (I see you said this later on) As a bonus, most insurance will pay for an ordinary physical but not a FAA physical. Very true, but in my case, since I never have been the doctoring type, my medicals every two years have been "life saving" literally and figuratively. What you suggest essentially would cost me twice as much since I never meet my insurance deductable. I'm on the fence where some ratings are involved as in should the current FAA medical requirement be kept to hold and exercise ratings such as IFR, jets or over 12,000 pounds. Yep, was replying as I was reading, so yes, as I said above (and you), more logical to base the medical requirement on equipment being operated. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Question on the medical... | Richard | Piloting | 25 | March 29th 06 04:41 PM |
Yet another medical question | Rachel | Piloting | 13 | February 5th 06 10:44 PM |
Medical question | Michael | Piloting | 10 | December 7th 05 06:58 PM |
FAA medical question | G. Sylvester | Piloting | 17 | March 12th 05 11:13 AM |
Question Medical | Captain Wubba | Piloting | 5 | June 11th 04 05:12 AM |