![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I have always wondered why the double standard for medical standards for
aviation and operation of autos. Who wants to pass someone at 55 (really 110) mph head on 4 feet away in a auto who might not be all there physically. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Just to update, I have not recieved a reply from the FAA's site and I believe
it has been over a week. I would consider asking someone in the club but think that it would be held against me |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
At 17:18 17 June 2004, Tony Verhulst wrote:
Nyal Williams wrote: I will not fly a glider while using medication that the FAA finds deleterious to the operation of a C-172. It is just common sense. It's not common sense bcause, as Rich pointed out, the decision as to what medication is 'deleterious to the operation of a C-172' is sometimes more political than medical. Tony V. Tony, I never meant to say the medical decision was common sense; as was correctly pointed out, regulations can never keep up with medical research. The common sense part is not to accept a risk that some attorney will read the PDR to an ignorant jury and persuade the jury to convict me of gross negligence. Have an accident and let the NTSB find traces of medication in your blood that are not proscribed for gliders, but are so for C-172s, and that jury will nail you. Because of the PDR and the disclaimers and side effects descriptions that come with all medications -- OTC or otherwise. 'You should have known, you with your expensive toys, flaunting them over a poor, unsuspecting public.' |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|