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

No Chris,

It is simply the tendency of some to frame their interpretations based on
their world view
and not realize that there are as many world views as there are people.

Since I am not immune to that tendency, you get to learn about my prejudices
as well.

Seemingly every time someone submits a question that involves FARs,
responses come
out of the woodwork that appear to come from that room full of monkeys
trying to
reproduce Shakespeare's plays.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised since, for 228 years, folks haven't
figured out what
the US constitution means.

Unfortunately, you are not stating facts, you are stating assumptions based
upon
faulty interpretations of the FARs.

There is no negligence if there is no standard to base it on.

There is nothing "Politically Correct" about my opinion.

A case in point: 14 CFR 91.175(c) specifies the rules for takeoff and
landing under IFR.
Ignoring for the moment part 121 and part 135 rules, the specification for
descending
below MDA or DH describes "flight visibility". This is not a RVR value or
measured
value, this is the visibility that the pilot sees from the cockpit. So, if
the pilot can see well enough
to land at DH or MDA, then the pilot may land regardless of the reported
visibility.
(This assertion ought to be enough to start a 300 response thread.)
Nevertheless, it is a fact.

The controlling FAR for glider pilot health gives the pilot, and no one
else, the authority
and the responsibility to determine his fitness for flight.

If there are those who abuse this authority, then that is their problem.
Since I do not
and I presume you do not, abuse this authority, then what is the point of
trotting out
potential lawyer threats?

You state that you know of many who abuse this authority. I know no one who
does.
Which of us is closer to reality? I don't know and. I suspect, neither do
you.

Now, while I reach around for that bug, let us go fly and have fun.

Allan




"Chris OCallaghan" wrote in message
om...
Gosh, Allan, did a bug crawl up someplace private? I know at least a
dozen pilots who continue to fly with health problems that make them a
danger to themselves and others. Most continue to fly without
incident. Others have broken gliders, themsleves, and in one case I
know of, another person.

You state that you know of many who abuse this authority. I know no one who
does.
Which of us is closer to reality?

OK, how about max gross weight and seat limits? Just hang around my gliderport
for three hours during any Saturday or Sunday when we have flight instruction
and you will routinely see people exceeding the max gross capacity of the
aircraft. Their solution is to rip out the placards that showed the carrying
capacity.

You're lucky if you fly at a place where PICs don't abuse their authority.

Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ
illspam

Jim,
I certainly can't argue with that assertion. I was only referencing medical
issues.
I suspect that there is not an older Grob 103 that does not fly overgross
with two people
onboard.

I'm also not saying that glider (or any) pilots are angels, but to
arbitrarily limit your
ability to fly based on false assumption does not enhance your enjoyment of
flight.
I may be in the minority here, I fly because I enjoy it -no, I love it.
Perhaps I can find a news group called "The joy of flying".

Allan


"Jim Vincent" wrote in message
...
You state that you know of many who abuse this authority. I know no one
who
does.
Which of us is closer to reality?

OK, how about max gross weight and seat limits? Just hang around my
gliderport
for three hours during any Saturday or Sunday when we have flight
instruction
and you will routinely see people exceeding the max gross capacity of the
aircraft. Their solution is to rip out the placards that showed the
carrying
capacity.

You're lucky if you fly at a place where PICs don't abuse their authority.

Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ
illspam

ADP wrote:

You state that you know of many who abuse this authority.
I know no one who does.
Which of us is closer to reality?
I don't know and, I suspect, neither do you.

Now...let us go fly and have fun.


But, that's not the purpose of a NewsGroup -- to Fly and Have Fun. The purpose
of a NG is to balance one's own prejudices against everyone else's, or, in my
case, to enlighten the benighted. ;

There are those who do abuse their "authority", both in the power- and in the
glider-world. We have witnessed here recently individuals with an admittedly
questionable grasp of that which the rest of us loosely agree is reality,
stumbling about verbally while hoping against hope for someone to give them
permission to do that which even they know is wrong.

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."



Jack

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
gy.com...
ADP wrote:

"(b) Operations that do not require a medical certificate.

For operations provided for in Sec. 61.23(b) of this part, a person
shall not act as pilot in command, or in any other capacity as a
required pilot flight crewmember, while that person knows or has
reason to know of any medical condition that would make the person
unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner."

How much exegesis does it take to figure out that even though you
don't have to maitain a medical certificate, you cannot act as PIC
under the regs if you have a medical condition that hinders your
ability to operate an aircraft in a safe manner. A pilot who has
corrected vision and chooses not to wear glasses or contacts is
busting the regs. Note also that the reg includes not just knowledge,
but "reason to know of." You may not know what infrimity you have, but
ringing in your ears, blood in your urine, shortness of breath all
constitute "reason to know of."

My goodness, this is an exceedingly boring exercise. Arguing the
obvious. Please, someone find some nuance!

We're done here Chris. Assuming that you know what exegesis means!

Go back to sleep!

Allan

"Chris OCallaghan" wrote in message
m...
"(b) Operations that do not require a medical certificate.


How much exegesis does it take to figure out that even though you
don't have to maitain a medical certificate, you cannot act as PIC
under the regs if you have a medical condition that hinders your
ability to operate an aircraft in a safe manner. A pilot who has
corrected vision and chooses not to wear glasses or contacts is
busting the regs. Note also that the reg includes not just knowledge,
but "reason to know of." You may not know what infrimity you have, but
ringing in your ears, blood in your urine, shortness of breath all
constitute "reason to know of."

My goodness, this is an exceedingly boring exercise. Arguing the
obvious. Please, someone find some nuance!

Interesting, you couch you arguments very reasonably, then turn them
on their ear by going dogmatic. Yes, I know pilots who continue fly
even though they suffer from medical problems that put them and others
at risk. They are intelligent people who suffer the same psychological
problems we all face when presented with questions of mortality.
DENIAL. Not only do I know glider pilots who should give up the sport
for their own sakes as well as others, I know power pilots who seek
out medical examiners who are less than rigorous in pursuing their
responisbilities to the FAA and to the public.

We all love to fly. We all want to keep doing it as long as we can.
And from my point of view, we should all be able to do whatever we
want, unless our pursuit of happiness is likely to cause harm to
others. There has to be some objective measure. For now, there is
none. And since there isn't, those harmed should have some recourse. I
know of only one way to achieve this. My suggestion is that pilots who
have reason to think twice based on health, should think thrice based
on the financial well-being of their heirs. Hopefully, it will help
them to make more reasonable, prudent decisions.

Boring is not the half of it.
Responding to you Chris is like responding to a wall.

Hmm....

dog·mat·ic [dawg máttik, dog máttik]
or dog·mat·i·cal [dawg máttik'l, dog máttik'l]
adj
1. expressing rigid opinions: prone to expressing strongly held beliefs and
opinions


While I plead guilty to having strongly held beliefs, I fail to see where my
replies
are dogmatic. In fact, I can't understand how this thread degenerated into
making
assumptions about what lawyers and juries might or might not do.

The question was, can you soar while taking unapproved legal drugs?

The answer is that there are no unapproved legal drugs for glider pilots.

Ergo, you can soar while taking any or all legal drugs.

These are facts, not opinions.

Is it wise to fly while taking these drugs? I don't know and it is not for
me to determine.
It is for the individual glider pilot to determine. Why is this fact so
difficult to comprehend.

Why is individual responsibility so frightening to so many? Perhaps you are
all
hoping to spill hot coffee into your collective laps and have Mc Donalds buy
you a new glider.

You state that you know many pilots who fly while incapacitated in some way.
Does this not make you culpable for keeping this knowledge secret? Suppose
they have an accident?
According to all of the arm-chair lawyers on this group, you would be
crucified by a jury
should they learn that you had such knowledge.

I think we've wrung about all we can out of this thread.

So, in the interests of glider pilots everywhere,
fly safe and may you all find 10k thermals when you look for them.

Allan



"Chris OCallaghan" wrote in message
om...
Interesting, you couch you arguments very reasonably, then turn them
on their ear by going dogmatic. Yes, I know pilots who continue fly
even though they suffer from medical problems that put them and others
at risk. They are intelligent people who suffer the same psychological
problems we all face when presented with questions of mortality.
DENIAL. Not only do I know glider pilots who should give up the sport
for their own sakes as well as others, I know power pilots who seek
out medical examiners who are less than rigorous in pursuing their
responisbilities to the FAA and to the public.

them to make more reasonable, prudent decisions.

I just happened to have a random urinalysis and breath alcohol test today.
I get these wonderful whiz quizzes because I fly Part 135 charter. I asked
the technician if mouthwash or the Listerine tabs would register or give a
reading exceeding legal limits. She said maybe initially for the mouthwash,
but not on the second required test which would happen several minutes
later.

She also noted that several over the counter cold medicines contain lots of
alcohol and will give you an alcohol level that would cause someone to be
charged with drunk driving. So there is a completely legal drug that you
should not use if piloting any aircraft (airplane, glider, or ballon). The
package is clearly labeled, but many people ignore the warnings. They do
not believe that these "do not drive or operate machinery" warnings apply to
them. Would the think any differently if the warning said "pilot a glider?"

Here is the crux of the matter. The good judgement or skills of a pilot are
often inhibited by various over the counter and/or prescription drugs. Who
decides when someone is safe to fly? The pilot using the drugs? An
Aviation Medical Examiner? The pilot's personal doctor? An admittedly
confusing FAA rule interpretation as pontificated on by the RAS?

I don't know the answer. I do know that as a professional pilot, and a CFI
in both gliders and airplanes, I would not accept a glider student who had a
disorder that was specifically disqualifying with no chance of waiver for an
airplane pilot. If the condition was waiverable, then the hard decisions
have to be made after careful research and deliberation.

PK


"ADP" wrote in message
...
Boring is not the half of it.
Responding to you Chris is like responding to a wall.

Hmm....

dog·mat·ic [dawg máttik, dog máttik]
or dog·mat·i·cal [dawg máttik'l, dog máttik'l]
adj
1. expressing rigid opinions: prone to expressing strongly held beliefs
and
opinions


While I plead guilty to having strongly held beliefs, I fail to see where
my
replies
are dogmatic. In fact, I can't understand how this thread degenerated
into
making
assumptions about what lawyers and juries might or might not do.

The question was, can you soar while taking unapproved legal drugs?

The answer is that there are no unapproved legal drugs for glider pilots.

Ergo, you can soar while taking any or all legal drugs.

These are facts, not opinions.

Is it wise to fly while taking these drugs? I don't know and it is not
for
me to determine.
It is for the individual glider pilot to determine. Why is this fact so
difficult to comprehend.

Why is individual responsibility so frightening to so many? Perhaps you
are
all
hoping to spill hot coffee into your collective laps and have Mc Donalds
buy
you a new glider.

You state that you know many pilots who fly while incapacitated in some
way.
Does this not make you culpable for keeping this knowledge secret? Suppose
they have an accident?
According to all of the arm-chair lawyers on this group, you would be
crucified by a jury
should they learn that you had such knowledge.

I think we've wrung about all we can out of this thread.

So, in the interests of glider pilots everywhere,
fly safe and may you all find 10k thermals when you look for them.

Allan



"Chris OCallaghan" wrote in message
om...
Interesting, you couch you arguments very reasonably, then turn them
on their ear by going dogmatic. Yes, I know pilots who continue fly
even though they suffer from medical problems that put them and others
at risk. They are intelligent people who suffer the same psychological
problems we all face when presented with questions of mortality.
DENIAL. Not only do I know glider pilots who should give up the sport
for their own sakes as well as others, I know power pilots who seek
out medical examiners who are less than rigorous in pursuing their
responisbilities to the FAA and to the public.

them to make more reasonable, prudent decisions.