Denied medical / Alcohol & Drug Rehab

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
.. .
"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet
"Margy" wrote in message news:rChDe.9$fb1.
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Between 1994-1998 765 FATAL accidents involving drugs or drink.
Did you READ the report. It was 7% not 76% percent 124 out of 1683.
The rate varied by year from 4% to 9%. Now I would argue that 1% is
still too high, but I know perfection isn't going to ever happen.

You can argue that .00001% is still too high. But, no matter what you
argue, guys like gig will still waste time with inflammatory rhetoric.
Watch. This will get us no closer to answering the original questions.
The mere mention of drugs or alcohol brings out the government as nanny
zealots toute de suite. The results are predictable. Same problems.
No answers save more regulations and enforcement. Are people who go
through rehab a greater risk or not? Simple question, eh?


Inflammatory rhetoric? Your the guy who thinks that people with a KNOWN
drug or alcohol problem shouldn't have to wait a certain amount of time
after treatment before they get thier flight privlages back. Jeez.

I didn't say that.

You were against the 2 year period.


The report I listed was just to counter your proposal that the FAA didn't
even study the issue.

That either. So get stuffed.

Sure you did I believe the phrase used was "This is just rubber stamp BS"

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
.. .
"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
news:qtsDe.40436$DC2.8316@okepread01...

"Margy" wrote in message
...
Did you READ the report. It was 7% not 76% percent 124 out of 1683. The
rate varied by year from 4% to 9%. Now I would argue that 1% is still
too high, but I know perfection isn't going to ever happen.


Margy, the 76% number came from a VERY quick Google of "Aircraft
accidents alcohol" from I beleive Redwood City PD. I said at the time I
took that number with a grain of salt.

It's so absurd that your excuse isn't credible. You were just trying to
make a case using whatever info you could find.

OK dog boy. I clearly in the post where I mentioned the 76% number said
where it was from and that it should be taken with a grain of salt. I have
yet to see any data from you that disproved that those who have been through
rehab are equal or less likely to be have an aircraft accident.

And guess what I don't have to prove my case the FAA is doing exactly what I
would do so if you think their policy on post rehab flying should be changed
you are going to have to come up with the data to sway them. Have fun.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet

OK dog boy. I clearly in the post where I mentioned the 76% number said
where it was from and that it should be taken with a grain of salt.

Only an idiot or someone unfamiliar with aviation would not instantly
dismiss it. Pick one.

I have yet to see any data from you that disproved that those who have
been through rehab are equal or less likely to be have an aircraft
accident.

Stupid and uninteresting. Know why?

And guess what I don't have to prove my case the FAA is doing exactly what
I would do so if you think their policy on post rehab flying should be
changed you are going to have to come up with the data to sway them. Have
fun.

And you would base this decision on what? You'd made up your mind before
you even went looking. Thanks for playing.

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in
:

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet
"Happy Dog" wrote in message
The latest on this is that this student has been told they must wait
two years, attend AA or other counselling, have liver function
regularly tested and regularly be tested for any use of drugs or
alcohol. That sounds unreasonable to me. I understand that they're
going to appeal.

Why would that seem unreasonable?

Because they no longer use drugs or alcohol. I don't see how the risk
is significantly changed by waiting. I'm curious as to whether
everyone who goes through rehab gets their medical revoked for two
years. I really doubt it.

moo

So then what seems reasonable to you? At what point do YOU consider someone
who has stopped using drugs or alcohol to no longer be addicted?

2 Months?

2 Days?

2 Hours?

2 Minutes?

When it comes to government regulation, there needs to be a standard
defined for what qualifies someone as being recovered. The FAA chose 2
years, probably based on some set of statistics somewhere, or perhaps based
on someone else's standard. What is the basis for your dispute?

"Judah" wrote in message
Because they no longer use drugs or alcohol. I don't see how the risk
is significantly changed by waiting. I'm curious as to whether
everyone who goes through rehab gets their medical revoked for two
years. I really doubt it.

So then what seems reasonable to you? At what point do YOU consider
someone
who has stopped using drugs or alcohol to no longer be addicted?

2 Months?
2 Days?
2 Hours?
2 Minutes?

Somewhere between the last one and never. You?

When it comes to government regulation, there needs to be a standard
defined for what qualifies someone as being recovered. The FAA chose 2
years, probably based on some set of statistics somewhere, or perhaps
based
on someone else's standard. What is the basis for your dispute?

"Probably"? That's my issue. I haven't seen an explanation of why this
figure was chosen or whether it's negotiable. Those are reasonable
questions, no?

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in
:

"Judah" wrote in message
Because they no longer use drugs or alcohol. I don't see how the
risk is significantly changed by waiting. I'm curious as to
whether everyone who goes through rehab gets their medical revoked
for two years. I really doubt it.

So then what seems reasonable to you? At what point do YOU consider
someone who has stopped using drugs or alcohol to no longer be
addicted?

2 Months?
2 Days?
2 Hours?
2 Minutes?

Somewhere between the last one and never. You?

Doesn't really matter what I think - I'm not the one who told the
student what he had to do to get his medical...


When it comes to government regulation, there needs to be a standard
defined for what qualifies someone as being recovered. The FAA chose
2 years, probably based on some set of statistics somewhere, or
perhaps based on someone else's standard. What is the basis for your
dispute?

"Probably"? That's my issue. I haven't seen an explanation of why
this figure was chosen or whether it's negotiable. Those are
reasonable questions, no?

Sure. But your OP indicated that you felt that 2 years was
unreasonable. In fact, up until this post, your comments seemed to be
consistent along the lines that you believed 2 years was too long. Even
your quoted comment at the top of this message, "I don't see how the
risk is significantly changed by waiting," seems to be consistent with
that sentiment.

Did you ask the people who handed down the requirements to the student
if the decision is negotiable? Did you ask them what their basis was?
What did they say?

"Judah" wrote in message news:
So then what seems reasonable to you? At what point do YOU consider
someone who has stopped using drugs or alcohol to no longer be
addicted?

2 Months?
2 Days?
2 Hours?
2 Minutes?

Somewhere between the last one and never. You?

Doesn't really matter what I think - I'm not the one who told the
student what he had to do to get his medical...

Thanks for stating the obvious. I'm looking for some thoughts though.

"Probably"? That's my issue. I haven't seen an explanation of why
this figure was chosen or whether it's negotiable. Those are
reasonable questions, no?

Sure. But your OP indicated that you felt that 2 years was
unreasonable. In fact, up until this post, your comments seemed to be
consistent along the lines that you believed 2 years was too long. Even
your quoted comment at the top of this message, "I don't see how the
risk is significantly changed by waiting," seems to be consistent with
that sentiment.

Without defining "waiting", you can't know this. And, I haven't seen much
science behind any recommendation for waiting periods.

Did you ask the people who handed down the requirements to the student
if the decision is negotiable? Did you ask them what their basis was?
What did they say?

They're not available for comment. I'm still looking.

moo