Why do pilots need a medical

"Paul kgyy" wrote in message

I think the theory is that disabilities rarely occur without warning.
If you get chest pain while driving a bus, you can pull over to the
side of the road. If it happens in airplane, it may be a while before
you can find a safe place to park.

Passing a kidney stone in an aircraft would be a show-stopper, or having a
heart attack or an asthma attack or a stroke or...

It's a good argument that you can't just pull over if you think you might be
having a medical problem. Good discussion, though!

-c

"W P Dixon" wrote:
I don't see why the people working on the planes have to
take a drug test if those that fly it don't.

Because it's FAA. It's makes sense to them. It applies to all
other type repair shops too. An instrument repair shop owner tells
me about all the silliness and inconsistencies of the rules in her
little shop. I guess FAA can't differentiate between repairs done
for my plane vs. a Boeing 757 and/or its appliances. But we're
still stuck on the fact that before drug testing, I believe there's
no evidence that any airline or 135 accident was caused by a repair
done by Cheech or Chong. Or a toaster to John Barleycorn for that
matter.

Fred F.

CDL = Commercial Drivers License
PP-ASEL = Private Pilot, Airplane, Single Engine Land
CP-ASEL = Commercial Pilot, Airplane, Single Engine Land
PPL = nothing in the USA - we have certificates, not licenses.

When exercising the privileges if a *commercial* certificate, random drug
testing is involved (Part 135 and Part 121).

Why should drug testing be mandatory for private pilots? Simply because you
think it's a good idea? You've repeated this several times, but you've never
given any reasons.


"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
And another thing: CDL holders are subject to random drug and alcohol
tests. States may impose tougher standards than the federally required
minimums, and many companies impose even tighter restrictions.

PPLs get off comparitively easily. Drug testing should be mandatory for
PPLs, and random drug testing s/b part of FAA ramp checks.

"gatt" wrote:
...
It's a good argument that you can't just pull over if you
think you might be having a medical problem.


I don't think it is a good argument, because in noncommercial
flight, it's gov't protecting us from ourselves. It's the same
objection many motorcyle riders have against helmets. An argument
is made there that there's a societal cost to treating avoidable
head injury, but I wonder how many pennies in our hospitalization
insurance that really is. There's exposure for passengers, but
they knowingly assume other and greater risks of flight. A pax
might even save us were we to become incapacitated and land the
plane with some help from the ground, as has actually happened. If
FAA had to make a narrative case for their rules here, I think
they'd run out of words pretty quick.

Fred F.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:


If the DOT gets a hold of them they will not be as forgiving to either them
or who they drive for.

If they aren't driving for a common carrier, DOT has no authority to go
after the driver. If the judge dismisses a charge, it didn't happen.
There's nothing for the DOT to go after. We have this thing called
the Fifth Amendment. The DOT would like to continue to deny the
Constitution exists, but it is not the case.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:


If the DOT gets a hold of them they will not be as forgiving to either
them or who they drive for.
If they aren't driving for a common carrier, DOT has no authority to go
after the driver. If the judge dismisses a charge, it didn't happen.
There's nothing for the DOT to go after. We have this thing called
the Fifth Amendment. The DOT would like to continue to deny the
Constitution exists, but it is not the case.

BS.... If tucking is regulated by the DOT common carrier or company fleet. I
just saw a $250,000 fine levied on a company that didn't have all the
medical records properly filed. What does the 5th amendment have to do with
it?

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

If the DOT gets a hold of them they will not be as forgiving to either
them or who they drive for.
If they aren't driving for a common carrier, DOT has no authority to go
after the driver. If the judge dismisses a charge, it didn't happen.
There's nothing for the DOT to go after. We have this thing called
the Fifth Amendment. The DOT would like to continue to deny the
Constitution exists, but it is not the case.

BS.... If tucking is regulated by the DOT common carrier or company fleet. ]]

I can't even begin to parse the above gibberish after the BS.
The DOT only has the authority to regulate interstate trucking
(common carriers). Everything else they have to extort compliance
with the states using a the typical unfunded mandates to get them
to comply and threaten pulling transportation funding for unrelated
issues.

What does the 5th amendment have to do with
it?

The 5th amendment applied to the my post about the judge dismissing the
no medical card charge in the post that you were responding to
initially. You said that the DOT would go after the driver.
It's not legal for them to do so.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

If the DOT gets a hold of them they will not be as forgiving to either
them or who they drive for.
If they aren't driving for a common carrier, DOT has no authority to go
after the driver. If the judge dismisses a charge, it didn't happen.
There's nothing for the DOT to go after. We have this thing called
the Fifth Amendment. The DOT would like to continue to deny the
Constitution exists, but it is not the case.

BS.... If tucking is regulated by the DOT common carrier or company
fleet. ]]

I can't even begin to parse the above gibberish after the BS.
The DOT only has the authority to regulate interstate trucking
(common carriers). Everything else they have to extort compliance
with the states using a the typical unfunded mandates to get them
to comply and threaten pulling transportation funding for unrelated
issues.

Your right I typed to fast. Drop the "If" and add a "," after DOT.

All interstate trucking is not by common carriers. A private company who
owns its own trucks and operate accross state lines would be covered. I
wouldn't be surprised if just running on federal highways wouldn't be enough
to trigger coverage.




What does the 5th amendment have to do with
it?
The 5th amendment applied to the my post about the judge dismissing the
no medical card charge in the post that you were responding to initially.
You said that the DOT would go after the driver.
It's not legal for them to do so.

If you are talking about the double jeopardy, don't be silly the feds go
after folks all the time for things that they have been found not guilty for
in state court. Example, the cops that beat Rodney King.

Skylune wrote:
PPLs get off comparitively easily. Drug testing should be mandatory for
PPLs, and random drug testing s/b part of FAA ramp checks.


as a matter of fact, it is mandatory; alcohol and drug test
are compulsory; see 14 CFR 61.16 and 91.17

--Sylvain

TaxSrv wrote:

I don't think it is a good argument, because in noncommercial
flight, it's gov't protecting us from ourselves.

No, it's the Feds protecting the people on the ground from us.

George Patterson
If a tank is out of ammunition, what you have is a sixty ton portable
radio.