What GA needs

On Sep 12, 1:06 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Jeff Dougherty writes:
Eh? All I had to do to get in to flight school was show up with a
check in my hand.

Getting in is just the beginning.

The third class medical doesn't do much more than make sure you
won't have a heart attack or seizure at 5,000 feet ...

The medicals are excessively restrictive--reminiscent of military
requirements--and archaic, disqualifying some conditions that are generally
harmless while accepting others that can often be dangerous. They are also
unnecessarily repetitive.

Red tape is abundant in certification as well, with special procedures just
for having retractable gear, excessive currency requirements, heavy
regulation, and so on.

It's easier to become a lawyer than it is to become a pilot, and in some
respects it's easier to become a doctor as well.

I agree that medicals are excessively restrictive, but that has been
slowly changing. Also, based on accident records, having a special
rating for retract makes perfect sense. If the FAA does not, the
insurance companies will (and do) impose extra conditions for flying a
retract. No, it is not easier to become a physician or a lawyer.
Anyone without a serious physical handicap, about $5k of cash and
average or even below average intelligence can become a pilot in a few
months. Even if you are talking about becoming a professional pilot,
there are places that will train you from zero for about $50k.

Andrew Sarangan writes:

I agree that medicals are excessively restrictive, but that has been
slowly changing.

VERY slowly changing.

I figure that a private pilot is far less likely to take anyone with him if he
kills himself in an accident than is an automobile driver, so why the
restrictive medical requirements? A pilot's only victims are likely to be his
passengers, if any, but someone crashing on the highway can cause many
injuries and deaths.

A good first step would be to dramatically reduce the requirements for
piloting alone, while (perhaps) maintaining somewhat more stringent
requirements for pilots who want to take passengers with them. However, I'm
not convinced that the chances of sudden incapacitation are really high enough
to worry about in any case.

Also, based on accident records, having a special
rating for retract makes perfect sense. If the FAA does not, the
insurance companies will (and do) impose extra conditions for flying a
retract.

I don't think insurance should be mandatory for pilots, either.

Anyone without a serious physical handicap, about $5k of cash and
average or even below average intelligence can become a pilot in a few
months. Even if you are talking about becoming a professional pilot,
there are places that will train you from zero for about $50k.

Yeah, I saw an ad for $42K. But I'm sure there are a great many prerequisites
for admission to the school.

Jeff Dougherty wrote
... The third class medical doesn't do much more than
make sure you won't have a heart attack or seizure at 5,000 feet ...

I believe the third class medical -- or even the first class medical --
provide no assurance whatsoever that you won't have a heart attack on the
way from the doctor's office to your car.

"Jon Woellhaf" writes:

Jeff Dougherty wrote
... The third class medical doesn't do much more than
make sure you won't have a heart attack or seizure at 5,000 feet ...

I believe the third class medical -- or even the first class medical --
provide no assurance whatsoever that you won't have a heart attack on the
way from the doctor's office to your car.

Indeed. In the Canadian regulations someplace, they describe the
intent of the medical exams as to reduce the probability of an
in-flight incapacitation to something like 1%. For the higher levels
of certificates, this is assumed to be under conditions of higher
stress/intensity/endurance - considering commercial pilots as flying
harder (physiologically speaking) than private pilots.


- FChE

On Sep 12, 1:37 pm, "Jon Woellhaf" wrote:
Jeff Dougherty wrote

... The third class medical doesn't do much more than
make sure you won't have a heart attack or seizure at 5,000 feet ...

I believe the third class medical -- or even the first class medical --
provide no assurance whatsoever that you won't have a heart attack on the
way from the doctor's office to your car.

Someone posted their story here a while ago about having to get a
special psychiatric evaluation just because he happened to mention to
the FAA that he had a psychological evaluation when he was an 5-year
old (or something close to that age). There is no doubt that the FAA
medical process is unnecessarily bureaucratic and has grounded too
many perfectly fine pilots. A fairer system would be to do away with
medicals except for those who fly for a living. Just like we do for
driving. To my knowledge, it has never been proven that medical
incapacitation is a leading cause of aviation accidents.

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

To my knowledge, it has never been proven that medical
incapacitation is a leading cause of aviation accidents.

Well, that could also be interpreted as supporting the medicals: After all,
medical incapacitation isn't a leading cause of aviation accidents, so the
medicals must be doing a good job of preventing
medical-incapacitation-caused accidents.

We need data on the frequency of medical incapacitation accidents in the
absence of medicals in order to really be able to make a point either way.

Ad.

--
The mail address works, but please notify me via usenet of any mail you send
to it, as it has a retention period of just a few hours.

Jon Woellhaf writes:

I believe the third class medical -- or even the first class medical --
provide no assurance whatsoever that you won't have a heart attack on the
way from the doctor's office to your car.

There have been cases of airline pilots dying suddenly in the cockpit from
severe cardiovascular disease even though they had passed their stringent
medicals. The medicals worry too much about some things while ignoring
others.

On Sep 11, 1:28 pm, Dave J wrote:


I just am tired of hearing about how lazy "kids today" are. People
have been muttering about "kids today" forever. Either man has been on
a constant descent to laziness or stupidity, or much more likely, the
notion is absurd. As tempting as it is to go for the first option, the
second is much more likely.


Every generation has complained about the next generation as being
lazy. I think it has been programmed into our genes.

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
On Sep 11, 1:28 pm, Dave J wrote:


I just am tired of hearing about how lazy "kids today" are. People
have been muttering about "kids today" forever. Either man has been on
a constant descent to laziness or stupidity, or much more likely, the
notion is absurd. As tempting as it is to go for the first option, the
second is much more likely.


Every generation has complained about the next generation as being
lazy. I think it has been programmed into our genes.

When I took Latin in high school, one of the things we had to read was
a piece by Cicero complaining about the kids of the day.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 11, 1:28 pm, Dave J wrote:


I just am tired of hearing about how lazy "kids today" are. People
have been muttering about "kids today" forever. Either man has been on
a constant descent to laziness or stupidity, or much more likely, the
notion is absurd. As tempting as it is to go for the first option, the
second is much more likely.


Every generation has complained about the next generation as being
lazy. I think it has been programmed into our genes.

I have read such thoughts emanating from peoples as far back as the ancient
Greeks and Romans. Indeed, you are correct.

Thing is, today it's institutionalized, subsidized and glorified.