Too Old?

Gezellig writes:

The PPL exam is pretty much a joke which doesn't help as a defense.

The medical exams for licenses are a lot more restrictive than they need to
be.

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic wrote:
Gezellig writes:

The PPL exam is pretty much a joke which doesn't help as a defense.

The medical exams for licenses are a lot more restrictive than they need to
be.

In what respect?

What standards are too restrictive and what should the standards be?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 20:55:04 GMT, wrote:

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic wrote:
Gezellig writes:

The PPL exam is pretty much a joke which doesn't help as a defense.

The medical exams for licenses are a lot more restrictive than they need to
be.

In what respect?

What standards are too restrictive and what should the standards be?

Aside from Mx's trolling, you ask a fair question. The answer is "who
knows"?
--
http://tinyurl.com/yqm7bo

writes:

In what respect?

In almost every respect. One need only look at the numbers for sudden
incapacitation among automobile drivers to see that it's a very minor risk,
even with no physical.

What standards are too restrictive and what should the standards be?

All the standards that attempt to weed out persons at higher risk of
incapacitation: restrictions on diabetes and epilepsy, hypertension, cancer,
kidney disease, headaches, allergies, and a long list of other conditions.
The physical should concentrate on the ability to fly an aircraft right now,
and not attempt to guess which people will or might be suddenly incapacitated
by some medical condition.

Anthony, it doesn't matter, since you don't understand the process, are not
a physician or AME, and have never held a medical, and never will.

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

In what respect?

In almost every respect. One need only look at the numbers for sudden
incapacitation among automobile drivers to see that it's a very minor risk,
even with no physical.

What standards are too restrictive and what should the standards be?

All the standards that attempt to weed out persons at higher risk of
incapacitation: restrictions on diabetes and epilepsy, hypertension, cancer,
kidney disease, headaches, allergies, and a long list of other conditions.
The physical should concentrate on the ability to fly an aircraft right now,
and not attempt to guess which people will or might be suddenly incapacitated
by some medical condition.

And if you were to actually look at the numbers, such as collected by
NHTSA, you would find that people with the above conditions have high
accident rates while driving, so your arguement is nonsense not based
on fact.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

And if you were to actually look at the numbers, such as collected by
NHTSA, you would find that people with the above conditions have high
accident rates while driving, so your arguement is nonsense not based
on fact.

So do people who drink alcohol, but the FAA allows people who drink alcohol to
become pilots. The same can be said of smokers.

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

And if you were to actually look at the numbers, such as collected by
NHTSA, you would find that people with the above conditions have high
accident rates while driving, so your arguement is nonsense not based
on fact.

So do people who drink alcohol, but the FAA allows people who drink alcohol to
become pilots. The same can be said of smokers.

Bzzzzt, wrong answer, you lose.

This is just a lame attempt to prove yourself correct in spite of evidence
to the contrary.

Both driving and flying under the influence of alcohol are illegal.

There is no correlation between smoking and accident rates for either
driving or flying.

Neither smoking nor drinking have anything to do with the medical
requirements for flying.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

Both driving and flying under the influence of alcohol are illegal.

But being a drinker or smoker is not. You can drink and smoke regularly (both
of which vastly increase the likelihood of problems that may incapacitate you
in the air), and the FAA doesn't care, as long as you don't drink in the eight
hours before flying (and there's no prohibition on smoking at all, so
conceivably you could smoke in the cockpit).

And yet, at the same time, if you've ever had, say, a bad headache, the FAA
can deny your medical.

There is no correlation between smoking and accident rates for either
driving or flying.

Smoking significantly increases the risk of incapacitating cardiovascular or
respiratory problems. It also increases the risk of altitude-related problems
that may be incapacitating.

About half of regular smokers ultimately die of conditions that are related to
their smoking.

The fact is, the FAA's assessment of possible incapacitation is extremely
lopsided. And there really isn't any way to predict incapacitation reliably
for any person in anywhere near normal health who is not already being
incapacitated.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Gezellig writes:

The PPL exam is pretty much a joke which doesn't help as a defense.

The medical exams for licenses are a lot more restrictive than they
need to be.


You are an idiot.


Bertie