Too Old?

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.

On Sep 1, 3:36 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Gezellig wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:30:50 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Ben Jeffrey wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
Orval Fairbairn wrote:

I know quite a few pilots flying well into their 70s -- some in
high-performance planes.

Hell Orval, it took that long for some of us to get proficient :-)))

--
Dudley Henriques
I have a friend in our soaring club who flew Corsairs as a USMC pilot in WW2
and still flys regularly in our club - usually the first to launch and the
last to land. To top it off, most of the time he flys his Pitts to the club
from his home field.

Ben Jeffrey

Some of the "older" pilots are in phenomenally good health. I deal with
a lot of them on a daily basis. They're amazing!

And some aren't Dudley neither of which is the point. The point is that
Fed/FAA gets aggressive, age could come into question regardless. For
that matter, why not a local port like Vegas throwing up their own
rules?

The one's that aren't should fail the medical. THAT is the point. The
"system" is supposed to discover and weed out those not medically fit to
fly.
As long as you can pass the medical, you fly. It's THAT simple!
Nobody says the system is perfect. There will always be those pilots who
slip through a medical check and then have a heart attack while flying.
Personally, I would be an advocate of more frequent medical checks for
pilots of a specific age determined by accident stats and medical
histories.
Of course if they went that route, you'd have the ACLU on their ass
screaming about "rights".
There is only one additional safety gap in the present system; that
being the individual choice of a pilot to voluntarily stop flying after
having a medical issue during the period between medicals.
As I said, it "ain't " a perfect system by a long shot!

--
Dudley Henriques

Well, you know, they already do that. A 3rd class medical is good for
substantially longer period of time if you are younger than 40. Also,
if you report certain conditions, etc, they give you a "special
issuance" with a 1 year limit for all classes, including 3rd.

K l e i n wrote:
On Sep 1, 3:36 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Gezellig wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:30:50 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Ben Jeffrey wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
Orval Fairbairn wrote:
I know quite a few pilots flying well into their 70s -- some in
high-performance planes.
Hell Orval, it took that long for some of us to get proficient :-)))
--
Dudley Henriques
I have a friend in our soaring club who flew Corsairs as a USMC pilot in WW2
and still flys regularly in our club - usually the first to launch and the
last to land. To top it off, most of the time he flys his Pitts to the club
from his home field.
Ben Jeffrey
Some of the "older" pilots are in phenomenally good health. I deal with
a lot of them on a daily basis. They're amazing!
And some aren't Dudley neither of which is the point. The point is that
Fed/FAA gets aggressive, age could come into question regardless. For
that matter, why not a local port like Vegas throwing up their own
rules?
The one's that aren't should fail the medical. THAT is the point. The
"system" is supposed to discover and weed out those not medically fit to
fly.
As long as you can pass the medical, you fly. It's THAT simple!
Nobody says the system is perfect. There will always be those pilots who
slip through a medical check and then have a heart attack while flying.
Personally, I would be an advocate of more frequent medical checks for
pilots of a specific age determined by accident stats and medical
histories.
Of course if they went that route, you'd have the ACLU on their ass
screaming about "rights".
There is only one additional safety gap in the present system; that
being the individual choice of a pilot to voluntarily stop flying after
having a medical issue during the period between medicals.
As I said, it "ain't " a perfect system by a long shot!

--
Dudley Henriques

Well, you know, they already do that. A 3rd class medical is good for
substantially longer period of time if you are younger than 40. Also,
if you report certain conditions, etc, they give you a "special
issuance" with a 1 year limit for all classes, including 3rd.

This is true, but not what I'm addressing exactly. I would have no
problem with medicals requiring a shorter active period based on a
proactive projection of accident stats vs health issues within a
specific age bracket graduated after say a beginning point of 40.
In other words, the older you get and/or when you enter into an age
bracket where stats put you at a higher risk factor, the period of your
medical shortens accordingly.

The rub in all this, even in my own projection, is that it assumes that
sooner or later a pilot will reach a "no further medicals allowed" point
where a mandatory retirement is indicated.
Considering present regulations, the engine to implement such a plan
would be extremely difficult to design and push through the required
legislation.


--
Dudley Henriques

On Aug 31, 8:11*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Then there's Bob Hoover and Duane Cole...

Bertie

Is Hoover still alive? Flying? Did the FAA ever give him his medical
back after whatever reason they took it years ago?
I had the honor of seeing his Commander routine several times as a kid/
teen. Awesome stuff. Watching vids of it these days almost brings
tears to my eyes.

Ricky

On Aug 31, 9:53*pm, "Ol Shy & Bashful" wrote:

Perhaps its my 2 year old son?

?????? Adopted?

Ricky

Anthony, there's no cut-off for you, since you don't have a medical and
never will. Don't worry about the rest of us who actually do fly.

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 article ,
Cubdriver usenet AT danford DOT net wrote:

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:18:40 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:


Most people will place the cutoff at their own age plus twenty years or so.

That means the cutoff is 96.

Works for me!

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.

On Sep 1, 7:52*pm, Ricky wrote:
On Aug 31, 9:53*pm, "Ol Shy & Bashful" wrote:

Perhaps its my 2 year old son?

?????? Adopted?

Ricky

Nope. I guess 40 years of crop dusting didn't affect me adversly
either! gg