![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mxsmanic wrote in
: Tim writes: Heredity plays an equally important role in all of this - a person's vulnerability to disease as a result of environmental factors (smoking, drinking, breathing in asbestos fibers, etc.) is highly dependent on genetics, as is your likelihood to suffer a stroke from smoking excessively, or a heart attack from eating too much bacon, eggs, donuts, etc., or just plain being overweight. True ... but the FAA doesn't look at that, either. Where do you draw the line? My point is that the FAA criteria are badly skewed. Airline pilots with first-class medicals still drop dead from time to time, and people who are denied medicals still live to be 95 years old without ever being suddenly incapacitated by anything. The FAA criteria seem to be inherited from military test-pilot programs or astronaut medicals, but they are far too draconian. The FAA could increase safety a lot more by testing pilot competence more extensively and forgetting the over-the-top medical criteria. In fact, the best way to determine pilot aptitude is by testing it directly, not by inferring it from other information, and since pilots are tested individually, this is a completely practical goal. You have no idea what you're talking about. you are an idiot. Bertie |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|