DUI Conviction

writes:

Still, as I age and watch others around me age, I think a BDR as in
biannual Driving review would be worth considering. Or, maybe, some
kind of reaction time test required of a driver before the car would
start.

Some people become significantly impaired in old age (old in this case meaning
well beyond 65), but then again, some are impaired even in youth. Certainly
an objective test is the best way to identify impairment, rather than a
default assumption based on age. The same could be said to a lesser extent of
impairment due to drugs, but since drugs such as alcohol are pretty much
universally impairing and objective on-the-spot tests are difficult to
conduct, sometimes default estimations are made for expediency and safety.

Personally, I don't understand why so many people here are defending the
consumption of alcohol while operating vehicles, especially aircraft. It's an
incredibly stupid thing to do. Should I assume that many people here are
incredibly stupid?

Bill writes:

You are very wrong here.

I look forward to your more substantial counterargument.

In many domains, experience is more valuable than reflexes up to a certain
point. Older drivers have slower reflexes, but with more experience they are
able to avoid situations in which fast reflexes are required. The same is
true for pilots: experience allows them to avoid the kind of trouble that
would require extremely fast reactions. And for a person like the captain of
a cruise ship, this is even more true, since fast reactions are almost never
required and experience is extremely important.

I suppose it would be rare for a 70-year-old to be a successful fighter pilot,
but I don't see why other forms of piloting would present a problem, even for
things like aerobatics. As long as the pilot is in reasonable health, there
shouldn't be any issues.

writes:

There's evidence that moderate use of alcohol is of benefit.

There's evidence that any alcohol produces impairment, too. If moderate use
is beneficial, why doesn't the FAA suggest it as part of preflight
procedures--to sharpen the reflexes, say?

Why take chances? The absence of alcohol is clearly not impairing, so why not
just abstain? Is taking drugs more important than safety?

Feel free to abstain totally, it's your life.

Done.

A glass of wine or beer among friends is a social pleasure
many of us enjoy.

Taking drugs is a substitute for proper socialization, not an enhancement of
it. Sometimes, in fact, social contact is just a cover and pretext for heavy
drinking, and the drinkers would more easily give up the socialization than
the drug.

On Aug 6, 12:17*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
There's evidence that moderate use of *alcohol is of benefit.

There's evidence that any alcohol produces impairment, too. *If moderate use
is beneficial, why doesn't the FAA suggest it as part of preflight
procedures--to sharpen the reflexes, say?

Why take chances? *The absence of alcohol is clearly not impairing, so why not
just abstain? *Is taking drugs more important than safety?

Feel free to abstain totally, it's your life.

Done.

A glass of wine or beer among friends is a social pleasure
many of us enjoy.

Taking drugs is a substitute for proper socialization, not an enhancement of
it. *Sometimes, in fact, social contact is just a cover and pretext for heavy
drinking, and the drinkers would more easily give up the socialization than
the drug.

That is an extraordinary extension of my comments. There was no
suggestion alcohol should be used as part of flying. There is ample
evidence a modest consumption of wine, for example, has positive
health benefits. Sharing wine in a social environment is far from
excessive drinking, and there is significant data that heavy drinkers
often drink in solitude. You have 'presented' yourself as having
limited social engagement opportunities in a country where wine is of
a pretty good quality. Do you choose to notice the inconsistencies?

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Still, as I age and watch others around me age, I think a BDR as in
biannual Driving review would be worth considering. Or, maybe, some
kind of reaction time test required of a driver before the car would
start.

Some people become significantly impaired in old age (old in this case meaning
well beyond 65), but then again, some are impaired even in youth. Certainly
an objective test is the best way to identify impairment, rather than a
default assumption based on age. The same could be said to a lesser extent of
impairment due to drugs, but since drugs such as alcohol are pretty much
universally impairing and objective on-the-spot tests are difficult to
conduct, sometimes default estimations are made for expediency and safety.

Utter, pontificating, puerile, superficial, nonsense.

Personally, I don't understand why so many people here are defending the
consumption of alcohol while operating vehicles, especially aircraft. It's an
incredibly stupid thing to do. Should I assume that many people here are
incredibly stupid?

No, you should assume people here think you don't know **** from shinola
about anything that deals with real life.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

There's evidence that moderate use of alcohol is of benefit.

There's evidence that any alcohol produces impairment, too. If moderate use
is beneficial, why doesn't the FAA suggest it as part of preflight
procedures--to sharpen the reflexes, say?

Because that isn't what the benefit is.

The FAA also doesn't suggest a workout with a substantial increase in
heart rate as part of a prefight procedure.

Pontificating idiot.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

No, you should assume people here think you don't know **** from shinola
about anything that deals with real life.

Most people here haven't expressed an opinion, and the desperately strident
cries of a small but vocal minority are not necessarily representative.

The same is
true for pilots: experience allows them to avoid the kind of trouble
.....

Which is why you will never truly understand flying, simply because you have
no experience other than playing a game on a computer.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

No, you should assume people here think you don't know **** from
shinola about anything that deals with real life.

Most people here haven't expressed an opinion, and the desperately
strident cries of a small but vocal minority are not necessarily
representative.

ANTHONY - YOU DON'T KNOW **** FROM SHINOLA ABOUT ANYTHING!

On Aug 6, 11:58*pm, Buster Hymen wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote :

writes:

No, you should assume people here think you don't know **** from
shinola about anything that deals with real life.

Most people here haven't expressed an opinion, and the desperately
strident cries of a small but vocal minority are not necessarily
representative.

ANTHONY - YOU DON'T KNOW **** FROM SHINOLA ABOUT ANYTHING!

If you know anythiing about sampling theory, Anthony, you'd find the
evidence compelling