Soaring on unapproved prescription drugs, and conditions, legal??

Allan,

I do believe you have missed an important point in
this discussion. You are arguing the point that the
CFRs make no statement about medical factors for glider
pilots and thus you cannot be held liable for violating
the CFRs. You might well be 100% correct. (NB, though,
that the law, regulations, and their interpretation
are not always logical.)

The point is well taken that in the event of a serious
accident involving life, limb, or substantial financial
damage, a criminal and/or civil trial could ensue.
In such a case, a clever lawyer will undoubtedly bring
in the medical requirements for SEL pilots, set them
before a jury, and demand a common-sense decision.
He will not be arguing before the FAA, nor the NTSB.
If he can sway that jury, said pilot will have lost
his assets.



At 21:30 15 June 2004, Adp wrote:
Let me see, rec.aviation.soaring, if having fun is
not at least part of the
purpose of this newsgroup,
then I am in the wrong place. (I'm certain that some
would argue that I'm
in the wrong place
Anyway.)

Let's cut directly to the crux of the matter:

You state:

If the FARs say one must not fly when a reasonable
person would know that
one is
impaired in some manner, then all the verbal acrobatics
in the world will
not
change the fact that one is morally and legally liable
if one injures
someone
else while operating with said impairment.

As always, if they have to ask then the answer is,
'No.'

The FARs do not say that. They do not mention reasonable
persons, doctors
or publish a prohibited medication list
when referring to gliders. The only verbal acrobatics
practiced here are by
those who can not read and understand
plain (bureaucratic) English.
It's rather like arguing about the meaning of the 2nd
amendment. If you can
read, it is quite clear.
The FARs are similar, if you can read, it's quite clear.

Allan

'Jack' wrote in message
igy.com...
ADP wrote:

Nyal,

Actually I think it is you who have missed the point.
I am not saying that some lawyer somewhere couldn't bring up the fact that
you had
3 oz of lint in your pocket when your glider was blown over by a 727 with
you at the controls and, by virtue of
being 2.5 oz overweight, you are culpable; I'm saying that to interpret
regulations based upon what a
lawyer might or might not do is self flagellation. To be conservative is
one thing, to be paranoid
is quite another.

The title of the thread is "Soaring on unapproved prescription drugs".
There are no unapproved prescription drugs for a glider pilot, regardless
what someone thinks a
lawyer might or might not allege. Ergo it is not an element except within
the provisions of
14 CFR 61.53(b) and 91.17(a) 1-4.

While I agree that this assertion is certainly within the realm of
possibility:

The point is well taken that in the event of a serious
accident involving life, limb, or substantial financial
damage, a criminal and/or civil trial could ensue.

I believe that this is not:

In such a case, a clever lawyer will undoubtedly bring
in the medical requirements for SEL pilots, set them
before a jury, and demand a common-sense decision.
He will not be arguing before the FAA, nor the NTSB.
If he can sway that jury, said pilot will have lost
his assets.

If such a clever lawyer were to bring up these elements, a much more clever
defense lawyer
would have them thrown out.


Allan

"Nyal Williams" wrote in message
...
Allan,

ADP wrote:

If such a clever lawyer were to bring up these elements, a much more clever
defense lawyer would have them thrown out.

And a jury, in whom cleverness is not always considered by lawyers to be a
virtue, will decide the issue based upon their own sense of right and wrong,
even while attempting to hew responsibly to what they believe are the judge's
instructions and the requirements of the law.

Should you find yourself either in the dock or in the jury box during such a
trial, I suspect your eyes would be opened a bit wider.



Jack

I'm not certain how we arrived at this point. What country did you say you
were from Jack?
Now we have predictions about theoretical jury behavior based upon
theoretical breaches
of non-existent rules and regulations.

Perhaps you should go out and fly your theoretical glider - or not - based
upon your theoretical
determination of the probability of running into someone flying a motor
glider when that someone
is theoretically suffering from a theoretical incapacity after theoretically
taking non-prohibited drugs.

Later,

Allan

"Jack" wrote in message
gy.com...
ADP wrote:

If such a clever lawyer were to bring up these elements, a much more
clever
defense lawyer would have them thrown out.

And a jury, in whom cleverness is not always considered by lawyers to be a
virtue, will decide the issue based upon their own sense of right and
wrong,
even while attempting to hew responsibly to what they believe are the
judge's
instructions and the requirements of the law.

Should you find yourself either in the dock or in the jury box during such
a
trial, I suspect your eyes would be opened a bit wider.



Jack

I'm pretty sure a glider has right of way over an airliner. Therefore
it is most likely that the airliner would be at fault.

ls6pilot





Bullwinkle wrote in message ...
I agree: it is certainly open to interpretation. 61.53 is almost
deliberately vague, which makes it harder to interpret. Remember well:
"deliberately vague" means that the FAA/NTSB gets to decide AFTER an
incident what 61.53 means, if the issue of medical status of glider pilots
ever arises.

Picture a scenario in which a glider has a mid-air with an airliner, and it
comes out later that the glider pilot (probably deceased) had a diagnosis
which certainly would have rendered him DQ, had he only asked the question.
Who wins when the FAA and NTSB sort out the cause of the accident? The
glider pilot's heirs won't get very far waving 61.53. And in these days of
CNN/MSNBC/Faux News, the court of public opinion will convict the glider
guy, and the FAA will go along with it.

Good luck to you on this issue. I choose to place a relatively conservative
interpretation on 61.53, for my own protection, and with the best interests
of the overall sport in mind.

Bullwinkle

On 6/12/04 8:23 PM, in article ,
"DL152279546231" wrote:

No. And now that I've told you that, you "have reason to know" (per 61.53)
that you shouldn't be flying. It's also the answer the FAA would give you,
if you asked.


I wonder if this 61.53 applies to ultralights and the upcoming Sport Pilot
certificate??

I have read 61.53 several times though and it seems as long as you and your
doctor feel you are safe, it does not matter if you can't get a medical
certificate because none is required. And if the new Sport Pilot liscense goes
through all that will be required medically is a driver's liscense(?)

(DL152279546231) wrote in message ...
FAA has a section on their site called
"ask FAA" so I sent them an E-Mail
I don't know if they can answer such a question, except with a conservative
"no" but I asked



I would like to relate an experience I had on this subject. I was an
Army senior flight surgeon and am board certified in Aerospace
Medicine.

Several years ago I wrote an aeromedical summary to appeal the denial
of a medical to a pilot who had a history of depression controlled
with an antidepressant (Effexor). My argument for his appeal was as
follows.

1. The present FAA position is that a history of depression is not
disqualifying. If the patient is having no symptoms and has not taken
any antidepressant medication for the last 3 months he may receive a
class 3 medical.

2. This position was formulated when depression was treated with
tricyclic antidepressants and these were discontinued after the
episode ended. Treatment was episodic and the meds had significant
side effects that could affect flying such as postural hypotension.

3. The current treatment for depression has changed so that many
patients are treated chronically in a preventive manner with
medications that have less and different side effects.
I cited a study in which healthy persons were given cognitive function
tests while taking effexor and while not taking effexor. The study
concluded that the persons taking effexor had better concentration and
performed better on the cognitive function testing. The side effects
such as may cause drowsiness occur in a small number of patients and
usually early in the course of treatment.

Thus if the patient has no symptoms of depression and the current
medication gives him no side effects that would effect his ability to
fly he should be granted a waiver.

The response was as follows:

I received a response over the telephone from the Federal Air
Surgeon's consultant in Psychiatry. He said that everything in my
argument made sense. He really couldn't say that the pilot was unsafe
to fly. It was just a political thing. They weren't ready for pilots
on Prozac.

Remember also that the FAA recommended that pilots flying with a
recreational license be required only to have a driver's license
instead of a medical . Secretary of Transportation Pena would not
approve the recommendation.

Some of the present FAA decisions are political not medical.

As evidenced above, not being able to get a medical does not mean you
are not safe to fly. It may mean that the politics and the regs
haven't caught up to current day medicine.

It is my opinion that this is why the regulation is written the way it
is. I have no doubt that if the FAA wanted glider pilots to meet the
requirements for a Class 3 medical they would require it.

IMHO

Do you think you could convince Dan Rather of that after somebody has a
midair with an airliner?

Bill Daniels

"Rich Chesser" wrote in message
om...
I'm pretty sure a glider has right of way over an airliner. Therefore
it is most likely that the airliner would be at fault.

ls6pilot





Bullwinkle wrote in message
...
I agree: it is certainly open to interpretation. 61.53 is almost
deliberately vague, which makes it harder to interpret. Remember well:
"deliberately vague" means that the FAA/NTSB gets to decide AFTER an
incident what 61.53 means, if the issue of medical status of glider
pilots
ever arises.

Picture a scenario in which a glider has a mid-air with an airliner, and
it
comes out later that the glider pilot (probably deceased) had a
diagnosis
which certainly would have rendered him DQ, had he only asked the
question.
Who wins when the FAA and NTSB sort out the cause of the accident? The
glider pilot's heirs won't get very far waving 61.53. And in these days
of
CNN/MSNBC/Faux News, the court of public opinion will convict the glider
guy, and the FAA will go along with it.

Good luck to you on this issue. I choose to place a relatively
conservative
interpretation on 61.53, for my own protection, and with the best
interests
of the overall sport in mind.

Bullwinkle

On 6/12/04 8:23 PM, in article
,
"DL152279546231" wrote:

No. And now that I've told you that, you "have reason to know" (per
61.53)
that you shouldn't be flying. It's also the answer the FAA would give
you,
if you asked.


I wonder if this 61.53 applies to ultralights and the upcoming Sport
Pilot
certificate??

I have read 61.53 several times though and it seems as long as you and
your
doctor feel you are safe, it does not matter if you can't get a
medical
certificate because none is required. And if the new Sport Pilot
liscense goes
through all that will be required medically is a driver's liscense(?)

Thank you, thank you. Finally a rational response by a knowledgeable
individual.

There are other issues as well that buttress Rich's and my opinion.

For example there is the so-called off label use of meds like Zoloft and
other Serotonin Uptake Inhibitors.

These medications can and are used (quite effectively) for obsessive
compulsive behavior and anger management
issues, among others. What pilot does not have an element of OC behavior in
his make up?

Who but the glider pilot is able to determine whether or not such use, for
example, impacts negatively on his flying?

Who indeed!

Allan


I would like to relate an experience I had on this subject. I was an
Army senior flight surgeon and am board certified in Aerospace
Medicine.

Several years ago I wrote an aeromedical summary to appeal the denial
of a medical to a pilot who had a history of depression controlled
with an antidepressant (Effexor). My argument for his appeal was as
follows.

....Snip...

It is my opinion that this is why the regulation is written the way it
is. I have no doubt that if the FAA wanted glider pilots to meet the
requirements for a Class 3 medical they would require it.

IMHO

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 18:39:38 GMT, "Bill Daniels"
wrote:

Do you think you could convince Dan Rather of that after somebody has a
midair with an airliner?

Bill Daniels


My guess would be, no. But what's your point?

Rich Chesser wrote:

I'm pretty sure a glider has right of way over an airliner. Therefore
it is most likely that the airliner would be at fault.

....and the FAA/NTSB/jury/judge would base their decision solely on that?

In your and Allan's dreams.

Graeme Cant