Too Old?

"Gezellig" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 18:35:04 GMT, wrote:

Below is a perfect example of the aggressive behavior against GA pilots.
To think an age cutoff is unreasonable is to ignore the obvious.

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1201-full.html#198691

Did you actually read the article?
The pilot involved sued the government for damages.

The ruling was he wasn't due any damages since he could not show any
loss.

What has this to do with anything?

"The FAA and Social Security Administration shared medical records and
personal information on the pilot in 2005 as part of "Operation Safe
Pilot." That FAA investigation examined the records of some 45,000
pilots in Northern California" which is a strict violation of "the
federal Privacy Act which protects individuals from such information
sharing". Did you read my post?

"This is a perfect example of the aggressive behavior against GA pilots.
To think an age cutoff is unreasonable is to ignore the obvious."

It must be noted that Social Security covers more people then us "aged." In
the FAA / Social Security cross reference, it was the Social Security
Administration that initially was attempting to identify fraud relating to
disability claims. The check with the FAA showed many who claimed to be
disable with Social Security were in fact claiming to be able bodied with
the FAA.

When the fraud was noted a reverse check was made by the FAA. The results
are far above expectations.

As noted, it was proven in court that this cross check was in violation HIPA
legislation that protects the privacy of an individuals medical records.
Again the purpose was to identify fraud, not to remove pilots based on age.
In almost all cases a person failing the cross check had either lied on to
the Social Security Administration or lied to the FAA.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder

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.

"Gezellig" wrote in message
...

Too old? If so, at what age do you place the cutoff?

120

"Ricky" wrote in message
...
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.

Yes. Not sure, but he is retired from air shows. Yes - he got a medical in
Austrailia and continued with air shows for a while (just not in the US).
The FAA finally conceeded to restoring his medical after a round through
the courts.

"If they can do it to Bob Hoover, they can do it to anyone."

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:25:37 GMT, Mike Isaksen wrote:

"Gezellig" wrote in message ...
That FAA investigation examined the records of some
45,000 pilots in Northern California" which is a strict
violation of "the Federal Privacy Act" which protects
individuals from such information sharing.

I'm not sure that applies. The FAA physical is something you contract (pay)
for, but the Doctor works for the FAA and the results of the physical are
due the FAA (ie. I'm not sure you can negotiate with the doctor on what
portion of his finding will be forwarded).

So if the information is part of the gov't record, can it therefore not be
referenced to prevent fraud against the same gov't?

I view this differently if I have a relationship with a doctor who I
contract for my own needs. I view that information as private.

I have not reached the age where I have to think about the implication of
medicare/medicaid.

Good point, I wonder if HIPAA applies?

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 21:29:23 -0600, Wayne Paul wrote:

When the fraud was noted a reverse check was made by the FAA. The results
are far above expectations.

As noted, it was proven in court that this cross check was in violation HIPA
legislation that protects the privacy of an individuals medical records.
Again the purpose was to identify fraud, not to remove pilots based on age.

Understand Wayne, all I am saying is that we have a general public
downturn in their opinion of GA. GA is an easy target, we have idiots
like the Vegas airport director looking for ways to undercut GA. Of the
ways, age cut-off dates appear to be one of the strong possibilities.
Who is going to cry foul if they shut down 80+ yos? How many 80+yo
pilots are there? 75yo? How much voice will they have against anti-GA
zealots?

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:36:28 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:

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.

You and I are on opposites sides when considering the quality of the
medical check and its real abilities to flag relevant health problems
for pilots. That would be my point, that the quality level of the check
is a gaping hole in the qualification process and one that can be
successfully exploited by those who would argue in favor of a mandatory
age cutoff for a PPL

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 14:58:12 -0700, Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:

Hell, I'm 72 and fly an experimental helicopter which, because of my
modifications involve a bit of "Test Flying". More than that, I recently
soloed an ultralight helicopter where the only check out possible was to get
the numbers for rpm and egt.
If they are going to put age limits on flying, they better start with age
limits for people driving and especially driving those huge motor homes just
a few feet from my car at closing velocities around 150mph and better.

Apples and oranges imo Stu-Kath.

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 20:44:51 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:

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.

This makes sense especially if the quality of the medical is increased
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.

Disagree. If you can pass a sophisticated and comprehensive medical,
there should be no approach points. Pass = fly regardless of age.

Considering present regulations, the engine to implement such a plan
would be extremely difficult to design and push through the required
legislation.

Can't argue with this, don't have the expertise.