Too Old?

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 20:55:04 GMT, wrote:

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic wrote:
Gezellig writes:

The PPL exam is pretty much a joke which doesn't help as a defense.

The medical exams for licenses are a lot more restrictive than they need to
be.

In what respect?

What standards are too restrictive and what should the standards be?

Aside from Mx's trolling, you ask a fair question. The answer is "who
knows"?
--
http://tinyurl.com/yqm7bo

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

In rec.aviation.owning Gezellig wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:35:05 GMT, wrote:

In these litigious days it is highly unlikely there will ever be an
absolute cut off age for flying, driving, or anything else.

About the only reasons one exists for airline pilots is international
treaties and a general lack of interest.

I see little correlation to driving (a necessity) and flying (hardly
one) yet there have been attempts to enforce max driving age in many
states.

Look again.

Driving is a privilege by law in every state in the US; not a right,
not a necessity.

The legal status of private driving is no different then that of
private flying.

Every attempt to even enact a physical for driving past a certain
age has been shot down as age discrimination.

I *can* see that this age-PPL thing could easily become a political
football (Vegas for instance) where a very small minority takes it in
the chin "for the public good". hell, ppl don't want planes flying over
them for any reason, getting the codgers out of the air would get near
complete public approval imo.

The Vegas thing is nothing more than a local bureaucrat in the pocket
of developers shooting off his mouth.

Now, curious, how old are you? I'm mid 50s.

Early 60's.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.owning Gezellig wrote:
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."

Actually, it was agressive behavior against people who were commiting
fraud.

And, if the actions were illegal, any half way competent lawyer should
have gotten all the fraud cases dismissed due to illegally obtained
and therefor inadmissable evidence, but that didn't happen.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.owning 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?

Because local airports can't make special rules just for them that are
contrary to FAA rules.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
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
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.
Did you know that those motor homes have a refrigerator that can store cold
beer just a couple of feet behind the driver? It is obvious that you can
legally have an open container in your motor home.

"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.

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.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

On Sep 1, 8:07 am, "Zebulon" @###@.^net wrote:
"Lou" wrote in message

...

On Aug 31, 11:39 pm, Stella Starr wrote:
Ramsey wrote:

If you call that an answer, you're a dumb ass.

Boy, you sure contribute a lot to the discussion.
Bet you're proud when people google all your thoughtful contributions.
Why bother?

Well Stella, what do you expect from someone
named after a condom?
Lou

A Ramsey condom? Yep, you're a dumb ass.

But not to worry, it's not too late.You and Stella can still answer him
directly and fill this thread out to 200 or 300 posts as usual.

Arguing the fine points of yanking the medical of thousands of healthy
pilots, just because of their age, could make a really nice fire that would
undoubtedly burn for days.

So by all means, have at it.

You really couldn't be this stupid, could you?
Lou

Cubdriver usenet AT danford DOT net writes:

That means the cutoff is 96.

It will be higher next year.