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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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: |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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, |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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(?) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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(?) |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|