EAA AOPA medical proposal

Here's the place to ask all of your medical questions. But don't believe everything you read!

Moderator: drseti

InformalGreeting
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 10:39 pm

Re: EAA AOPA medical proposal

Post by InformalGreeting »

Funny thing about the government, the vast majority of those making decisions have no medical training at all. Letting them make decisions about anything health care related makes as much sense as letting a bunch of lawyers take your appendix out. The government is good at one thing, and only one thing. Creating needless redtape and standing in the way of enterprising individuals.

The government doesn't tell us that we have to take a physical in order to operate a vehicle. So any 94 year old that hasn't been to the doctor in 20 years can crawl behind the wheel of a 6000 pound SUV, load it up with everyone he plays shuffleboard with, and go crash into a school bus- no questions asked. But put him behind the yoke of 2500 pound 172 with 3 people he plays bridge with and he'll have to submit to something that may be more invasive than a TSA pat down.

Sorry, but it both cases it is the responsibility of the 94 year old individual to know whether he can operate the vehicle in a safe manner. It is required of us every single time we crawl into a plane and you should be making the same evaluation any time you slide behind the wheel of a vehicle. If you're not medically sound to operate then you need to make other plans. If you are then you don't need a doctor to tell you that you are. And honestly many of the things that the FAA is worried about are sudden onset events. An MI can hit you just as easily the day after a physical as it can the day before. Paying a doc $125 to sign a paper doesn't change that.
User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: EAA AOPA medical proposal

Post by MrMorden »

MovingOn wrote:I'm not saying I like the rules. What would you think they should be to allow a 97 year old pilot who has not seen a doctor in 20 years to fly? I think they are reasonable considering. When you start adding more privileges, I soon come to the conclusion, why bother? Just make everyone get a Private. This is what concerns me about HR-3708. How do you ground us when we are just too old to fly safely? It will happen to all of us someday.
I'm with CharlieTango. Most of us are not idiots with a death wish. We don't fly when the weather sucks, or we're sick, or it's otherwise unsafe. If we're old enough to be a danger, won't most of us gracefully stop flying? I don't need the government to be my nanny and tell me when the risk is too high, I'd rather determine when the risk is too high *for me*. The same with passengers. If they are comfortable flying with their 97 year old grandpa who's been flying since he rode Pteradactyls during the Cambrian War, then let them. Let people determine their own risk tolerance.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA
MovingOn
Posts: 632
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 5:34 pm

Re: EAA AOPA medical proposal

Post by MovingOn »

.......
Last edited by MovingOn on Wed Aug 13, 2014 11:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: EAA AOPA medical proposal

Post by MrMorden »

MovingOn wrote:This had become a Tea Party thread. I'm done.

Huh?
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA
User avatar
CharlieTango
Posts: 1000
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:04 am
Location: Mammoth Lakes, California

Re: EAA AOPA medical proposal

Post by CharlieTango »

MrMorden wrote: I'm with CharlieTango. Most of us are not idiots with a death wish. We don't fly when the weather sucks, or we're sick, or it's otherwise unsafe. If we're old enough to be a danger, won't most of us gracefully stop flying? I don't need the government to be my nanny and tell me when the risk is too high, I'd rather determine when the risk is too high *for me*. The same with passengers. If they are comfortable flying with their 97 year old grandpa who's been flying since he rode Pteradactyls during the Cambrian War, then let them. Let people determine their own risk tolerance.
The original Flight Design West ( John Dunham ) and a father son team and I met at my hangar for a test ride for dad in a CT among other reasons. Father and son had an Extra and a Bonanza but dad was in his 90s and getting behind the faster airplanes but he did real well in the CT that John flew down. Her wrote a check on the spot and stepped down to 120kts. Common sense does prevail and this was prior to the advent of the Tea Party.
User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: EAA AOPA medical proposal

Post by MrMorden »

CharlieTango wrote: The original Flight Design West ( John Dunham ) and a father son team and I met at my hangar for a test ride for dad in a CT among other reasons. Father and son had an Extra and a Bonanza but dad was in his 90s and getting behind the faster airplanes but he did real well in the CT that John flew down. Her wrote a check on the spot and stepped down to 120kts. Common sense does prevail and this was prior to the advent of the Tea Party.
That's a happy flying story. I think if I was slowing down like that and already owned an airplane (and was not sure a slower/easier airplane would work for me), I'd just keep the airplane but only fly with another competent pilot onboard to double-check me. There are a lot of ways to skin the safety cat.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA
User avatar
CharlieTango
Posts: 1000
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:04 am
Location: Mammoth Lakes, California

Re: EAA AOPA medical proposal

Post by CharlieTango »

MovingOn wrote:This had become a Tea Party thread. I'm done.
It was the Libertarian in me that thinks the govt isn't needed to tell me when I'm old not the Tea Party influence. The difference is subtle but Libertarianism speaks more to the question of whether govt should tell you what you are permitted to do and the Tea Party speaks more to the unnecessarily large size and scope of government. There is overlap to be sure but if you are going to take your marbles and go home blame the right ism :) .

This thread is about a proposal to reduce govt intrusion in our flying. You only want to discuss the relief up to the point where we all still agree that the bottom line has to be big brother telling us when its time to not fly in the end.

The message that I hear from you is that you support less intrusion but intrusion must be preserved in the end.
MovingOn
Posts: 632
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 5:34 pm

Re: EAA AOPA medical proposal

Post by MovingOn »

.......
Last edited by MovingOn on Wed Aug 13, 2014 11:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
CharlieTango
Posts: 1000
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:04 am
Location: Mammoth Lakes, California

Re: EAA AOPA medical proposal

Post by CharlieTango »

MovingOn wrote:Who said I was responding to your post?

Let's just do away with all regulations. We don't even need pilot licenses. Just let everyone take some lessons, buy an airplane, and do their own thing. While we're at it, let's just eliminate all government and let everyone survive on their own with no "intrusion" of government.
Perhaps you can clarify what you were responding to?

I suspect you are kidding but I agree with you. Eliminating all regulation would allow us to start over and assess which regs are actually benifitial. Aviation has enough regs where you or I could be violated any time we become targeted. Our country has so many laws and regs that they are unknowable by any person or entity, we have overdone it.

The amount of over regulation we are subject to isn't surprising when you see that the media rates a congress by the number of laws it passes. Even with our excessive number of rules we are led to believe that any lawmaker that isn't busy passing more laws is a problem and causing grid-lock.

Over regulation has to be first recognized before it can be opposed.
MovingOn
Posts: 632
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 5:34 pm

Re: EAA AOPA medical proposal

Post by MovingOn »

.......
Last edited by MovingOn on Wed Aug 13, 2014 11:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
CharlieTango
Posts: 1000
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:04 am
Location: Mammoth Lakes, California

Re: EAA AOPA medical proposal

Post by CharlieTango »

MovingOn wrote:Yes, let's solve the problem by abolishing the EPA, and cancel all regulation of the banks and financial institutions. While we're at it we can abolish the Department of Education. After all, it's not "benifitial."
Now you are seeing the light. All 3 of the things you enumerated should be abolished. Its good to think big but maybe we can get the FAA's reliance on 3rd class medicals out of the way now (because it isn't such a big issue). Your bigger issues may have to wait until we have a less divided govt.
User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: EAA AOPA medical proposal

Post by MrMorden »

MovingOn wrote:Who said I was responding to your post?

Let's just do away with all regulations. We don't even need pilot licenses. Just let everyone take some lessons, buy an airplane, and do their own thing. While we're at it, let's just eliminate all government and let everyone survive on their own with no "intrusion" of government.
You seem pretty upset, but since you brought it up...

Like CT, I'm a Libertarian.

Actually I agree with some of what you said above. I do not believe in zero government, but government has one and only one legitimate function: to protect the rights of its citizens. Any other use of government involves coercing somebody to do something against their will. Somebody says "there ought to me a law!" and is willing to use the government's monopoly on legal force to push this concept on others. Think about every regulation you know of; it involves one concept of what is "good" that many people may disagree with, and then uses the threat of force on everyone to coerce compliance. That's not really good government, it's strongarm near-slavery.

Let me suggest a better system: Let people do as they please, as long as they don't interfere with others' rights to life, liberty, or property. Instead of a million laws to force us do do what some government official has arbitrarily decided is the "right thing", how about we leave people free to do what they want, as long as they don't step on the equal rights of others. In other words, enforce personal responsibility.

You would be free to fly your airplane as you please, but if you harm somebody or their property through your actions, you are responsible for it criminally or civilly through court action (see...government!). As long as you cause no harm, you can do what you want, as a free person. People will naturally gravitate toward safe operation of aircraft simply because they don't want hurt somebody or their property. Isn't that the end goal? I'd rather carry a big fat liability insurance policy than be dictated to over every little action in my life.

"But some people will abuse that freedom and do stupid stuff!" Yup, just like now. Extra rules don't keep people bent on bad behavior from acting on that. Gun laws don't stop criminals from committing gun crimes, drug laws don't stop drug use, laws against flying like an idiot don't stop people from doing it. So why have them? Most of us are reasonable people, why do we need to *preemptively* tell rational, well-intentioned people to not do things that in some circumstances might be reasonable, just because there is a small subset of circumstances where they are not?

Either you trust people in general or you don't. If you do, you let them be free and trust that most of them can handle that freedom. If you don't trust people, why then do you trust policy makers and regulators who are...people?

Most people that like government regulation like getting into other people's lives and telling them how to live. Even if it's totally the wrong thing, or something they don't agree with, they still like the concept of somebody "better than us" making sure we don't run with scissors or drown in a bathtub. You know, "for our own good", because clearly we can't figure these things out.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA
MovingOn
Posts: 632
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 5:34 pm

Re: EAA AOPA medical proposal

Post by MovingOn »

.......
Last edited by MovingOn on Wed Aug 13, 2014 11:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: EAA AOPA medical proposal

Post by MrMorden »

MovingOn wrote:Yes, let's solve the problem by abolishing the EPA, and cancel all regulation of the banks and financial institutions. While we're at it we can abolish the Department of Education. After all, it's not "benifitial."
Okay, here's the thing. If people see value in something, it will get done. Roads and buildings are built whether the government is involved or not.

If people see the value in educating children, it will get done. Without government, just as it was done by communities in the 19th century. There was no Department of Education until 1976, and ever since then literacy has declined. Federal interference has not helped education.

Financial malfeasance and fraud are illegal because they amount to theft. So if regulation is so great, why has not one bank or financial executive been arrested for their obvious frauds in 2008? Because the regulators are appointed by politicians, who in turn receive funding from the bankers. Regulation has not helped this process, it has HINDERED it. It would be better if state prosecutors directly prosecuted these people for fraud and sent them to jail, instead of the whole obfuscated federal regulation/kickback machine getting involved.

The EPA is actually the largest polluter in the USA, because they are exempt from their own regulations. When they clean up sites, they often dump the waste in the open on federal land.

There is a principle I agree with that says whenever you use force to achieve a goal, you invariably get the opposite of what you intend. It is much better to convince people to act voluntarily than put a gun to their noggin and force them to do as you want against their will. After all, if you can't convince them to act voluntarily, then maybe you need to shore up your arguments and try again.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA
User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: EAA AOPA medical proposal

Post by MrMorden »

MovingOn wrote:Maybe you and Rand Paul can move to an island somewhere and start your own country.
Typical argument. Here is the problem with arguing personal freedom with people who don't really like it. No matter how hard you try to enter into rational discourse, you will only get snarky comments or personal insults. That's because, as I stated, there are two ways to deal with people:

1) Convince them through discussion of the principles.

2) Force them.

See, I tried to convince you. You do not want to engage in a rational discussion, because you prefer the use of force. So you resort to snarky personal comments. This is the rhetorical equivalent of using force. I made no personal comments about you in any of my comments, but laid out my philosophy for you to comment on. Instead of engaging in thoughtful discourse, you do the equivalent of a verbal drive-by shooting: get your snark on, then flee without any substance at all before any counter argument you make could be picked apart.

Bravo sir.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA
Post Reply