Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:13 AM - Re: who can fly what (Thom Riddle)
2. 06:45 AM - Re: who can fly what (Pat Ladd)
3. 06:51 AM - Re: who can fly what (Herb Gayheart)
4. 08:08 AM - Re: who can fly what (Pat Ladd)
5. 08:21 AM - Re: Re: who can fly what (Richard Girard)
6. 10:29 AM - Re: who can fly what (Thom Riddle)
7. 12:47 PM - Re: who can fly what (Charlie England)
8. 01:41 PM - Re: who can fly what (John Hauck)
9. 03:42 PM - Re: who can fly what (Dana Hague)
10. 03:42 PM - Re: Re: who can fly what (Dana Hague)
11. 05:43 PM - Re: who can fly what (George Bearden)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: who can fly what |
Another way to put it is this.
1) If the FAA proves to themselves that a pilot is medically unfit, he can no longer
fly any aircraft, legally.
2) If you don't give the FAA a chance to do this every six month, year, two years,
or five years (depending upon the class of medical etc) then you can't fly
aircraft that don't meet the LSA limitations.
Convoluted thinking, I know, but the phrasing fits the FAA thinking on the subject.
Merriam-Webster says:
Definition of AIRCRAFT
: a vehicle (as an airplane or balloon) for traveling through the air
According to the FAA our ULs are not aircraft (just vehicles), which bends the
Webster definition past its elastic limit, but that is the FAA for you. It seems
that to qualify to be an FAA regulations writer, one must be a native speaker
of gibberish, or a lawyer, which is redundant.
--------
Thom Riddle
Buffalo, NY (9G0)
Kolb Slingshot SS-021
no engine
FOR SALE
Diamond Katana DA20-A1
Rotax 912 F3
Don't worry about old age... it doesn't last very long.
- Anonymous
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=397720#397720
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: who can fly what |
had a dissy spell and went to the doctor >>
Hi Malcolm,
very sensible and in that case the system worked as it is supposed to.
What happens if someone self certifies themselves as being fitand then
has a medically related accident.Can the FAA go after him?
Be very difficult in court unless it could be proved that it was a known
preexisting condition.
I don`t think the self certification system would survive a high profile
crash into a crowd with a couple dead would it.
The problem is with the nutcases. We had one guy who, with a license
but with only a little experience in 3 axis a/c bought himself a
gyrocopter and tried to make his first flight in it in a crowded
municipal park. Luckily the silly sod rammed a tree and killed himself
before he had the chance to kill anyone else. You can`t legislate
against stupidity.
Long may self certification flourish.
Pat
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: who can fly what |
What does one do when the legislators are stupid?? :-) Herb
At 08:44 AM 4/3/2013, you wrote:
>had a dissy spell and went to the doctor >>
>
>Hi Malcolm,
>very sensible and in that case the system worked as it is supposed to.
>
>What happens if someone self certifies themselves as being fitand
>then has a medically related accident.Can the FAA go after him?
>Be very difficult in court unless it could be proved that it was a
>known preexisting condition.
>
>I don`t think the self certification system would survive a high
>profile crash into a crowd with a couple dead would it.
>
>The problem is with the nutcases. We had one guy who, with a
>license but with only a little experience in 3 axis a/c bought
>himself a gyrocopter and tried to make his first flight in it in a
>crowded municipal park. Luckily the silly sod rammed a tree and
>killed himself before he had the chance to kill anyone else. You
>can`t legislate against stupidity.
>Long may self certification flourish.
>
>Pat
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: who can fly what |
<<if you once did have a medical, the most recent one can't be failed>>
Thanks for explanation Dana. I understand it..
I still don`t think that is what the above quote says
Pat
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: who can fly what |
Thom, It's not gibberish, it's legalese. The FAA mandate from Congress is
to manage and control the airspace and all the aircraft within it. To
abstain from this mandate and accommodate ultralights they did the
unimaginable and relinquished control by calling them vehicles. Rather than
chide or berate them I think whoever had the genius to do that should be
put on a pedestal for praise and admiration. It was an amazing and
wonderful piece of thinking and on top of that they put it into law.
Despite pissing, moaning and out right cheating it has remained the law and
continues to be an excellent example of bureaucratic restraint.
Rick Girard
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Thom Riddle <riddletr@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Another way to put it is this.
>
> 1) If the FAA proves to themselves that a pilot is medically unfit, he can
> no longer fly any aircraft, legally.
> 2) If you don't give the FAA a chance to do this every six month, year,
> two years, or five years (depending upon the class of medical etc) then you
> can't fly aircraft that don't meet the LSA limitations.
>
> Convoluted thinking, I know, but the phrasing fits the FAA thinking on the
> subject.
>
> Merriam-Webster says:
> Definition of AIRCRAFT
>
> : a vehicle (as an airplane or balloon) for traveling through the air
>
> According to the FAA our ULs are not aircraft (just vehicles), which bends
> the Webster definition past its elastic limit, but that is the FAA for you.
> It seems that to qualify to be an FAA regulations writer, one must be a
> native speaker of gibberish, or a lawyer, which is redundant.
>
> --------
> Thom Riddle
> Buffalo, NY (9G0)
>
> Kolb Slingshot SS-021
> no engine
> FOR SALE
>
> Diamond Katana DA20-A1
> Rotax 912 F3
>
> Don't worry about old age... it doesn't last very long.
> - Anonymous
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=397720#397720
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: who can fly what |
Rick,
Your are correct. We are fortunate indeed to have Part 103, unique in the world,
I believe. I was actually making fun of lawyers more than the FAA.
--------
Thom Riddle
Buffalo, NY (9G0)
Kolb Slingshot SS-021
no engine
FOR SALE
Diamond Katana DA20-A1
Rotax 912 F3
Don't worry about old age... it doesn't last very long.
- Anonymous
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=397755#397755
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: who can fly what |
On 04/03/2013 10:08 AM, Pat Ladd wrote:
> <<if you once did have a medical, the most recent one can't be failed>>
> Thanks for explanation Dana. I understand it..
> I still don`t think that is what the above quote says
> Pat
>
*I think that the rest of the sentence is implied: *if you once did have
a medical, the most recent one (which could be the one you just took or
the one you're about to take) can't be failed if you want to keep your
flying privileges in any category/class (except ultralite and/or glider)
after that most recent medical. Ultralites & gliders can be flown
regardless of any medical; taken or not taken, passed or failed.
Charlie
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | who can fly what |
You can`t legislate against stupidity.
Long may self certification flourish.
Pat
Patrick L/Kolbers:
Even British certification cannot prevent some experienced pilots from
crashing into their neighbor's hanger.
I've been flying actively for 45 years. I was a late bloomer. Did not solo
until I was 29 years old. I now fly as a sport pilot with self
certification for my medical. I forgot to renew it last August. Was
already headed West on my annual journey. Very convenient to be able to do
that, plus saved me $75.00. Still undecided if I will get another flight
physical or not. Probably will. That would make me legal to fly at night,
and less the other normal Sport Pilot restrictions. At times I get caught
out at night, but my insurance would not now pay as a Sport Pilot if I had
an accident.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: who can fly what |
At 09:50 AM 4/3/2013, Herb Gayheart wrote:
>What does one do when the legislators are stupid?? :-) Herb
What does one do when they're smart? I realize it happens so rarely...
Dana
--
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to
teenage boys.
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: who can fly what |
At 08:13 AM 4/3/2013, you wrote:
>Merriam-Webster says:
>Definition of AIRCRAFT
>
>: a vehicle (as an airplane or balloon) for traveling through the air
>
>According to the FAA our ULs are not aircraft (just vehicles), which bends
>the Webster definition past its elastic limit, but that is the FAA for you.
Actually, nowhere in the regulations does it say that an ultralight vehicle
isn't an aircraft, only that Part 91 applies to "aircraft other than
ultralight vehicles", which implies this ULs are just a different category
of aircraft. FAR 1.1 says "Aircraft means a device that is used or
intended to be used for flight in the air."
Dana
--
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to
teenage boys.
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: who can fly what |
I think most of this interminable thread would dry up if all of the
participants would first study the source material.
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|