Med Reform movement?
- Thread starter libby2cm
- Start date
airbrain
Pre-Flight
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2013
- Messages
- 53
- Location
- Mountain View, California
- Display Name
Display name:
AirBrain
Don't I wish. That's probably what bugs me most of all about the whole routine: the lack of any sense of accountability to public critique. Agreeing with themselves seems to suffice.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 22,966
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob Noel
What we don't know is how many people would go for flying if the 3rd class medical went away.
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
I don't disagree with you on the gain for the young population who want to fly, but for old people, it's often after we've invested a great deal financially and in time in our desire to fly around the NAS without too much bother. It's been said that I'm not the typical GA pilot and maybe that's true, but considering what I've spent on GA over the past 12 years, the medical restrictions are a damning indictment to continued investment.
For each of us who have taken the time and money to just get the license, there is a point of no return where we just say 'eff it, I'm driving'. That point is why the price of planes continues to decline, and one of the leading factors for older folks is the cost, and hassle of the 3rd class med.
So, I have to disagree with you, and declare my bias as someone who is now older that the 3rd class medical reform would lift all GA boats, including younger people who want to fly, but see an impediment from the medical standpoint. Also, it's easy to discern that medical limitations always affect older folks far more than young.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,448
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
My guess is that it might keep some people flying for a few more years but I doubt it will cause a large number of starts.
Yet it's ok for one denied a medical to jump into a 15 passenger van, fill it to the max, and go whizzing down the interstate at 85mph in close proximity to other innocents?
Makes no sense.
These types of arguments are almost invariably based on logical fallacies. Let's agree for the sake of argument that the answer to your question is "No, that doesn't make sense." So the remedy is to eliminate the class 3 medical, right? Well, that's one possible remedy. An equally valid remedy would be to require people driving a 15 passenger van to get a CDL. So don't always assume that because people agree on an answer that they also agree on a solution.
Bill
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 15,104
- Location
- Southeast Tennessee
- Display Name
Display name:
This page intentionally left blank
Private pilots in small planes is a risky activity, not a dangerous one. There is a difference. To me the biggest one being that if you come to harm in an airplane, chances are pretty good that it was your own fault on some level. The same is not even remotely true in a car. I personally find driving way more risky than flying. I have much, much more control over the outcome of a flight than I do of a drive.
Boy, that was a well-reasoned and thoughtful response. I'm right, and you know it, which is why you can't even bother to try.
Bill
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 15,104
- Location
- Southeast Tennessee
- Display Name
Display name:
This page intentionally left blank
You ARE right, lets do put CDL requirements on drivers of 15pax vans, because we all know more regulation makes everything better. Land of the free and home of the regulated and all that...
And he responds with more logical fallacies, this one being the strawman. Good job.
I say again, you have no substantive response to what I said, because I'm correct.
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
I'm not sure the 15 pass van drivers should be further regulated, but it should be insured out of existence. Lots of people hurt or killed in those things. I was in a train of them on the Schuykill fwy many years ago and saw the lead van tangle with a car and a patch of snow. With 14 people inside, it went pear-shaped real fast. There were bodies and injured all over that road. What a mess. After that, I never rode in one again, and won't let family members ride in them either.
Bill
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 15,104
- Location
- Southeast Tennessee
- Display Name
Display name:
This page intentionally left blank
I've driven them before, with all seats full one has to be very careful and leave a very long following distance. The brakes on those things are not anywhere near normal passenger car levels of performance.
Bill
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 15,104
- Location
- Southeast Tennessee
- Display Name
Display name:
This page intentionally left blank
Fine, you're correct, but I don't have to agree with you.
Stewartb
Final Approach
Statistics do not support this. Does that qualify it as a logical fallacy?
I completely agree, you don't. All I'm saying is that in cases like this there are more ways to look at a solution than the one you (or I) agree with. A lot of people don't see that. That's my only point.
JeffDG
Touchdown! Greaser!
How many people are killed per year in aircraft accidents?
How many people are killed per year in car accidents?
Same questions for bystanders? Far fewer bystanders are killed in aircraft incidents, and that's the distinction between risky (risk to paricipants) and dangerous (risk to third parties)
No.
But I think statistics do support it. Think of it this way: it's generally agreed that 80% (or thereabouts) of GA accidents have some level of pilot responsibility. Even in the case of an engine failure, if they spin it in the report often concludes "Pilot's failure to maintain airspeed after loss of power", etc. Whereas in a car, you can be following all the rules and regulations, well-rested, sober, alert, driving a well-maintained vehicle, etc., and get creamed by a guy with a 0.25 BAC blowing through a stop sign at 80 in a 30 m.p.h. zone. Or a kid texting. The list goes on and on, and these things happen all the time. So I think it's more than fair to say that the outcome is more in your hands in an airplane.
Stewartb
Final Approach
Logical fallacy describes your posts perfectly from where I sit so I'll go with it. Cheers.
I think far too few people differentiate between a risk and a danger. When it comes to airplanes, they call them both dangers. People take risks every day that they never think twice about. Under normal circumstances (driver not drunk, not 16 and prone to idiocy, etc.), have you ever heard someone say they weren't comfortable going somewhere in a car? I haven't. And there are very real risks of driving or riding in a car. Yet people label GA aircraft as "dangerous" out of hand.
This is the one that always gets me: we've all heard people say "I'd never get in a small airplane". How many people have you heard say "I'll never get in a boat"? I've never heard it. Yet guess which kills more people every single year? Hint: it ain't airplanes.
2012 recreational boating deaths: 651.
2013 deaths from GA accidents: 387.
(couldn't find the same year, didn't feel like wasting time)
No it doesn't, but that's fine.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 22,966
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob Noel
But we don't know.
What's one of the first things we recommend a perspective student? We strongly recommend that they make sure they can get a 3rd class medical. Obviously we want to help them avoid spending training dollars if they'll never qualify. How many of those don't even bother trying to get the medical?
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,448
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
When you are comparing the risks of things like driving, boating or flying you can't use absolute numbers. You need to consider how many people expose themselves to the activity. Fewer people died last year from BASE jumping but you can't say it's less risky than driving, boating or flying. Maybe it's less dangerous according to your definition because BASE jumpers don't usually run into other people, or was that Jeff DG's definition.
Last edited:
Very fair point, and you're correct. I guess what I was trying to get at is that nobody (or extraordinarily few people, anyway) would ever think that there were more recreational boating deaths than "small airplane" deaths every year, yet how many times have you heard "I'll never ride in a small plane" vs. "I'll never ride in a boat"? I've heard the former countless times, and I've never heard the latter.
Stewartb
Final Approach
I'd like to see statistics for 3rd class accidents classified by pilot age. Maybe old dudes are the problem, not the solution. If you classify as an old dude you'll be offended. If you're a young dude you'll hope it proves true. Perspective changes how we view all things. My perspective is that my disrespect for the 3rd class medical has remained unchanged as I grow older. Especially in light of my current SI compared to my free ride before my procedure. I was broken, now I'm fixed. The 3rd class regs have everything bass ackwards with respect to my personal history. My perspective is relative to my experience.