ALPA and medical reform

mshunter said:
And this is my exact point. I'm not talking down to you. I'm giving you my perspective on why this thread went to hell. Opening a dialogue isn't "you're wrong." It's not speaking down to someone and dancing around telling them your an idiot. It's not saying "that's the dumbest thing I've ever read."

I'm not talking to him that way, because he isn't one of the worst offenders. YOU and Todd are the ones who is in just about EVERY thread turning it into a chit show. You two remind of of why Velocipede was banned. Because you two can't seem to approach a situation with tact. You guys act like a couple of spoiled brat children. When someone doesn't see it from your point of view, you get upset, offended, and go on an attack. Grow up, act like an adult. You guys bring a vibe to this site, THAT NO ONE CARES FOR. You're not polite, you just want everyone to agree with you, and if they don't, they are all idiots. It's disgusting that people with attitudes like that are in a position of union leadership. And that's what talking down to someone sounds like.
Click to expand...


Hey now.... @ATN_Pilot isn't even flying 121 anymore;-)
 
Does anyone have a list of conditions that are currently a no-go with a 3rd Class medical that are costing people all this money? On the surface I'm not in favor of retracting the 3rd Class medical requirements for most of the reasons ALPA has mentioned, but do not know many of the hardships older pilots have to endure. Can anyone shed some light on that?
 
mshunter said:
And this is my exact point. I'm not talking down to you.
Click to expand...

Read your next paragraph and try to say that again with a straight face.

Not that I'm complaining. Unlike some people, I'm not some girly man that can't take it. Talk to me whatever way you want. But don't be a hypocritical little whiner about it.

Grow up, act like an adult.
Click to expand...

Heed your own advice, hot shot.
 
Last edited:
For all: Speak to one another with a little bit of respect. This isn't APC, nor do we want it to be.

If anyone can't make their point without doing the above, you're free to take it to APC, where it will likely be welcomed.

Thanks.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Your assessment of significance isn't the question. The question is this: would removing the requirement for a third class medical decrease the level of safety, even slightly? If the answer is yes, then there is no reason to do it. And sorry, no one can argue that the answer is no with a straight face.
Click to expand...

I won't argue that it may, however slightly, decrease safety. I will argue, with a straight face, that it is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. I believe there will still be an acceptable level of safety without the requirement for a third class medical.

I don't know why this is a cornerstone of AOPA's advocacy. I'd much prefer fighting user fees and the part 23 rewrite be the focus. I don't know how big a hindrance a third class medical is on the majority of the GA community. I do know that $400,000 Skyhawks are not a part of a sustainable light aviation industry. I don't think medical standards will make airplane prices more reasonable. That said, I don't care one way or another about requiring third class medicals, but do find it a bit of a reach for ALPA to be involved.
 
I am confused as to why GA pilots would want an airmen sharing THEIR skies that may not be mentally or physically fit?

Seriously? Or is this a GA pilots protection force taking play?

It doesn't have to be an ATP vs PPL thing.
 
The thing that interests me is that there is a lot more that could be done to increase safety. Intellectually though, where is the line though where it is too cost/time prohibitive to implement in the name of safety? Taking it to the extreme, you could require a full physical, mental, and emotional examination every day for a pilot. You would likely find a few people who would have declared themselves fit for duty when in reality they were too tired, too distracted or even too drunk to fly. Sure it would be safer, but it isn't realistic.
 
exneophyte said:
The thing that interests me is that there is a lot more that could be done to increase safety. Intellectually though, where is the line though where it is too cost/time prohibitive to implement in the name of safety? Taking it to the extreme, you could require a full physical, mental, and emotional examination every day for a pilot. You would likely find a few people who would have declared themselves fit for duty when in reality they were too tired, too distracted or even too drunk to fly. Sure it would be safer, but it isn't realistic.
Click to expand...

No doubt. But that's not what this conversation is about. This about someone wanting to CHANGE current safety rules. And if they want to change rules, then they need to prove that the change will be just as safe as the current policy. And they can't do that.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
No doubt. But that's not what this conversation is about. This about someone wanting to CHANGE current safety rules. And if they want to change rules, then they need to prove that the change will be just as safe as the current policy. And they can't do that.
Click to expand...
Playing the devils advocate here. Wouldn't any proposal that increases the number of pilots/planes in the sky inherently decrease safety from current policy? More planes=more crashes
 
exneophyte said:
Playing the devils advocate here. Wouldn't any proposal that increases the number of pilots/planes in the sky inherently decrease safety from current policy? More planes=more crashes
Click to expand...

No. The proportion of crashes doesn't increase, only the raw number.
 
exneophyte said:
Why is the proportion important rather than the raw number? More crashes=more dead and injured
Click to expand...

Because the likelihood of injury or death hasn't changed. If you get on an airplane, your chance of death is no different than it was before. Nobody measures safety in raw numbers.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Nobody measures safety in raw numbers.
Click to expand...

A person drives drunk from 4 to 8 days per month. I've got bad news and good news. The bad news is when he drove drunk 4 days per month, he hit on average one person or 25% of the time. The good news is now that he drives drunk 8 days a month, he's still at only 25% of the time.
 
exneophyte said:
A person drives drunk from 4 to 8 days per month. I've got bad news and good news. The bad news is when he drove drunk 4 days per month, he hit on average one person or 25% of the time. The good news is now that he drives drunk 8 days a month, he's still at only 25% of the time.
Click to expand...

Which isn't how that statistic is tracked. Using your example, the number of drunk driving fatalities per mile driven is going up, because the number of drunk driving miles out of the total number of miles driven in the population has increased. The proportion has changed. In your prior example, you weren't just increasing the number of drunk pilots flying, or drunk flying hours, you were increasing the total number of pilots and hours, which wouldn't change the proportion.
 
I stopped reading when the idiot said that it was incumbent upon ALPA to support their position with evidence. That burden isn't ALPA's. It's yours. You're the one trying to change the rule.
 
mshunter said:
And this is my exact point. I'm not talking down to you.
Click to expand...

Yes you are.

I'm giving you my perspective on why this thread went to hell.
Click to expand...

It is because folks don't want to hear the facts, they want to pontificate their opinions. Throw in the usual personal attack by @DE727UPS as well.

Opening a dialogue isn't "you're wrong." It's not speaking down to someone and dancing around telling them your an idiot. It's not saying "that's the dumbest thing I've ever read."
Click to expand...

What?

I'm not talking to him that way, because he isn't one of the worst offenders. YOU and Todd are the ones who is in just about EVERY thread turning it into a chit show. You two remind of of why Velocipede was banned.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure he was banned (and rightfully so) for another reason.

Because you two can't seem to approach a situation with tact. You guys act like a couple of spoiled brat children. When someone doesn't see it from your point of view, you get upset, offended, and go on an attack. Grow up, act like an adult. You guys bring a vibe to this site, THAT NO ONE CARES FOR. You're not polite, you just want everyone to agree with you, and if they don't, they are all idiots. It's disgusting that people with attitudes like that are in a position of union leadership. And that's what talking down to someone sounds like.
Click to expand...

It is VERY easy for you to throw these grenades while I (and Todd) have spent hours trying to make this profession better.

Now, more specifically, considering my union leadership position, I am not going to sit here and try nicely to correct someone when they are repeatedly giving misinformation to the users on here, spreading bad information, and saying whatever they want, when I have put my time in to help correct the processes.
 
MikeD said:
For all: Speak to one another with a little bit of respect. This isn't APC, nor do we want it to be.

If anyone can't make their point without doing the above, you're free to take it to APC, where it will likely be welcomed.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

If we want to really talk about respect, I would say it is EXTREMELY disrespectful to the community to have misinformation spread repeatedly because folks on here would rather pontificate their position than deal with the facts of the matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top