----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]----
At 04:22 PM 7/20/02 -0400, Greg Bullough wrote:
>It is about
>the physical health of pilots and whether ALL pilots can be trusted
>to self-certify and if, failing that, the DMV is as good as an AME.
Greg, Paul and Lynn;
Thank you for your well-argued points. You all have valid things to say
about the health of the piloting persons. What I wish to do is state
what I see as the historical and political realities.
Now, dispite what you may think, December 17, 1903, was a slow news
day. The Wright Brothers did not make a big splash in the papers.
Awareness of aviation crept in, and was not popularized until the 1910
era.
Then came World War I and the "Knights of the Air." Much more
romantical writting about them than the mud, blood and cooties of the
trenches. With the Roaring Twenties, lots of aviating happened. So did
lots of wrecks. That is when the Federal Athorities stepped in. Did you
know that Oregon issued the first flying licenses? They led in drivers
licenses as well. But the Federals overstepped the states saying that
flying was too far and fast to be regulated at a local level. The states
did not fight it - they didn't make money off flying licenses like the
driving ones! So we had the first air commerce codes.
Now, I don't know what class of medical Linburg flew under. But the
maintenance regs, with such things as dual, independent ignition
systems, started in 1928. Rules had been inacted earlier due to the
many crashes coming out of the Barnstorming era = early 1920's.
With the crash, it all didn't make much difference. Flying became
relegated to the Air Races and the military. Yeah, there were the
Heath Kit planes and the like, but still too rare to make a difference.
In the war years, it became very ridgid. The military can draft the
doctors, so there is no big expense for a medical requirement. The
driving was regulated by the states, and they saw no need to add a
health requirement. So by the 1950's we had the stratification of
driving as mass-consumed, no-questions-asked and flying as
mostly-military-and-commercial.
This is the distinction I'm bringing to the table. We, the entire
population
of the United States, North America in general, Europe and wide parts of
Aisa, willingly put up with the pollution and death rate from cars. But
there
are many restrictions on aircraft. I see no difference. Weather you are
run
down by the elderly person who can't see but still Legally Drives, or are
landed on by an engine falling off a 747 due to substandard bolts being
used, you are just as dead. And the public really does not cry long about
those poor unfortunantes killed by the airliners. It is all in the
Risk/Benefit
ratio. If the benefit is enough (I get somewhere without having to walk)
then
the risk (I may die in my car and take someone else out) persons will do
it.
So, I say we will continue to debate these points. Couple of things:
* if an independent look at something caught all, then how do you
explain
Enron?
* if we take the best possible look at every one doing something, will
there
be anyone left to do it?
It will always be a balancing act. I feel that persons should be able to
indulge without restraint, but grant that flying is very public.
All in all, I feel we have a good record in aviation. If the crashes
happened
every day, they would not make the splash in the papers that they do!
Percy in Portland
==================================================================
TO UNSUBSCRIBE go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
