Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Medical fails may climb

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Hey Bringuptheturd: hell yes guys like you caused this. Why else did prater feel the need to write his age 65 law with "no new medical criteria?!" You think he didn see OSA coming? He has a 28 inch neck and he's a fat sob. He saw all this coming and he didn't care. Your argument=over. Thanks a lot idiot. And before you pop off: It's captain flopgut
 
Last edited:
I'm glad to see you doing actual work on this BringUp and not just posting on FI, right?

Anybody supporting age 65 needs to be on this big time - because EVERYBODY ELSE SAW IT COMING. This IS ON YOU.
So you're saying this is on SWAPA since they were the union that led the charge for age 65?
 
And before you pop off: It's captain flopgut
So what is your planned retirement date? You are retiring well before 65 aren't you?

So the same Prater who you think is a sellout is also clairvoyant about medical issues? Why didn't he think the FAA would require enhanced diabetes screening? Why didn't he feel cardiac stress tests would be mandated? No, it's because you still can't get all your dots to line up so that you can blame one FAA flight surgeons juggernaut on the movement of the retirement age 5 years.

You think that had the retirement age remained the same, that some little cozy relationship with the preceding FAA Federal Air Surgeon would have kept the medical requirements unchanged? Really?

Say that to yourself and you'll hear how stupid it sounds.

Congrats Floppy. Condolences to your F/Os
 
You think that had the retirement age remained the same, that some little cozy relationship with the preceding FAA Federal Air Surgeon would have kept the medical requirements unchanged? Really?


Of course it would. Absolutely zero doubt. Don't forget what that rule's record was: perfect! Probably the most durable aviation rule ever written. We could live and work how we wanted, and the flying public got a known margin of safety. What it amounted to was freedom. Freedom to fly, airline, GA, sport or commercial, you name it. Now idiots like you have opened Pandora's box and will probably end up costing all Americans the freedom to fly nearly unrestricted. Freedom is a responsibility and YOU weren't up to it.

Why else do you think the FAS is being so ballsy with this? Because he's matching the same thing prater did. It's arrogance matching arrogance. You were just too sure you deserved rules be written how you want them. Well, now you're learning there are repercussions.
 
Last edited:
So what is your planned retirement date? You are retiring well before 65 aren't you?


I'm following my old man's footsteps, and he left 121 in his early 50's. Of course he had a regular retirement progression and didn't have to take a hit for guys like you. I'll put my money where my mouth is, you needn't worry about that.

I've been real healthy, and real unhealthy in my career. Usually is a function of what my schedule is. And since the only guys who really stayed after 60 did so if they had a good schedule, not too many of us others have. If I can't drink some beer and eat steak on my days off, then I really don't want to do this job. I can't imagine having this career dictate my entire existence.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for clarifying your decision to stay with that non-argument. Sorry the F/O thing chaps your ass so bad.

Again, you still don't grasp that there is no connection between OSA and Age 65, as much as you may want to dream up one, it just doesn't exist.

7600+ posts tells me you're not the go-to guy you think you are.

So it's just a coincidence huh?

You plan on making an argument, or just throwing out vague insults? Believe me I don't come to FI for validation and have thrown enough insults to take as many as you got. Knock yourself out- but so far- all you've said in response to my post is

"Nuh-uh, there isn't a connection..."

Got any proof or at least an opinion more fleshed out than this?
 
So you're saying this is on SWAPA since they were the union that led the charge for age 65?

Believe me- that was a divided house, and the pro65's are getting an earful very similar to what I posted.

Gummers better be doing actual work on this and not just bitching about it or defending their short sighted seniority grab
 
Gummers better be doing actual work on this and not just bitching about it or defending their short sighted seniority grab
and if things work out for you, you too may become a "gummer" someday:laugh:
 
and if things work out for you, you too may become a "gummer" someday:laugh:

I don't exactly think very highly of wave, but I get the impression that he's probably someone who has taken care of his finances responsibly and won't need to work well into old age to live.
 
I don't exactly think very highly of wave, but I get the impression that he's probably someone who has taken care of his finances responsibly and won't need to work well into old age to live.
Yes but all that only works if you live long enought to be a gummer:rolleyes:
 

Latest resources

Back
Top