Medical fails may climb

[waveflyer]

No, HOW MANY OF US BRING, told you that upping the retirement age WOULD BRING INCREASED MEDICAL SCRUTINY??

Thousands did.

The idea you think this is a coincidence is the BS

 

[Bringupthebird]

So the answer to my question to you wave is "nuthin'"

 

[Bringupthebird]

There is no retirement age to GA flying, so your argument is BS. Face it, you wanted to keep 60 in place to protect your upgrade timeline, I get that. You didn't care that all the safety arguments against changing it undermined the pilot's credibility. The GO! crew that nodded off and are cited as reason for OSA testing were not over 60.

So, try some other attack on me, cause this one makes you look stupid.

 

[waveflyer]

Did you write your congressman and senator? Every representative you have?
Do you contribute more than the min to your union PAC? Tell them what you think? Write your union?
I've served moron- so no- not nothing- get over yourself.

You're clearly annoyed that what ALL OF US ANTI-AGE 65 guys predicted has come completely true- so the onus is on YOU- you better be doing the leg work on this-

As for my intentions, I'm ambivalent about age 65- I've stated my opinion many many times- being a captain past age 60 is a mistake- we had too much data about the health risks of age 60 captains- we could have gotten rid of age based retirements for FOs and we wouldn't have seen this- what we are seeing now - medical standards over-reach bc age 65 is a change and the data doesn't look good. You clearly don't understand the politics behind our career. The federal air surgeon was appointed at the cabinet level - do Americans care about private pilot medical standards? No- but they care about their captains- they don't care about FOs- they don't even think we're real pilots yet- now the surgeon has to do something or look like he's asleep at the wheel-

It should have been fly til you want- in the right seat- I'd like to do that- I love flying- and my idea on this is far from popular with anyone- so shut it-

Now bc each age 60+ medical incident highlights systemic pilot health issues- the surgeon now has the political will to increase standards. Before- we gone the better part of a half century with nothing but decreased scrutiny bc our record was so good-

What's undeniable is that what we predicted is coming true.
So you AND YOUR ILK BETTER DO YOUR POLITICAL WORK ON THIS- bc like all this debt, my generation will be paying the price for your short sighted decisions again

 

[Bringupthebird]

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.

 

[Flopgut]

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

 

[Jim]

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?

 

[Bringupthebird]

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

 

[Flopgut]

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.

 

[Flopgut]

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.

 

[waveflyer]

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?

 

[waveflyer]

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

 

[pilotyip]

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:

 

[PCL_128]

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.

 

[pilotyip]

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