BeechTalk - BT - Unelected FAA medical contempt of congress

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Aug 2023, 17:51

Does anybody remember when they added the prostate exam to the examination?

How does having prostrate cancer negatively affect flight safety?

Just more government overreach or overinnerreach.

I can just see the bureaucrats snickering as they mandated that new rule.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Aug 2023, 19:23

Username Protected wrote:

... hyperactivity during childhood .

Again, not a medical issue, but a "control" issue.

Doping kids (99% boys) and ruining their future opportunities is inhuman and there is a socio-political agenda behind this, IMO.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Aug 2023, 14:28

Username Protected wrote:

Those who fly “for compensation or hire” should be subjected to medical evaluation in order to protect the traveling public.

Those who fly “for their own personal transportation needs” should be subjected to no more medical evaluation than anyone else who utilizes a motorized conveyance for that purpose.

Those who fly “for a hobby” should be subjected to no more medical evaluation than any other hobbyist. I believe this is called “the pursuit of happiness”.

I fly for hire, so why should I have to be subjected to non evidence biased punitive “medicine”?

How about just do a basic med thing for everyone, doesn’t matter what you’re flying for, you’re ether healthy enough to fly or you’re not

Like others said, truck drivers have a less a less intense exam than basic med and they can fly a 18 wheeler of explosives by your kids school

Or medical the exam school bus drivers get because parents are too lazy to drive their precious kids to their gov run schools?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Aug 2023, 16:51

Username Protected wrote:

However, the Constitution does not state that it is a role of the Federal Government to establish “minimum physical standards” for a Citizen’s chosen hobbies or recreational activities. That is what a Third Class Medical and BasicMed are used for and I contend that it violates our Right to “the pursuit of happiness”.

The Constitution contains no "right to the pursuit of happiness".

That phrase is from the Declaration of Independence which doesn't confer individual rights to anyone legally.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Aug 2023, 17:48

Username Protected wrote:

However, the Constitution does not state that it is a role of the Federal Government to establish “minimum physical standards” for a Citizen’s chosen hobbies or recreational activities. That is what a Third Class Medical and BasicMed are used for and I contend that it violates our Right to “the pursuit of happiness”.

The Constitution contains no "right to the pursuit of happiness".

That phrase is from the Declaration of Independence which doesn't confer individual rights to anyone legally.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Aug 2023, 18:07

Username Protected wrote:

If you fly “for compensation or hire”, you are engaged in Air Commerce. The Constitution clearly states that one role of the Federal Government is to “regulate commerce”. Consequently, you are fair game for whatever hoops and hurdles they want to throw at you.

However, the Constitution does not state that it is a role of the Federal Government to establish “minimum physical standards” for a Citizen’s chosen hobbies or recreational activities. That is what a Third Class Medical and BasicMed are used for and I contend that it violates our Right to “the pursuit of happiness”.

Additionally, the Constitution does not state that the Federal Government should be determining whether or not a Citizen is “healthy enough” to exercise their Fundamental Right to learn, to acquire worthwhile knowledge. Again, when applied to a Student Pilot, that is what a Third Class Medical is being used for. The Supreme Court never stated that our Fundamental Right to learn was predicated upon the Citizen meeting some arbitrary standard of health.

Finally, with regards to aircraft owners, their is no constitutional basis for the Federal Government to determine whether or not a Citizen is “healthy enough” to use their personal property for their own personal, non-commercial purposes.

There is a distinction between “commerce” and “the pursuit of happiness” when it comes to what a Government Agency has the legal authority to do and the Rights of the people. When this all started back in December of 1926 with the passage of the Air Commerce Act, who was around to challenge it?

That a lot of word soup to say I should have to be subjected and threatened by a system that’s a proven failure?

How about make sure you’re healthy enough to fly and call it a day, works for the zillion truckers, just model the whole thing after basic med, it would be better for ALL pilots and safer for the “public”

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Aug 2023, 10:17

Username Protected wrote:

The more we go along the more I agree with Alexander Hamilton that writing down a list of rights was dumb because people would then think those were the only rights protected.

Joel is absolutely correct.

There was a significant debate during the Constitutional Convention about whether a Bill or Rights was even necessary.

The reason is simple - our was supposed to be a Government of enumerated powers. If the power was not specifically listed, the Government could not do X or Y.

The concern - now well justified - is that if you started listing rights that are protected (so called positive rights) then it suggests that others were or are not.

Frankly, I think Hamilton was right and Joel is right.

It was a profound mistake to have a Bill of Rights.

I personally prefer that the mutt of government to be on a very tight leash rather than having it walk around with a paper parchment dangling from its neck stating that it won't bite me.

Fido is not so disciplined.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Aug 2023, 16:11

Username Protected wrote:

I personally prefer that the mutt of government to be on a very tight leash rather than having it walk around with a paper parchment dangling from its neck stating that it won't bite me.

Fido is not so disciplined.

Agree 100% however the people lost control of that pup dog long ago. It's controlled by special interests and agencies that can, without consequences, make regulations that have the force of law.

This happens at virtually all levels of government to one extent or another these days.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Aug 2023, 00:06

My thought after reading this is simple and direct. Many of you’ll are going to the wrong AMEs. Find a good one, travel if you have to. Hint, talk to the airline pilots. They know who to go to and who won’t break the bank. Another hint, if your AME is giving you a prostate exam, you definitely have the wrong Dr.

I’ve had a few winners over the years (probably 60 physicals and counting). The jackasses I never give them a return visit. Shop around.

Chris C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Aug 2023, 00:35

Username Protected wrote:

Many of you’ll are going to the wrong AMEs.

That doesn't necessarily help all that much with FAA in OKC.

The only way to "shop around" for that is to move to a different country.

The system is broken if it is a minefield to choose the right AME.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Aug 2023, 09:23

Username Protected wrote:

Does anybody remember when they added the prostate exam to the examination?

It's the reverse.

Mandatory prostate examinations were eliminated from FAA medicals a while back, along with breast and pelvic examinations. They are only done currently if there is a very specific reason that the AME feels is pertinent; in practice that is extraordinarily rare.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Aug 2023, 10:16

Username Protected wrote:

It was so obvious they didn’t think they had to write it down.

Much like “English is the official language and shall only be used by the government.” What? Why would we write THAT down? People would laugh and ridicule us if we wrote that down.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Aug 2023, 10:43

Username Protected wrote:

Those who fly “for a hobby” should be subjected to no more medical evaluation than any other hobbyist. I believe this is called “the pursuit of happiness”.

This thread began with a discussion of the HIMS system.

One of the major reasons a pilot is referred to HIMS is a history of significant substance abuse, i.e. a conviction of flying while intoxicated or one DUI with an EtOh level above 0.15 or mulltiple DUIs.

What process, if any, do you think FAA should use to determine the ongoing flying status of "hobby" pilots with such a medical/legal history?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Aug 2023, 11:13

Username Protected wrote:

This thread began with a discussion of the HIMS system.

One of the major reasons a pilot is referred to HIMS is a history of significant substance abuse, i.e. a conviction of flying while intoxicated or one DUI with an EtOh level above 0.15 or mulltiple DUIs.

What process, if any, do you think FAA should use to determine the ongoing flying status of "hobby" pilots with such a medical/legal history?

It was not about the HIMs program, it was how the aeromedical system is waaaay out of line, and these days proven to outdated not medically based, and needing to be shut down in favor of a basic med type model

Per your HIMs
Not really, the reason the HIMS program is “so successful” is it nets many people who don’t have a problem

If you had a cancer program and most of the people in it didn’t have cancer, your survival rates would be sky high

To answer your question we need to ask if it’s a medical or extrajudicial double traffic punishment program

If it’s medical if the airman has no medical history of a substance problem that’s about 90% of the answer, if they are found guilty a substance type crime that caused the FAA to be concerned (already muddy waters mixing law with medicine) have them simply go to a real doc who is versed it in, get the docs opinion on, ideally the doctor the airman normally uses, he whips up a letter and that’s that.

Same with most any condition, I trust a real doc signing with his MD vs a legally untouchable “administrator” who couldn’t even pick the airman out of a friggin’ line up :crazy:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Aug 2023, 11:31

Username Protected wrote:

. if they are found guilty a substance type crime that caused the FAA to be concerned (already muddy waters mixing law with medicine) have them simply go to a real doc who is versed it in, get the docs opinion on, ideally the doctor the airman normally uses, he whips up a letter and that’s that.

So if someone is convicted of FUI or DUI then you believe return to flying status should be based upon a recommendation by a doctor the pilot chooses who offers an opinion that the pilot is safe to return to flying?