Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:2413c49pkeiu4p8r9c9pkeiklv44u80ra5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Tim writes:
>
>> Heredity plays an equally im****tant role in all of this - a person's
>> vulnerability to disease as a result of environmental factors
>> (smoking, drinking, breathing in asbestos fibers, etc.) is highly
>> dependent on genetics, as is your likelihood to suffer a stroke from
>> smoking excessively, or a heart attack from eating too much bacon,
>> eggs, donuts, etc., or just plain being overweight.
>
> True ... but the FAA doesn't look at that, either.
>
>> Where do you draw the line?
>
> My point is that the FAA criteria are badly skewed. Airline pilots
> with first-class medicals still drop dead from time to time, and
> people who are denied medicals still live to be 95 years old without
> ever being suddenly incapacitated by anything.
>
> The FAA criteria seem to be inherited from military test-pilot
> programs or astronaut medicals, but they are far too draconian. The
> FAA could increase safety a lot more by testing pilot competence more
> extensively and forgetting the over-the-top medical criteria. In
> fact, the best way to determine pilot aptitude is by testing it
> directly, not by inferring it from other information, and since pilots
> are tested individually, this is a completely practical goal.
>
You have no idea what you're talking about.
you are an idiot.
Bertie
|
