*** Answering a msg posted in area ECHO_PM0 (GEcho PM for Jay Hanig).
24 Nov 97 11:38, Jim Sanders wrote to Jay Hanig:
 JS>   If he was so experienced, why was he flying with a suspended
 JS>   medical.  That makes him a "scoff-Law" in my opinion.
 JS>   I can't support him either. Just thankful he killed no one
 JS>   but himself...
His medical was pulled because he had a conviction (or two or three) for 
drunk driving.  I do not accept the FAA's reasoning because the correlation 
between flying drunk and driving drunk seems a bit weak.  In my younger and 
more stupid days, I have been known to drive home from a bar stewed to the 
gills.  I have NEVER flown after drinking.  Can I be the only one?
Why was he flying with a suspended medical?  Because he could.  He had the 
money; he had the aircraft.  Are you suggesting that his accident was caused 
by the expiration of his medical?  Was there any evidence that he had any 
other physical disabilities that might preclude flying?  I don't think so.  I 
believe he determined (for himself) that there was no reason other than the 
FAA said so that he shouldn't fly.  And we all obey the law, don't we?  Once 
again, I don't think so.
Bottom line:  he flew with an expired medical, which had absolutely nothing 
to do with the unfortunate events of that day.  I do feel sorry for those he 
left behind.
Jim, this is one of those deals where I doubt we'll ever agree.  I have no 
great respect for rules that seem arbitrary, and I believe you were raised in 
a more black and white world than I.  Let's blame my old man!  :)
 JS>   There are LOTS of NTSB reports that I do not believe...
OTOH, here's something we both agree on.
Jay
--- GoldED/386 2.50+
---------------