ORIGINAL: bradpaul
Perhaps it as an age difference thing, but everybody seems to be focused on alcohol. I'll put my flame suit on now, but I suspect in the ''younger'' age group, weed, meth, and pills would be the bigger ''impairment factor'' concern. Not sure where any ''8 hour rule'' applies there.
No, BradPaul, if you could read while focusing on the message rather than the prospect of argument, maybe you could comprehend that I am NOT focusing on alcohol. I am focusing on the the removal of one rule that all other fliers, be just a flier, club officer, contestant or whatever could use to keep himself out of civil court in such case where some flier was OBSERVED using alcohol. I do not profess to speak about drugs as I have a couple prescribed drugs myself.
Lipitor and Altace have brought me out of some dangerous levels, and my cardiologist now accuses me in jest of trying to put him out of business.
For the last time, just maybe this will assist others, besides KE who picked it up from the git-go, to comprehend the thesis of my posts. Copied from regular emails:
>>>>>>>>>>
//snip//
In my opinion, it's not worth the chance of an accident, allowing folks to fly a model airplane after they drink.
Mike XXXX
Mike you are right. I agree with that thought. However I have had significant experience in the court room and what happens there is nothing like wishful thinking and/or being nice or even protecting property. Right now up in New Mexico several officers are under state indictment because they used tasers to stop a drugged drunk while the suspect was destroying private property and swirling a chain trying to beat off the officers.
When you see someone drink under the hour rule, you can stop his flying because the hour rule can be determined by a CLOCK.
When you accuse someone of being, "under the influence" you have no definite evidence of that fact. Therefore, you could very well wind up in civil court, or in criminal court as described above.
I've been in the criminal courts, civil courts, divorce court, been a witness, been on a jury, and in the past 3 years WON 2 cases in civil court representing myself, one against a very spunky attorney. In addition I have been fairly well briefed on the FBI's program 5K1 Rule 35. May I suggest you stay away from that program.
How many events do you attend these days? How many EXPERIENCED CDs do you see having safety Checks? Some years ago, IMAA stopped safety checks, except that the checker reads a checklist, the pilot makes the inspection and the pilot, himself, is responsible for whether the airplane is airworthy. Have you noticed some years ago, AMA started having event pilots sign a sheet stating the model and the pilot are both qualified to perform the maneuvers?
Now here AMA comes with a totally unenforceable drinking rule. Wonder WHY? It's pretty simple in that the Tort system in this country strongly favors the wronged person in the civil courts. If I wanted to start rumors, I would say it is because the insurance company wants more escape routes.
If YOU accuse me of being "under the influence " because I am flying badly and YOU demand I quit or be restricted from flying, thus
embarrassing me in front of others, then I will win another court case. YOU are not qualified to make that judgment, unless you are a qualified medical person.
Under the 2-4-6-8-10-12 hour or whatever hour rule, and I am observed drinking within that time frame, then as a person involved in the activity you can demand that I be stopped because you are witness to my PERFORMING AN infraction.
Therefore I have tried to explain this thing from the legalities involved, based on my EXPERIENCEs. I am not an attorney, nor am I a medical person. Fortunately, one does not have to be professionally schooled to learn things.
As Albert Einstein stated: "Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school. The only source of knowledge is experience."
Horrace Cain
AMA L-93