9
$\begingroup$

One often reoccurring question category here is of format "I have medical condition, can I get a medical".

For the love of god do not ever advice anyone to withhold any infromation from AME!

Words cannot describe how stupid, illegal and irresponsible that is.

I suggest that any answer suggesting any dishonest interaction with any official party should be categorically deleted.

Stack Exchange cannot be a platform offering such advice.

$\endgroup$

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
7
$\begingroup$

For the love of god do not ever advise anyone to withhold any infromation from AME!

This is worded a little too strongly. While I would never advise anyone to lie to their AME or withhold any information that they are required to disclose, advising pilots not to disclose anything that isn't required is perfectly good advice. You aren't required to list medical appointments for occasional common illnesses such as colds and sore throats, for instance, and while doing so is unlikely to hurt, it certainly can't help.

The same advice applies to most interactions with the government: give them everything that you are legally required to, and only that.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Fair enough, +1. However, remember that asking about stuff here is, even with what we like to consider a "peer review", still the same as asking the internet. Hence my overly cautious take on this subject. And, why hold any information from AME? What possible gains are there? $\endgroup$
    – Jpe61
    May 1 at 12:50
  • $\begingroup$ @Jpe61 Telling your AME anything is like telling it to the FAA over a bad radio. Hypothetical example: the FAA requires you to disclose any illegal substance use in the last 2 years. Think you should disclose that you did marijuana back in college? I sure wouldn't want the word "marijuana" anywhere near my file at the AMCD if I could avoid it. $\endgroup$
    – Chris
    May 2 at 7:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's up to everyone to judge themselves what is relevant. We here on ASE cannot advice to act agains law or any regulation whatsoever. $\endgroup$
    – Jpe61
    May 2 at 9:14
  • $\begingroup$ @Jpe61 Of course we shouldn't encourage people to break the law. But if it only asks "have you done illegal drugs within the last two years?" then it's not breaking the law to not mention something that's more than 2 years ago. $\endgroup$
    – Chris
    May 2 at 14:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For sure. There is a reason for not askin "have you ever" 😃 $\endgroup$
    – Jpe61
    May 2 at 15:03
2
$\begingroup$

I would further suggest that anyone promoting illegal activity who clearly knows, or should know, that it is illegal should be suspended following the normal pattern of increasing durations. If they know something is illegal and suggest it anyway, then they really shouldn't be answering at all.

I would say that someone knows or should should know about a law if they claim qualifications which would lead one to believe that they would know about the law, or if they have mentioned the law in prior activity on the site, or if it has been cited in an answer to one of their questions.

$\endgroup$
-1
$\begingroup$

Another answer stated "If they know something is illegal and suggest it anyway, then they really shouldn't be answering at all.". I couldn't agree less. Let's deal with the real world here. not the world as we'd like it to be.

How many sailplane pilots do you know who scrupulously, always observe the mandated cloud clearance requirements (in the US, staying 500' below the base of clouds if below 10K MSL, and staying 1000' below the base of the clouds if above 10K MSL)?

I can imagine a valid upvotable answer in which a person might suggest there are some cases when it might be acceptable to violate the above, especially the last bit (pertaining to above 10K MSL) by a slight bit.

Plus consider the FAA's recent absurd approach to heightened regulations of model airplanes. I can imagine a valid, upvotable answer suggesting that it really might not be such a terrible idea to fly your radio controlled model sailplane to altitudes somewhat higher than 400' AGL in uncontrolled (Class G) airspace, despite the fact that current FAA regulations only provide a path to fly such a craft higher than 400' AGL in controlled (Class E or higher) airspace.

Continuing along the model airplane vein, I can imagine a valid, upvotable answer suggesting that it might not be such a bad idea to completely ignore the absurd "Remote Identification" regulations when flying a toy airplane at an established flying field that has been used for many decades with no problems. Toy airplanes aren't real airplanes and don't need transponders, or gadgets that are pretending to be sort of like transponders.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What individuals decide to do based on their own judgement is beyond the scope of my suggestion. Stack Exchange should not be a place where we plant the seeds of weeds. I've not always played by the rules myself, but I would never advice anyone to, say, take off in an ultrlight that is over its legal max weight. Even though I very well know that there is not a single such plane that could fly a full checkride with two persons and sufficient fuel onboard and weigh less than the limit... there are plenty of those kinds of examples, but this is not the place to promote anarchy of any magnitude. $\endgroup$
    – Jpe61
    Sep 4 at 19:01
  • $\begingroup$ @Jpe61 -- it's fine for you to voice a strong opinion on what is morally correct to post or not, but are you seriously advocating that we start "policing" the site along these lines? So, for example, any "yes" answer to this post aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/100444/… should be "categorically deleted"? And also this one aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/287/… ? $\endgroup$
    – quiet flyer
    Sep 5 at 14:18
  • $\begingroup$ Well, you have succesfully brought up the shades of grey in this matter. Suggesting lying about being a student pilot hardly is an offence worthy of deleting an answer, especially since the answers failed to prove whether it is legal or not... $\endgroup$
    – Jpe61
    Sep 5 at 19:20
-1
$\begingroup$

I know I've already answered once, but this answer comes from a significantly different viewpoint.

A "yes" vote to the OP (which includes the sentence "I suggest that any answer suggesting any dishonest interaction with any official party should be categorically deleted.") would indicate that this ASE answer needs to be deleted Can you tell ATC you are a "student pilot" when you are not? .

I don't think that that answer needs to be deleted.

Therefore I don't support the OP in question here.

Please upvote or downvote this answer as you see fit.

This answer is asserting that the linked answer does not need to be deleted. A downvote to this answer suggests that the linked answer should be deleted.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ OK all you downvoters-- you really ought to be flagging the linked post as "In need of moderator intervention. A problem not listed above that requires action by a moderator. Be specific and detailed!" And then explain that you think it needs to be deleted because it "suggests a dishonest interaction with an official party". $\endgroup$
    – quiet flyer
    Sep 5 at 15:04
  • $\begingroup$ I did, and it was declined: "Declined - flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer." I did downvote it, because I do believe it is a wrong answer, and downvotes are the standard way to handle wrong answers. $\endgroup$
    – Someone
    Sep 6 at 15:08

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .