Now let me get this straight....you're offended that I posted the definition of crass but no one is suppose to be offended by you laughing at someone over their question concerning their disability. Now that's interesting.
Guy in my class was blind in one eye and passed and got his Class A but is restricted to only driving in-state short haul and can't get any endorsements (except possibly doubles/triples).
I wasn't offended by the super cool, super advanced vocabulary.... Yes, the aviation industry has relaxed their vision standards; probably due to most modern aircrafts are flown predominantly by computers and the back-up co-pilots. I still wouldn't feel comfortable, IN MY OPINION, being in an aircraft flown by a visually impaired pilot; just as I wouldn't feel comfortable driving next to a truck being operated by a visually impaired driver. Here's the problem, a visually impaired person - who meets the very minimal physical standards (DOT physical, flight physical) required to pass the medical exam, will infact pass the physical (some MD's are more lenient then others). This DOES NOT mean, in my opinion, that they are equally qualified to drive, fly, etc....consider fatigue, sickness - this amplifies their pre-existing condition; much more than fatigue and sickness effect a non-visually impaired person. But many companies may hire since they are afraid of a discrimination lawsuit. Here's the real ##### - if that visually impaired driver, should unfortunately be involved in a fatal crash; YOU BETTER BELIEVE THE LAWYER WILL ATTEMPT TO SUE THE TRUCKING COMPANY, DOT CERTIFYING PHYSICIAN, etc....because thats just the way things are in the United States of America. As soon as that driver, who couldn't be discriminated against due to American with Disabilities Act crashes - well then it's another story. How fit was he to drive? Did the qualifying physician downplay/overlook a potentially dangerous medical condition? Trust me, that phy$ician, or major trucking companie$$ will take the stand and be grilled.... Lawyer: "So W*rner Enterprise, Driver X was able to minimally pass the physical exam designed to identify potentially dangerous pre-existing medical conditions that could, at any give time, potentially pose a hazard to public safety on the roadways." Defendant: "That is correct" Lawyer: "So, just because Driver X was able to minimally pass a physical exam he is considered SAFE to operate an 80,000+lbs CMV"....... It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see where this is going, similar cases play out everyday. Again, I'm not trying to single out someone with disablilties - I'm just trying to convey both sides of the argument. WHAT IS A REAL APOLOGY? I've apologized in numerous posts; do I have to publically hug the guy, ask him out to dinner?
you dont have a score on your medical exam--so i really dont think you can minimally pass it--either you pass it or you dont yes there are loopholes/exceptions and they are there for a reason if he can drive and pass the test--i dont see anything wrong with it
Insinuating that if I keep voicing MY OPINION, I am "digging my own grave"? It's an online forum/message board; individual opinions are what makes it interesting. I wasn't cursing or being mean spirited.... If you want to have me "BANNED", LMAO - do it, what do I care. If it makes you feel accomplished, be my guest - being banned from an online message board is the least of my concerns.
