PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Liberalizing medical requirements
View Single Post
Old 24th November 2005 | 10:44
  #23 (permalink)  
Otterman
25 Anniversary
 
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 265
Likes: 10
From: EU
Sorry, but I don’t see my AME as my primary healthcare provider. I don’t think he sees that as his job. He has a set of regulations in front of him, which I have to meet. Thankfully I have up to now, and he signs me off for another six months. He has even told me that it is purely a checkup of the here and now, and the warranty lasts until I close the door to his office. I know of a few cases of guys who have passed their medical and within a very short space of time are being treated for some serious problems, which were present during their medicals, but not detected.

What I have noticed these past twenty years is that, first my national regulations were a lot stiffer than regulations in many other countries (notably the USA and Canada). When the switch to JAR FCL 3 occurred the new regulations maintained this gap. From personal experience I know of two colleagues who have lost their medical certificates here in Europe and managed to regain them quite easily in Canada and the USA.

One colleague lost his because of a leaky heart valve, which to the European AME was cause to ground him. The cardiologist he was sent too, told him that if he was a “normal” citizen he would not have been in his office for another 10 to 15 years, when he would expect the associated symptoms would necessitate it. He returned to Canada and is back in the air with the restriction of an ECG every six months, and a visit to his cardiologist a maximum of 14 days before his annual medical. He flies a B737 for a low cost carrier.

The other colleague lost her medical due to her score on an EEG. On her initial EEG she scored very close to the arbitrary established limit. This resulted in a repeat of her EEG at subsequent medicals. During her ATPL course she had a medical renewal in which she slightly exceeded this limit, and was grounded. Two months later she was back below the line and continued her training. When she joined my company she became a FO on our B737 fleet. One year after joining she had to do another EEG and once again exceeded the limit. This time she lost her ticket for a minimum of 10 years, a period in which she had to be free of any seizures. She moved to the US with her boyfriend (now husband), regained her medical, and is an FO with a major US carrier (this all occurred about 12 year’s back). By the way she never had or has had an epileptic attack.

Here are just two instances where we in Europe lost good people for no other reason than our very tight limits. I think the liberalization of the medical requirements is a good thing. In the USA or Canada planes aren’t falling out of the sky because of their lower medical standards.

If I were to loose my medical I would receive a disability pension from my company equating to around 65% of my paycheck for life. I would receive a lump sum from my loss of license insurance, and I would be exempt from certain income taxes that I now pay. All this is a huge loss to the company, the government, and also to me as an individual. If it is necessary, because of a medical condition, I am happy it is there for me. But as the previous cases have pointed out (and I could keep going), very often in Europe this loss to all parties is not necessary.

Not once in the history of multi-crewed aircraft operation has an aircraft been lost due to the medical problems of one of the pilots. And we all know of a few cases where a pilot died while in his seat or in the bunk area. But the basic premise of multi-crewing is redundancy. A one pilot cockpit layout could very easily be designed into the next generation of airliners, but won’t because of this redundancy. So to me it is good that the JAA has revisited the topic of medical requirements. I am as curious as anyone else as to what the exact details will be, but I feel it is good we are moving away from the very strict regulations that were causing unnecessary harm, and not providing any additional safety benefit over say the American regulations. At least that is my view of things.

Greetings O.
Otterman is offline  
Reply