Medical & HealthNews and debate about medical and health issues as they relate to aircrews and aviation. Any information gleaned from this forum MUST be backed up by consulting your state-registered health professional or AME.
JAA is Strict...
But Malaysian's DCA Class-1 is Even Stricter..
I can only obtain a Class-1 With Night Flying Restrction With the following:
R:-4.50D 1.75D(Astig)
L:-4.25D 1.75D(Astig)
Had my medical yesterday. Was told that the rulemaking is being reviewed by all the EU national authorities. My AME is very high up the food chain here in my country, and he told me that he expects them to be handed back with the added comments around September, then they will have to be translated into proper law. The language of the original law will be English. Then the national authorities will have to translate the new rules into their own languages before the new regulations become law in their respective countries.
In my country they have already decided that they will waive the translation step as far as implementation goes. Some things are already being used, no more colour-blindness test is being given, except during your initial class 1. But the person giving me my eye tests did not have any ideas on else was going to change.
My AME figured that it was about 75% sure that the deadline for November 1, 2006 was going to be met in my country. But the exact rules won’t be known for a few more months.
Greetings O.
Hi there
I wanted to learn to fly last year, but I didn't bother starting once I'd found out that I couldn't get a class two medical because I am +7.5 and +8.5
I also have some other problems with my eyesight but the CAA said that the refractive errors were the only major problem.
I live in the channel islands so If i wanted to fly, I have to get the JAA PPL and I cant do an NPPL over here!
I have heard this talk about relaxation of vision requirements, do any of you know if I will be able to get a class two in the forseeable future?
Is that true though?
I'm surprised that blood tests are not done for every exam. As I understand it, incidences of minor heart attacks and the early onset of cancer for example can be evidenced by enzymes in the blood?
Sorry guys, but there is scant evidence that 'medicals' benefit the punters - they are there to maintain safety for the aircraft and community. If you want a medical in the UK, go to your GP, but we see false positives on a regular basis. BUPA and other companies have made a fortune out of fear but it is just that.
The basic tests of urine (for diabetes) blood pressure and looking at the back of the eye are all you need, and only every few years. Men need a PSA and women a couple of other bits but it is all free on the NHS.
So any reduction in the frequency of tests that reduces costs and the fear of your license being pulled is fantastic news. The current blood tests are worthless anyhow
You will find each and every ICAO requirement within the ICAO bookset or its annexes. Sorry I don't know which one is germane to medicals but I imagine a trawl through their website will find it. Bear in mind that ICAO requirements form the minimum standard in all areas and that most advanced aviation states have stricter criteria.
I can't see there being any difference for pilots aged over 60. We either meet the standard or we don't.
Location: A GOOD PLACE TO FLY, DRINK, **** AND SLEEP.
Posts: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otterman
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.
Sound like a damn good safety net to me. Wish I had one like that.
At the FLYER Professional Flight Training Show yesterday, Stuart Mitchell from the UK CAA Aeromedical Centre gave a talk about the Class 1 medical.
He said that NPA-FCL 28 (latest text here [Microsoft Word .doc file, ~1 MB]) is expected to be implemented in December. (The JAA Committee is meeting on 15 November.)
He also suggested that the mechanism for issuing an initial Class 1 with a deviation to those who are between initial and renewal limits is likely to end "sometime soon".
Good news, bad news:
...He also suggested that the mechanism for issuing an initial Class 1 with a deviation to those who are between initial and renewal limits is likely to end "sometime soon".
That's terrible indeed!
It means that, with the new regulation, who has ,7,50 diopters of miopy won't be able to get a first class neither with restrictions?
If he won't, the new regulation is really a step back in liberalization of requirements!
Dont' you agree?
Yes, thats true. But if you look further down in the document you can see that they have raised the pre-op value to -8 diopters. So you can correct your -7.5 diopters of myopia with lasik.
Personally I think that the JAA comitee has done a good job towards liberalizing the medical requirements.
For all the young wannabe pilots out there I think that in about 5 years the medical requirements are going to be even less stringent.
Yes, thats true. But if you look further down in the document you can see that they have raised the pre-op value to -8 diopters. So you can correct your -7.5 diopters of myopia with lasik.
Personally I think that the JAA comitee has done a good job towards liberalizing the medical requirements.
For all the young wannabe pilots out there I think that in about 5 years the medical requirements are going to be even less stringent.
Hi Jimmy, where did you read the preop requirements have been raised to -8 diopters?
I read the NPA 28, but I found that the max preop requirements for a first medical class is +5 -6, not -8. Please, tell me I am wrong!
Linear Mode
