Jimmy The Big Greek

AMC Spain, AMC Greece does it as standard examination for the initial. I think that U.K CAA does it in some cases. I am pretty sure that more AMC use it.

Also remember that LASIK leaves more often than not, very tiny scars which can be dected with slit lamp. Although PRK does not leave any scars it can be detected with a topograph.

I think its very risky to conseal any eye surgery. Personally I would never be able to go to sleep without worrying about that they will revoke my license next day.

waterpau

So the new requirements are on the website. The visual standards are interesting.

It appears that the CAA have interpreted the requirements for renewal / revalidation standards as being practically non-existent. The initial standard of +5/-6 for long/short-sightedness is there, -2 for astigmatism, but there are no limits for renewal on myopia or astigmatism!

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?ca...=90&pageid=531

waterpau

LastMinute

Interesting too that in the new JAR Class 1 (Professional Pilot) Initial Examination Visual Standards leaflet [PDF, 68 KB], the hint at the availability of a deviation is no longer there.

From the old version of the leaflet:
Makes sense, of course, because if you allow a deviation to a non-existent renewal limit, why bother with an initial limit?

Now I just need to wait for them to relax the initial limit sufficiently for me to get a Class 1. At the current rate of change I reckon it'll take about nine years...

waterpau

I'd certainly say it was good progress in the direction of liberalisation but it clearly hasn't gone far enough for some people.

I can't help but detect a slight air of defiance on the CAA's part with this; they've been arguing recently for the removal of the common dioptere limits and obviously this hasn't happened within the latest amendment. The wording implied within the JAR amendment states that candidates above a limit should be able to satisfy the authority with higher levels of correction. The CAA simply state that there are no renewal limits, which makes me chuckle. I hope it's a sign of the CAA's determination to eventually remove most of the limits that seem to have little relevance in determining a candidate's fitness to fly safely.

waterpau

LastMinute

Certainly the UK CAA seems very keen to have such limits removed, and is using the leeway provided by Amendment 5 [PDF, ~750 KB] to allow it effectively to abolish the limits at renewal. ("The AMS may consider a fit assessment..." can be read as "The UK CAA AMS will consider a fit assessment...") But at the same time it seems that it has had to agree to enforce the initial limit - making today a bad day for anybody with refractive errors between -6 and -8.

Obviously I support the UK CAA (my error's worse than -8 and I want to fly aeroplanes!), but it is a "Joint" effort, after all, and clearly not all of the other 32 voting member states agree. That's democracy, I suppose.

steve_uniacke

So do these new regulations show any change about muscle balance/non-binoccular vision restrictions? dont know the fancy terminology for this, but i have 20/20 vision, only thats something that wont let me get the class 1 medical.... so, with new regs is there any hope for people like me yet?)

ACIDO

No comment....


ACIDO

LastMinute

I did read your post, ACIDO, but I spoke to an Aeromedical Adviser at the CAA a couple of weeks ago and she told me the opposite. From other posts on here it seems that other people have also been told that deviations for short sight are no longer available.

It might be worth calling them again, now that the new regulations are in effect. There seemed to be some confusion during November.

ACIDO

I phoned the CAA the 7th of November. In the same date also Waterpau phoned CAA and got the same answer:

[ just called the Medical Division to try and see if my Class 1 with short-term deviation was safe until I completed CPL training...

They appear to know nothing about the deviation route for class 1s being stopped; they would like to know the name of the person who advised that the deviation route would be stopped within the next few weeks.


waterpau

waterpau]

...

ACIDO

waterpau

Hello Acido,

I don't whether it'll help your case, but I also have an e-mail from the CAA:

I received that on the 9th November. If things have changed, it doesn't appear to be as a direct result of EASA. Perhaps the author of this e-mail was as confused as we are

waterpau

invertedspin10

HI Guys,
I have noted from this Forum that the new CAA Class 1 eyesight requirements have changed:

My pescription is currently

-5.75 -2.00 x175
-5.50 -2.00 x81

In the CAA Documentation it states an initial limit of -6 diopteres and astigmatism of 2.0.

I seem to remember that to get the total Diopter limit you had to add half the astigmatism? Can anyone confirm if this is correct.

Do the CAA now separate Dioptere limit and astigmatism or are the two still combined.

I believe I can now meet the new requirements for a Class 1 . Can anyone confirm?

Thanks

LastMinute

I believe the dioptre limit is applied to the largest magnitude correction of the spherical components alone and the sums of the spherical and cylindrical components. In your case, that's -5.75 + -2.00 = -7.75.

Yes - the CAA! You'll have to send your prescription details to them anyway because they won't let you book a medical until they've seen them.

Let us know how you get on.

16mg

According to a paper on the CAA website under Medical->Whats New there will no longer be any short term deviations for those within initial and revalidation limits. (myself included)...

Flight my fire

Hi folks !

Yes normally you should be right

- 5.75 + 2.00= -3.75

Flight my fire

So your myopia is within admission limits and your component of astigmatism is +2.00 so normally there is no problem anymore.
If you want to be sure for good, call the CAA and they will tell you.

Have a good evening.

Tamesy1

The rules state that maximum allowable correction is 6D, including any astigmatism. The correction given here is 5.25SPH and 2.00CYL, therefore 7.25 of total correction, which im afraid is outside of limits

ACIDO

Miopy and astigmatism were to be added also when deviation was in force?
For example: miopy -8; astigm. -1 were calculated as -9 also before the NPA 28?

ACIDO

Tamesy1

Yes, total allowable correction in -6D (taking into account any astigmatism). This means that you add the values for your myopia (SPH) and astigmatism (CYL) to get your total correction, if this is more than 6, you're going to have trouble. It is my understanding that current, and enforced deviations (i.e given before December 1st) are for people between 5 and 6 dioptres of myopia or 2-3D astigmatism. I dont think itd be possible to give a class 1 to a person with -9D of correction...

sfomarc

The reason I ask it that it is only a matter of time, short time at that, before here in the USA that the FAA will raise retirement to 65 ala ICAO. I dont know what a European physical is like but for an FAA medical you only need to have a warm body.

Just wondering if the FAA would impose European style medicals on us.

Otterman

Had my medical today, and I was indeed signed off for a whole year (I am 42). I realize most questions seem to be about vision. Only thing I got out of that is that if your vision is between -3.00 and +3.00 (no mention of the cylinder) the extended eye exam is no longer required (used to be every two years in my age group). As far as limits goes the (eye)lady didn’t have the exact stats yet, since the regulations are still in English and haven’t been translated into her native tongue yet. She did say there was a substantial easing of the requirement.

It is a pretty big institute where my AME sits, and I must say the atmosphere wasn't all that conducive for a good talk. Starting in the second half of the year (when half of their clients would come up for their six month renewal, it will now be quiet), they will lose about 25% of their business, because of the 'once a year over 40' rule. Sorry I couldn’t be of more help, but this is all I know.
Greetings O.