Wannabedriver, I don't wish to derail your thread further, but I think it is important that people understand what an AME can and can't do in terms of the decision making process. If the CAA's acceptable means of compliance or guidance material say that a decision can be made
by the licensing authority, then your AME is not permitted to make the a decision and the certification decision
must be made by the CAA - specifically by the doctors in the medical department. They may or may not need to obtain a further opinion from a cardiologist depending on the clinical reports from your treating doctors, but the certification decision in this situation can ultimately only be made by the CAA doctors.
It sounds like your AME has done exactly the right thing by forwarding the existing clinical information with a covering letter rather than sending you off to a cardiologist for new investigations. I agree 3 months is longer than usual and it would be perfectly reasonable to enquire what progress has been made. I hope that helps.
Originally Posted by
Radgirl
Thank you for this information Tyred. I presume you are an AME or have better knowledge than us mere mortals!!!!
Radgirl, as per my previous response, if the CAA information states that a fitness decision can be made
by the licensing authority, then the AME
must refer the decision to the CAA doctors and the AME is not permitted to make the decision. The reference material is freely available on the CAA website to anyone who wants to read it, not just AMEs. I think you have been most unhelpful to the OP by twice suggesting their AME has only referred the decision because he is "covering his backside" or "running for cover". I hope you can now understand that in these circumstances, only the CAA doctors can make the decision and that is why the AME has correctly passed the matter to the CAA for a decision.
Originally Posted by
Radgirl
The applicants I am aware of took their initial at Gatwick and as far as we know the matter was not even referred to a cardiologist on the day.
I think the key phrase here is "as far as we know". Happy to comment if you could provide facts rather than speculation.
Originally Posted by
Radgirl
As a clinician I see no reason to withold a medical for historical pericarditis without an effusion, arrythmia or documented fall in ejection fraction on echo.
So as an AME, how would you confirm that there is no effusion, arrhythmia, adequate EF etc? Because an applicant said so? Or would you too want to see written reports from their treating clinicians - which the OP has confirmed have been provided and forwarded to the CAA in accordance with their written protocol.
Originally Posted by
Radgirl
I accept the AME is covering his backside, er 'referring to the licensing authority' and it appears he has to do so...
They are not covering their backside, it is a mandatory requirement to refer and I have advised where this is written. Please accept that instead of disparaging the AME once again.
Originally Posted by
Radgirl
many AMEs seem to flip an email or make a call and get a quick response. I know this approach is somewhat frowned upon but I am not an AME so perhaps I can be excused for criticising a system that is slow and causes alarm amongst applicants.
That may be a reasonable approach for small things in existing med cert holders, but you simply won't get approval over the phone or a quick turnaround for a class 1 initial where clinical reports will have to reviewed by the CAA doctors. I agree the timeframe should be quicker (who doesn't?), but the only thing I see causing alarm here is you suggesting to the OP that their AME is not up to scratch.
The process is without doubt very far from perfect, but the AME is frequently constrained in what they are permitted to do in terms of certification decision making by the CAA and EASA, so perhaps you should direct your frustration in the direction of those organisations rather than the AME? Morale amongst AMEs is probably at an all time low for a number of reasons that I won't go into here (just ask any AME if you really don't know), but as you appear not to understand the process or the differences between clinical and regulatory medicine, then perhaps you should refrain from making inappropriately snide comments on here about the AME "running for cover" and "covering his backside".
Originally Posted by
Radgirl
Hopefully OP will be reassured by your post and we hope the 'initial approach' will simply give the green light and not need further investigation or review.....
And that is the only part of your posts I can agree with.