Originally Posted by
Cloudee
Did you miss the point that the specialist has stated he is fit to fly?
That's the other half of the problem. Avmed want to know what is the risk of incapacitation, they reserve the right to make the "fit to fly" judgement themselves based on that information.
Avmed asked what is the risk of incapacitation. The specialist said he doesn't meet the class 1 medical standard - which implies there is some risk of incapacitation but doesn't quantify it. The specialist said he considers him fit to fly day VFR. Unfortunately that is not a medical standard, and the further implication is that the specialist believes he also doesn't meet the class 2 medical standard.
So the advice from the specialist is in fact:
- He does not meet the class 1 medical standard
- He does not meet the class 2 medical standard (which allows night, IFR etc)
- He is fit to fly day VFR. That might be closest to the basic class 2 standard which Clinton has said he does not want.
Avmed want some definite statement from the specialist saying e.g. the risk of incapacitation is less than x%, so that if an accident occurs in the future they can point to it and say we were acting on this advice. Stating or implying that he does not meet various standards but is fit for day VFR isn't much help. However specialists, in general, don't want to be pinned down to that sort of statement.
Without a less equivocal statement from the specialist, the best Avmed can do is a time based test - if nothing bad happens in 12 months, the probability of something happening in the future is acceptably low.