EEG to be trashed

[gareth08]

I have heard a rumour that the EEG could be taken off the Class one fairly soon (as far as the UK is concerned), due to the lack of evidence that it is a useful test, in the circumstances it is being used. It is apparently not well liked throughout europe, but one country insists that it is carried out.

However last year Germany decided that chest x-rays were a waste of time and money and went to the JAA and said - 'no more!!' and as if by magic - germany no longer carries out chest x-rays. I hear that the UK may be following suit with the EEG.

I was turned down last august as i had a minor blip on my EEG. Having been to see a private neurologist who told me that it was not a problem to be concerned about at all - as i am at a 2.5 - 3% risk of developing epilepsy (as opposed to 2% for the general public) - he was actually amazed that the JAA were using the test to 'predict' if someone is likely to become epileptic, as he said it was a very difficult test to interpret and also it is renouned as being a test that gives conflicting results on 2 consecutive sittings, not to mention t5he fact that the blips on my EEG does not mean that i will ever have a seizure of any sort.

Was just wondering has anybody else heard anything about this??

[dusk2dawn]

A bit OT maybe....

Hate to paint a dark picture but years ago a personal problem (subarachnoid haemorrhage) prompted med to look closer into "risk" of epilepsy. I concluded that 1% is background risk that everyone is exposed to during a lifetime (one seizure only and you're in the club). AFAIK 1% is also the limit that JAA have adopted in the FCL-3.

However, how did your consultant arrive at the 2-3% risk level ? Did he look up your EEG pattern in some kind of statical reference work ? I think not. Fact is that the medical world does not care much about you until you have some kind of medical condition. Most likely he is applying (as the CAA will too) his professional opinion in lieu of the statistics wich probably does not exsist. Make him qualify his opinion with some articles from the medical sience community. You'll need it when you approach the CAA.

[gareth08]

Yeah,

He mentioned he was going to look up the current research literature to see how it stands at the moment. He has agreed to another EEG as he said there was no problems during either the strobe light or hyperventilation parts of the test, and has agreed to write up a report for the JAA if the repeat EEG has no abnormailities. So fingers crossed..... i'll not hold my breath though - i'll be hyperventilating :p

[dusk2dawn]

Do yourself a favour: ask your consultant how and where to find the relevant material and volunteer as research assistant ! Thats how I did it and it worked out very well.

[gareth08]

Have already been doing that. Luckily i have a Phd in physiology so i have an idea where to look up the medical journals. Problem is that the EEG is such a fickle bloody test that as he says unless there is no sign of an abnormailty the JAA will always have an argument!

On the good side of things though i have an australian class one medical, which really makes a mockery out of the whole charade. So if push comes to shove i have that option of immagrating. Am condidering the canadian route as well as i have family out there. I know that europe is the only aviation authority in the world that requires an EEG!! The questions on the other medical were 'have you had a seizure - no, have you had blackouts - no, have you had a serious head injury - no.

I have heard that the RAF are definatley scrapping the test. For crying out loud NASA dont give their astronauts an EEG, i think the JAA need to really think about who they are qualifying as 'fit to fly'

[doubleu-anker]

About time too. Trying to induce an epileptic fit?? Enough of this nonsence.

Why not stab the person and see if they bleed?

[SRB]

Gareth

The RAF recorded EEGs to be kept as a baseline reference in the pilot's files. If that pilot subsequently suffered a head injury playing sport, in a car smash, or by falling off a ladder, any EEG taken as part of the clinical assessment of the head injury may reveal some "abnormalities". The question then arises if these abnormalities were present before the accident, ie are a normal variation.

By looking at an earlier EEG the medics could confirm if the "abnormality" was present before the accident, and if so then a pilot trained for 3 million UKP could be returned to flying. Saving one pilot's career for the cost of about 150 x 70 UKP per year made economic sense then.

If something grossly abnormal was noted on the initial (baseline)EEG, then further neurological studies were carried out before selection was approved or rejected. This was not the prime reason for doing EEGs though.

Arguably the civilian Loss of Licence or PHI insurers could demand a baseline EEG in order to cover a pilot for the same reasons the RAF did. Perhaps there is a case for pilots getting one done privately for storage in case they get a whack on the head later on in their careers and they are in the sorry position where a group of neurologists are frowning over a few wiggles in the voltages, with little option other than pull his licence, but if there was hard proof the EEG hadn't changed since the accident they wouldn't have to. Food for thought.