Liberalizing medical requirements

[Otterman]

Just received some interesting news from my union. At a meeting of the JAA at the end of October, 2005. Held in Hoofddorp in the Netherlands, a large package of new measure was agreed to relating to our medical requirements. They all imply a loosing up of many of the stiff regulations that are contained in JAR-FCL 3. Some of the changes are:

1) Pilot above age 40 seeking a renewal of their class 1 medical will only have to be medically tested every 12 months instead of the previous 6 months.
2) The eyesight requirements will become a lot less rigid. No exact details mentioned. But I know at my company alone there are about a 150 guys who are very relieved.
3) Colour-blind tests will no longer be included in your medical renewal, only done during initial medical.
4) The EEG requirement during initial medicals is dropped.
5) Only pilots above age 50 will require an ECG every 12 months. This used to be 40 and every 6 months.
6) A protocol will be set up allowing insulin depended pilots with Type II diabetes to retain their Class I medical.
7) Any pilots not meeting the current requirements, but meeting the new ones will be granted a waiver.
8) And this waiver will be grandfathered when the switch happens from JAA to EASA in 2007.

There are other changes, but these are the highlights I could find. It will take about 12 months before the new rules that have been agreed to will be put into law. But I think this is a great day for many of us. As a plus 40 fellow, not having to go to the doctor every six months is something to look forward to.
Greetings O.

[Otterman]

Never been a sticky before, but I am a bit surprised at the lack of response. This is a major shift in the way we are medically tested. It will mean that a good number of us will be able to make it to the end of our careers without the devastation that a loss of our medical certificate can bring. Anyway I hope there are people out there who appreciate the news.
Regards O.

[Irishwingz]

Otterman

you are correct, it is a good day in aviation when there is this type of news. I am personally very interested in the eyesight rules and was aware the JAA medical sub committee had a meeting in October (18th), I wonder is this the same meeting you referred to?

Anyway, if you can get your paws on the eyesight changes I'l either be going on a binge of champagne and women ;) or keeping up the prayers:hmm:

Thanks for the post.

[flash8]

thanks for that info
extremely interesting and like you surprised that people don't seem interested in what is a MAJOR shift... this benefits us all....

I have both Transport Canada and FAA licences and would fail a JAR Class 1 Medical... eyesight.... this would be a real boost for me!

-5.5 uncorrected each eye btw

[Hawk]

Hi Otterman. Yes, I'm surprised at the lack of response. Some very important and significant changes on the way evidently. They wont be ratified for 12 months of course, nevertheless, I'll leave it as a "sticky" for now so the thread has as much prominence as possible.

[mutt]

Turning 40 in 12 months, so i really like the part about yearly medicals..... :):)

Mutt

[Malta_Flyer]

got my ppl last yr (Aged 18) but am not able to get class 1 because of my -5.5 correction. Finally i might be able to continue with my studies!

[Irishwingz]

Malta Flyer

You MAY be able to get a Class 1 issued as a deviation. You are only just outside the initial (-5) but well inside renewal (-8). If I was you I'd investigate it.

If your local authorities wont help then contact the UK CAA aeromedical section and ask to speak to the optometrist

PM me if you like

Good luck

[Malta_Flyer]

thanks mate. I am suspecting that the diopter limits were removed and if so I would be able to get it without a prob!! My ultimate aim is to become a flight instructor so if they adopt the US system of class 1, 2, and 3 it would also be fine by me!

[funfly]

What's the situation on class II medicals?
Mart
G-BYZD

[Old King Coal]

Actually (as I'm mid 40's) I quite like the 6 monthly check-up, i.e. where there's a chance that anything wrong with me will get picked up all the sooner and therein give me a chance to do something about it.

It's just as my old mum always says "You've got nothing if you haven't got your health !". :ugh: :uhoh: :{

[FAA fit / JAR unfit]

Good for many people. Finally the colour vision test nightmare will be removed for all those that passes an alternate test as colour safe but are not very if next time they will, as many times it depends on where you´ve done it..

Great news indeed!! Wish it relly comes into effect soon.. :ok:

[FlapsOne]

Have to agree with Old King.

Nice to have the 'tick' every 6 months and pick up potential problems as early as possible.

[Malta_Flyer]

any idea where i can obtain the official outcome of the meeting?

[Irishwingz]

Hopefully someone will tell us SOON!!!

You would expect the news to be here

http://www.jaa.nl/licensing/licensing.html

or here

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?categoryid=49&pagetype=87

[sparks-flying]

You mentioned the EEG being dropped.
It actually got dropped over a year ago, just before my initial class 1.

Shame , it sounded quite interesting!!!

SF

[Malta_Flyer]

cant wait for them to publish details! If they did drop the dioper limits it will be my best christmas present ever!!!!!

[Otterman]

Sparks-flying.
What I have given as news here comes directly from my union. This union was founded in 1929, and has served its constituents very well. It is also a founding member of IFALPA. Their information is as solid as gold. I translated their mailing to me and in it they mentioned that the initial EEG was being dropped. Your country might have been ahead in this, I don’t know about mine. I have been active in this business a lot longer than you, and my initial medical was many moons ago.

To go and put a pathetic line in there about the news being a shame speaks very poorly for you. If you feel you have information beyond the fact you did not require an EEG when you started down the road in aviation, please provide it, otherwise do some growing up. It will not serve you well in this business to jump to these types of conclusions based on limited knowledge and information.

O.

Ps. I also mentioned in my initial post that it will take around 12 months for the new requirements to be put into law, but that the outline of what these new laws will contain is what was agreed upon in Hoofddorp. The exact details for each category will have to wait for that day.

[Malta_Flyer]

'2) The eyesight requirements will become a lot less rigid. No exact details mentioned. But I know at my company alone there are about a 150 guys who are very relieved.'

would anyone be able to elaborate on that??

thanks

[Sans Anoraque]

I quite like the 6 monthly check-up, i.e. where there's a chance that anything wrong with me will get picked up all the sooner and therein give me a chance to do something about it 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?

[Flyin'Dutch']

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?

Heart attacks can be diagnoses by taking blood samples but only if you do the test at the time of the incident or shortly after, not at a medical.

Some forms of cancer show their presence in a blood test. PSA (Prostate Specific Antigen) is the closest to being of use in a screening test.

Unfortunately with too many false positives (= a positive result where no disease is present leading to unneccesary investigations) and false negatives ( = a negative result where disease is present giving false reassurances) to be used as just a screening tool.

The adjustment of the medical requirements along the lines of Otterman's post has to be good news for anyone in aviation or aspirations in this direction.

Too many of the old rules enshrined in the books 'cause they have always been like that rather than based on sound medical evidence.

The latter is the reason why a lot of FAA regs are different to those in JAR land.

[got caught]

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 to burst your bubble and p*5$ on your chips, but the technology aint that good yet !:cool:

You could have a closer look at your lifestyle though.

[Otterman]

Sorry, but I don’t see my AME as my primary healthcare provider. I don’t think he sees that as his job. He has a set of regulations in front of him, which I have to meet. Thankfully I have up to now, and he signs me off for another six months. He has even told me that it is purely a checkup of the here and now, and the warranty lasts until I close the door to his office. I know of a few cases of guys who have passed their medical and within a very short space of time are being treated for some serious problems, which were present during their medicals, but not detected.

What I have noticed these past twenty years is that, first my national regulations were a lot stiffer than regulations in many other countries (notably the USA and Canada). When the switch to JAR FCL 3 occurred the new regulations maintained this gap. From personal experience I know of two colleagues who have lost their medical certificates here in Europe and managed to regain them quite easily in Canada and the USA.

One colleague lost his because of a leaky heart valve, which to the European AME was cause to ground him. The cardiologist he was sent too, told him that if he was a “normal” citizen he would not have been in his office for another 10 to 15 years, when he would expect the associated symptoms would necessitate it. He returned to Canada and is back in the air with the restriction of an ECG every six months, and a visit to his cardiologist a maximum of 14 days before his annual medical. He flies a B737 for a low cost carrier.

The other colleague lost her medical due to her score on an EEG. On her initial EEG she scored very close to the arbitrary established limit. This resulted in a repeat of her EEG at subsequent medicals. During her ATPL course she had a medical renewal in which she slightly exceeded this limit, and was grounded. Two months later she was back below the line and continued her training. When she joined my company she became a FO on our B737 fleet. One year after joining she had to do another EEG and once again exceeded the limit. This time she lost her ticket for a minimum of 10 years, a period in which she had to be free of any seizures. She moved to the US with her boyfriend (now husband), regained her medical, and is an FO with a major US carrier (this all occurred about 12 year’s back). By the way she never had or has had an epileptic attack.

Here are just two instances where we in Europe lost good people for no other reason than our very tight limits. I think the liberalization of the medical requirements is a good thing. In the USA or Canada planes aren’t falling out of the sky because of their lower medical standards.

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.

Not once in the history of multi-crewed aircraft operation has an aircraft been lost due to the medical problems of one of the pilots. And we all know of a few cases where a pilot died while in his seat or in the bunk area. But the basic premise of multi-crewing is redundancy. A one pilot cockpit layout could very easily be designed into the next generation of airliners, but won’t because of this redundancy. So to me it is good that the JAA has revisited the topic of medical requirements. I am as curious as anyone else as to what the exact details will be, but I feel it is good we are moving away from the very strict regulations that were causing unnecessary harm, and not providing any additional safety benefit over say the American regulations. At least that is my view of things.

Greetings O.

[Irishwingz]

Got a letter from the UK CAA. The existing limit of +5.00 dioptres of long sightedness will NOT be changed. The UK CAA wanted to do the same as the FAA and remove the limits but the other JAA stats would not agree to it.

Thats all I know as I was in communication with the medical area regarding my specific case - I'm +5.50 :(

I dont know anything about the short sightedness limits being changed.

I guess the rest of the changes will come out in time.

Best of luck everyone else

[Malta_Flyer]

thats bad!!!!!! probably they didnt change the short sighted requirements either then :{

[mikekilo]

great news indeed guys - does this mean JAR medical requirements are aligning towards the FAA requirements?

[Ignition Override]

Congratulations.

As for color-blindness, be aware that after a Boeing plane crashed into the trees at Tallahassee, Florida ('black-hole' effect), this reportedly was a problem for the flying-pilot. The airplane descended until the crew lost sight of the VASI or PAPI lights! Fatigue and all-night flying was a factor. They all survived!:D

[Malta_Flyer]

so we'd expect a fatigue test to form part of the class 1 in a couple of years :ok:

[Daysleeper]

Its stilll only a start. There remain areas where JAR-FCL-3 is completely opposite to medical advice. ie Whats best for you in terms of treatment will not allow you to get your medical back.

[soeren]

Thank you Otterman, it is a very good news.
I would really like they change color vision tests too, those presently used are so so bad.
This study published in Aviation, space, and environmental medicine should be read by JAR-FCL3 authors... :
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15892538&dopt=Citation

Soeren

[PhilM]

A step in the right direction, I'm glad to see the CAA want to drop the refractive limits.....least theres willing!

I wonder how I stand now? Pre-LASIK I was >-8D :( I am currently -0.5D (20/40 uncorrected).

Whilst I am well within limits now, I wasn't "before", wonder if the CAA would be looking to scrap the "pre-operative" limits with refractive surgeries. I see no point in them, surgery can't "fall off" like a pair of -8D glasses can!

Only thing I can see being "bad" about having >-8D preop is an increased risk of retinal detachment....

Any thoughts? (Maybe time I spoke to the CAA?)

[Blinkz]

Phil you should def to the CAA, if you meet the renewal limits (even before op) then they will consider you for a Class 1 deviation medical, so the fact that you are now 0.5 means that you will probably be ok.

[Irishwingz]

A step in the right direction, I'm glad to see the CAA want to drop the refractive limits.....least theres willing!

The CAA wanted to drop the refractive limits for long sightedness too but the other JAA states did not, hence it remains at +5.00

Believe me, the UK CAA are very thought progressive wheras the Germans and French (I beleive, not 100%) are not...maybe EASA will change that, maybe not. But at least for the next 2 years it will remain.

Happy New Year

[Jet_A_Knight]

Is there any mention of the colour-vision standard being relaxed to allow a pass of a lightgun test similar those done done by the FAA and Australian CASA?

PS Re:Tallahasse, both pilots were not CVD.

[Blinkz]

Nope I'm afraid there isn't. I highly doubt whether JAA will ever have a light gun test, the only thing they *may* do is reduce the passing standards on the current lanterns. Even that won't happen for a while I'm afraid.

[seccosepp]

hey, can anybody tell me if the changes proposed so far (for example the -6.00 diop. limit) will also be accepted in the rest of europe (let's say switzerland) or just in the UK?
thx

[Bendoverstewardess]

Gutted!

Have just returned from AMC Gatwick with head in hands. 3 hours of being poked and proded, then the very last test - colour vision!
Identified all but 1 of the plates! And they tell me thats not good enough! What?
Then a couple of bizarre lantern tests where the lights were so small I could barely tell there was anything there anyway. And the person didn't really explain what was going on until the end when she said 'you won't fly commercially'
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've heard US and OZ are a lot less restrictive - is this true?
What about Europe?
Can I take the tests again?
Any chance they'll drop this colour vision restriction at some date?
thx
Failed that.

[whitelabel]

Well bendoverstewardess,

WELCOME TO THE CLUB.
There are enough people on this forum with the same frustrating problem.
I did not know about my colourvision situation until the test.

I was almost finished and the doc told me: Well this is the last test and after this you good to go. Well eventually it was a no go.

I almost own my PPL(A) with a restricted class 2.

You can do a few practical alternative tests to obtain a class 1.
Beyne lantern (the coloured light dots)
spectrolux (something similar)
Anamaloscope (make 1 coloured circel from a green/red half by looking through a microscope and turning knobs)

The 1st one is the one that you did. You still got 2 opportunities but you need to go to another country because England has only got the 1st test.

I suggest the following countries:

Netherlands
Germany
France

Look for a JAA country and be up to date about medical rules.

[whitelabel]

RE:
I've heard US and OZ are a lot less restrictive - is this true?
What about Europe?
Can I take the tests again?
Any chance they'll drop this colour vision restriction at some date?
thx
Failed that.

======================================================

US: Rules are softer.

Still need to pass a test But the can give you a SODA (statement of demontrated ability) by taking you to an airport. The tower wil give you some lights and you need to indentify them correclty.

OZ: rules are softer.

Same tests as in europe but you are able to fly commercial without passing any cv test. The onley problem is that you can only fly above Australian airspace without any restriction.

[Bendoverstewardess]

Thanks whitelabel - I'm now in the process of finding out all there is to know about colour vision (much of which is on this forum!) before booking an appointment in Amsterdam or somewhere.

Will keep the forum posted

[Otterman]

Hello folks,

Good to see that people are trying to add to the discussion. One thing that has become clear to me is that things are still fluid, and that the people (AME's) who are going to be working under the new rules are not certain on what is all going to change and how.

I tried to pry some more information about the changes from the eye specialist. He was being his vague self. And I did not get a coherent answer from the fellow. Obviously the institutes are a bit worried about the changes in the sense that less tests will need to be done (meaning less money to make), and the reduction in the number of medicals required (especially the over 40 crowd) is going to have a significant effect on the revenue side. Meaning less staffing for the institute. This seems to be utmost in peoples mind at the medical institute. I guess first things first. We are a revenue engine to them, not people who are there to get their ticket punched for another year of six months so we can provide for our families.

Hope things will become clear shortly. Greetings O.

[fhchiang]

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)

[voloamilleallora]

any news about the astigmatism limits?
I have -3 and -2
i hold class 1 medical but every year i'm very scared to lose it beacause i'm borderline!

[provo]

Apologies if someone else has posted this but I think that the medical matters discussed in Hoofddorp can be found at

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?ca...49&pagetype=87

The move towards 12 monthly medicals for those of us over 40 would appear to apply to MPA operations.

[Otterman]

That is indeed what I have heard as well. Also heard that instructors above age 40 will remain at the twice a year level.

[Saabdriver]

Come on guys .....
Nobody been to a CAA renewal lately ????

Saabdriver

[Scube3]

This is my situation

Before I had miopia -6.25/-6.75... I have done lasik surgery about 1 1/2 years ago. Mi vision now is 20/20. I posses a FAA First Class medical (no limitations). I have an FAA ATP and I have been flying for over 5 years. I am from Spain, and I am trying to get back at some point, but I have a huge medical barrier.
Is there a way for me to get a JAA First class medical? I read in this thread to explain your case and try to get a waiver or something like it, but to who?? How about if I just take my chances and try to go get a first Class without saying anything..Will they ever find out?

Thank for all the help, its very appreciated.

Scube.

[Jimmy The Big Greek]

I would go for a medical in spain. If they reject me I would try for medical U.K
It is possible that you can pass a First class medical because your eyes was within the renewal requirements before surgery.
It all depends on the licensing authourity.

Some doctors are nice and wants you to pass. They just check that you are a safe pilot.

Then there are doctors that are assholes. Remember one a doctor that wanted to fail me because I had to much earwax. I then called AMC and they just laughed. Anyway I got really scared with this and now everytime a go for a medical check I get "white coat hypertension"

[Scube3]

Jimmy, Are you tracking me out!? Just kidding.Thank you sooo much for your imputs. They are not great news, but my head is now clear. I guess I'll have to put all this new project on hold till my next trip to Europe. Well, lets keep are hopes high.
Thanks again for all the help.

Scube.

[7gcbc]

Sparks,

You mentioned the EEG being dropped.
It actually got dropped over a year ago, just before my initial class 1.
Shame , it sounded quite interesting!!!
SF


if having to stare into a hi intensity strobe light pulsate at various frequencies 6 inches away from your face for 20 mins, whilst clumsily attached leads to your head (complete with immovable surgical gel) irritate your skull, all the while a igor-esque machine operator straight out of a 1950's Bela lugosi movie, moves various levers and scribbles various notes which you are aware of in the periphary....... :{

The only thing missing is a "Herr Doktor" with a monocle and a maniac grin... :uhoh:

Unless a previous history dictates investigation, I don't personally see the point in such a test ?

[AlR]

There are options to Vision enhancement without surgery. I started Ortho K when I was 19. Contact lens reshapes the Cornea and maintains for 24 to 48 hours. FAA and the Saudi's version dropped all limitations on my Class One Med. Now I suscribe to updated version call CRT, where I sleep with a modified set of Lens and remove them during the day. Still maintains 20/15. This procedure if stopped will allow Cornea to return to original shape and eyesight. I'm 52 today ans never had a problem with my eye's. I wouldn't think of letting someone "cut" on my Cornea when most Opthomolgists wouldn't do the same.

Obviously, not having to wear any sort of corrective lens would be preferred, however, if you need corrected vision and want a Class one this may work for you. My wife is a NeoNatal Physician and was recently contemplating Lasik. I suggested she try the CRT and if she wasn't happy, discontinue it and go the Lasik way. At 49 Years she started the CRT and has 20/20 today.

I don't sell the Product or receive renumeration in any way, just happy with what is has done for me and knowing I could discontinue it at anytime I wanted to. Not the perfect anwser, but a solution that allows me to make my living in a Jet.:D :ok:

[Niland]

I am no expert but i believe the general direction things are headed in can be seen in the NPA here (http://www.jaa.nl/publications/npas/Draft%20NPA-FCL%2028%20Text%20-%20Revised%20Version%20Consultation.pdf)

[Hawk]

Niland..thanks for posting that link.
cheers
H.

[Dash8100]

Does this mean (if the draft is OK'ed) that you're going to be able to get a Class 1 with -6?

[Jimmy The Big Greek]

I just looked at the new NPA. It seems like they have removed the line which states:
"There is no stereoscopic test requirement"

Does this mean that we are going to be tested for stereovision now?

[paulthornton]

From the CAA page here (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?categoryid=49&pagetype=90&pageid=4764):
Ambylopia - The visual acuity in the other non-amblyopic eye should be 6/6 with or without correction. (Previously the 6/6 acuity had to be achieved without correction)

This is excellent news for me as it seems like my issue with having a lazy eye which is slighly long sighted and a good eye which is short sighted (which pushes me over the prescription difference between eyes limit) might finally be resolved - I can hopefully get a JAA class 2 finally. Flying in the UK on an Australian license is beginning to become a bit limiting.

Does anyone have any information on whether or not the prescription difference limit has been relaxed as well?

Paul.

[guimaraes]

Ok guys,I have dioptre -1.75 both eyes.Is that good enough for Class 1 in Europe?

[Kestrell820]

I found this on the JAA page (NPA 28):

At revalidation or renewal examinations, an applicant experienced to the satisfaction of the Authority
with a refractive errors error not exceeding +5 dioptres or with a high myopic refractive error
exceeding -6 dioptres may be considered assessed as fit by the AMS (see paragraph 2 (b) Appendix 13 to
Subpart B).
(iii) Applicants with a large refractive error shall use contact lenses or high-index spectacle lenses.

Does this mean, if i have e.g. -8dpt at the renewal, the might give me the class 1 medical?
And when will the NPA become effective?
Thanks

[SimJock]

I had a class 1 renewal 2 weeks ago, AME said that the extension to 12 monthly testing of over 40's was coming in November 2006 so advised that I have my next renewal after that date and it will last for 12 months. Thats OK for me as I'm not flying commercially at the moment.

[Martin4]

My eye site is:

Right Eye:
Sphere = -0.50
Cyl = +2.50
Axis = 10

Left Eye:
Sphere = -0.50
Cyl = +2.75
Axis = 165

Can i ask, what section in that list is the dioptres in my eyes?

And also, could i get a class 1 medical with that standard of eye site after they change the requirements?


Martin

[chrisbl]

The dioptres are the measures as +2.75 etc.

Go to the CAA website and look for the eyesight requirements.

[|Ken|]

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)

What is the medical requirements of DCA Malaysia?

[fhchiang]

What is the medical requirements of DCA Malaysia?

well.. weird...

i went to AME...

did some checks.. he gave me a FULL Malaysian CLass-1 with that correction.


he never told me about the initial limits.. he just say i qualified.. and gave me my certificate......

i couldn't obtain any information on MAlaysian Class-1 Medical Eyesight requirements..

[|Ken|]

What is AME? Do you know any other medical requirement?

[fhchiang]

Aviation Medical Examiner....


sorry ...|Ken| ,, can relaly help you much as the DCA website isn't very informative........

i don't have the details on other requirements......

all i can say is.. i PASS my class-1 with that eyesight

[Becker Junior]

That´s good news! I have a substandart vision in one eye and want to apply for JAA class 1 medical this year. Im trying a job in Europe this month.

[giafoschi]

Hi friends,do you know if there will be any change also in "heart valve replacement" requirements?
Thanks a lot!
Gianluca

[Otterman]

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.

[Hawk]

Hello otterman, many thanks for the update.
cheers
H

[degers]

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?

And also do you know how long this will be?????


Many thanks,
Degers
(Andrew Degnen)

[aubreybristow]

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

[sfomarc]

Will someone tell me where I can find the physical requirements for a 1st class medical ICAO standards for now and when the age is raised to 65.

I am unable to find a link.

Thanks
Marc

[Pirate]

Sfomarc.

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.

Confundemus

[ACIDO]

We are at the end of september: when could we expect some news about new visual requirements?

Thanx

Bye

ACIDO

[JackOffallTrades]

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.

[LastMinute]

Good news, bad news:

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 (http://www.jaa.nl/secured/Licensing/Medical%20Issues/NPAs/NPA-FCL%2028%20-%20Draft%20Final%20Rule%20-%20JAAC%20Adoption.doc) [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".

[ACIDO]

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?

ACIDO

[Jimmy The Big Greek]

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.

[ACIDO]

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!

Bye

:rolleyes:

[Jimmy The Big Greek]

oops, you are right. Sorry my misstake. If you really want to become a pilot you can always go to the states and take an FAA license.

I am very sorry about your situation ACIDO.

[Creep Feed Grinder]

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".
Does anybody know how this will effect those who currently have deviations?

[socloss]

Does anybody know how this will effect those who currently have deviations?

Hi guys,

This is my 1st reply on this website but it is excellent. Basically I havnt even started training yet as I am right on the boundary for my eyesight, just over when wearing glasses but under for contacts, unfortunately this would mean I would have to have a class 1 with a deviation.

However, I attended the Flyer Professional Pilot Show at Heathrow on Saturday and almost every training company was there including the CAA. I spoke to the TOP MEDICAL DOCTOR WHO TOLD ME THAT THEY ARE STOPPING ISSUING DEVIATIONS BASED ON EYESIGHT IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS BUT ARE INCREASING THE INITIAL LIMIT TO -6 DIOPTRES. He couldnt tell me when this would come in but advised me to "watch the CAA website". Assuming this happens, this is excellent news for the likes of myself who should pass the Class 1, based on eyesight anyway.

Thought I'd share this important info.

[LastMinute]

According to this UK CAA announcement (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?categoryid=49&pagetype=90&pageid=7156), Amendment 5 of JAR-FCL 3 will come into effect on 1 December 2006.

Sounds like the issuing of deviations will end then as well. So if you're between -6 and -8 it's probably already too late, as I doubt you'd get an appointment before the end of the month :(

And there I was hoping that "sometime soon" was in the context of international standardisation...

[phillipsmw]

Anyone know if you can still get an FAA initial, do FAA training in the states, and comes back for a JAA renewal?

[ACIDO]

I've just phoned Medical Division of CAA; they told me IT'S NOT TRUE they will stop issuing fist class with deviation the first of December!

:rolleyes:

ACIDO

[waterpau]

I 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.

Socloss (or anybody else): did you catch the name of the doctor who was at the Flyer conference on Saturday and told you that they would be stopped imminently?

I've got a short term deviation based on excess astigmatism and if the new standards are applied and the deviation route removed, it looks as though I'll be stuffed :{

waterpau

[Creep Feed Grinder]

You and me both mate...Can't imagine they can suddenly just turn the tap off on deviations. What about all those with long term ones, do they have to stop flying. Think it might be a case of the 'Tale wagging the Dog'
From CAA web
CLass 1 certificate with deviation and EASA
The UK presented a working paper that raised the issue of pilots who currently hold class 1 medical certificates as deviations. Currently these pilots hold medical certificates that restrict them to aircraft registered in the state of medical certificate issue. As these medical certificates issued as deviations are still ICAO compliant, they are valid for international flights. However, if under EASA the acceptance or issue of medical certificates outside the requirements is not possible, then the concern is that current pilots with medical certificates issued as deviations may have their flying privileges restricted, and in the future the flexibility of using accredited medical conclusion may not be possible. To address this, and other similar supra national issues, the UK will be chairing a working group that will propose possible future arrangements.
Is it panic over ?
Anybody know the outcome ?

[socloss]

I'm afraid I didnt catch the CAA medical chap's name as there were literally hundreds of people eager to talk to him but he is the top doctor there.

One thing though, if they stop issuing deviations, it wont mean that exisiting deviations become invalid Im sure as that is ridiculous. They would simply make it more simple by easing the restrictions and simply making a Class 1 either a yes or no outcome, as opposed to a maybe.

The CAA are very cagey on the phone and some of the advisors may not actually know about it yet as I get the impression it's meant to be under wraps but we will see. If they intend a change to be implemented in December, it's more likely going to be in the new year I expect.

I also found out that when initially trying to book a Class 1, if you're prepared to have an 8.45am appointment, there is little waiting - a few days but the 12.45pm ones are about a 2 week wait.

f anyone has any other info that would be good.....

[waterpau]

I've just spoken to the CAA again; I was told that this has been an issue today and there was a meeting earlier about medicals with deviations. Apparently "somebody thought there were going to be changes" but "they don't know what the changes are or when they're going to take place." They advised to keep checking the website.

So that's settled, then. :confused:

[socloss]

Yes thats what I was told when I tried them.

I think what we have to accept is that there are going to be imminent changes regarding deviations (whether or not they take them away) and/or relaxing the limits on refractive error. Im convinced they are trying to keep things secret before announcing them publically on the website which is why they just advise us to watch the website.:ugh:

All we can do is wait I guess:(

[Creep Feed Grinder]

I'm sure is that the folk at Gatwick will find a way to continue in some way, shape or form. I've always found them very helpful and they do fight our corner.

[waterpau]

Hear hear, CFG. I hope my previous posts didn't imply negativity - the chaps at Gatwick, particularly Adrian Chorley and Gerry Emms, have been excellent in the past. It can take a bit of shouting to get their attention, but once you have it they're fabulous.

I'm sure they'll find some way to keep us all in the saddle, and allow as many others as is safely possible...

And apologies if this thread has moved slightly off track! :}

waterpau

[socloss]

Absolutely, to be fair to the people at Gatwick, they are as quick as possible, they are probably just short staffed.

Adrian Chorley is the chap I specifically have to see, Ive also hard good things about him. Apparantly the cost of the Class 1 Initial has reduced to c.£300 which is excellent news.:ok:

[16mg]

Does anyone know how the CAA treats one eye outside the limits and one eye in. Is that a fail ?

Cheers

[theweave]

Or one ear.
Has anyone been in the same position as myself. I've just failed my class 1 with one ear being below the initial and renewal level. I've still got another ear that works perfectly. any help would be appreciated.
Weave.

[Tamesy1]

Does anyone know when amendment 5 of FCL-3 will be published??

[ACIDO]

The amendment will be in force from 1st of December; it should be published soon.

Bye

ACIDO:)

[Jimmy The Big Greek]

hmm, slit lamp. Dont try to hide any eye surgery. The slit lamp is a routine eye examination. Some AMC even use a topograph which detects eye surgey quite easy.

[ACIDO]

Which are those AMC?

ACIDO:hmm:

[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?categoryid=49&pagetype=90&pageid=531

waterpau

[LastMinute]

Interesting too that in the new JAR Class 1 (Professional Pilot) Initial Examination Visual Standards leaflet (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/49/SRG_MED-JARClass1InitialVisStds[2189].pdf) [PDF, 68 KB], the hint at the availability of a deviation is no longer there.

From the old version of the leaflet:
Applicants who fail to meet the initial visual examination standards, but who reach the renewal/revalidation standards, should contact the UK CAA Medical Division to discuss their options.

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... :sad:

[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 (http://www.jaa.nl/publications/jars/606984.pdf) [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]

I've just phoned Medical Division of CAA; they told me IT'S NOT TRUE they will stop issuing fist class with deviation the first of December!
:rolleyes:
ACIDO


No comment....


ACIDO:D :*

[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:

Thank you for your email, I can confirm that at the moment there are no changes in regards to deviations. However, in the future under the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) it is possible that that this may change. Any updates or changes would be posted on our website.

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 :confused:

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 :ok: . Can anyone confirm?

Thanks

[LastMinute]

My pescription is currently

-5.75 -2.00 x175
-5.50 -2.00 x81

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.

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.

Can anyone confirm?

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 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 :ok: . Can anyone confirm?

Thanks

Hi folks !

Yes normally you should be right

- 5.75 + 2.00= -3.75

[Flight my fire]

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 :ok: . Can anyone confirm?

Thanks

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]

Sfomarc.
I can't see there being any difference for pilots aged over 60. We either meet the standard or we don't.
Confundemus

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.

[Gulfstreamaviator]

Have these guys adopted the 65 ICAO, or are they still 60....

Glf

[Katherine Alexandra]

Yikes, class 1 :uhoh:
That said, it's good (IMO) about the changes; fewer worries!

[Hawk]

This thread is really here to report legislation changes. We are getting a bit of thread drift with members posting their personal medical stories. Probably better off posting in the main area of the forum where you will likely get more responses and discussion.

Thank you.

[Thomas coupling]

Apologies if this has been covered before but the thread is too long to read!
My AME has now confirmed that the dropping of medicals from 6 to 12 months is ONLY for multi crew pilots. Single crew IFR pilots still retain ALL the old regs: ECG every 6 months and medical every 6 months??

Has that been mentioned before?

[ciderman]

Hi Guys,

Question on all of this. I'm 59 and a bit, well a big bit. Next medical due in March, class one. Will this be for 6 months or one year? Both will take me past my 60th and I expect the one after that to be for only 6 months, but not sure about this one. Any one in this situation with an answer?

[Whirlybird]

ciderman,

See http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/49/SRG_MED-MedicalCertificateExpiryDates[2362].pdf where the changes are summarised. Basically, it's every year up to 60, EXCEPT for those pilots involved in AOC type passenger carrying single pilot ops. So if you're an instructor or multicrew, it's annually.

However, not all AMEs know this, or didn't when I renewed mine last month. Not that it matters - you'll get the same certificate, stating that the validity period varies depending on what you do.

Hope that helps.

[ciderman]

Thanks Whirly,

Just done it and you are correct. Multi pilot ops and you get a year, single pilot and it's still 6 months. All detailed on the certificate. Hope this helps others.

[wiggy]

Did UK renewal (Class 1) earlier this week - no peak flow or colour test.

[mutt]

Ireland hasnt changed the 6 month requirement to 12 months for those over 40.

Mutt

[ACIDO]

Does anyone know something about eyesight JAR modifies that should be discussed in August 2007 and introduced next year by CAA?

Bye

ACIDO

[Zdeno11]

Hi,
I am attending a cabin Crew Training soon and I was just wondering what does this medical exam consist of? Has anyone been through one? Thanks a million.

[Malta_Flyer]

I am currently a holder of a class 1 medical (right on the limit for initial with -6 short sightedness correction on one side). I was recently going through the JAA FCL3 to check whether there was any limit for eyesight correction for the renewal of the medical.

The document says that a person who has correction beyond -6 and is experienced to the satisfaction of the AME can get his renewal. Im a ppl holder with the intention of getting a FI rating and a CPL in the future. Would that make me 'not sufficiently experienced' and lose me my medical if i go beyond -6?

cheers!

[corsair]

Ireland hasnt changed the 6 month requirement to 12 months for those over 40.

Mutt

They have now, my last renewal is for 12 months.

[LastMinute]

Does anyone know something about eyesight JAR modifies that should be discussed in August 2007 and introduced next year by CAA?
Not heard anything about that. This EASA document (http://easa.europa.eu/doc/Rulemaking/jaanpa/Note%20to%20JAAC%20about%20the%20JAA%20Rulemaking%20Plan%202 007-08.pdf) mentions a Notice of Proposed Amendment to JAR-FCL 3 that is "largely editorial improvements", but I haven't been able to find any more information. I think it's unlikely that there'd be any significant change to JAR-FCL 3 so soon after the last one. Also, with the transition of responsibility for Flight Crew Licencing standards from JAA to EASA, any proposed change is likely to take a long time to work its way through the system.


Meanwhile, it looks like the UK CAA continues to lobby for the removal of refraction limits: see section 5.3 of the Minutes of the 26th Meeting of the Civil Aviation Medicine Forum (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/49/SRG_Med_CAMF250907.pdf). No idea what the outcome of that was.

[ACIDO]

I found it interesting; they seem to move in the right way, but very slowly.
Really no way to know the result of that meeting?


Bye

ACIDO

[LastMinute]

Welcome to the world of international standardisation! :rolleyes:

You could try contacting the JAA to see if they will publish the minutes of the meeting. You might even be able to force them to if there's some applicable "Freedom of Information" legislation. But I don't know anything about that...

[SAS-A321]

Meanwhile, it looks like the UK CAA continues to lobby for the removal of refraction limits: see section 5.3 of the Minutes of the 26th Meeting of the Civil Aviation Medicine Forum. No idea what the outcome of that was.

Anyone how knows what the outcome of the meeting? I still have not heard a good reason for the refraction limits.

[Irishwingz]

From my direct experience, the CAA are open to the idea (and have been trying for some time) of going down the route of the FAA in that there is no limit to the amount of eyesight correction you need so long as corrective lenses bring your vision to a high standard. However, we are in an EASA world and its the other countries like France and Germany that continue to block the UK CAA's moves on this subject.

Our only hope is to watch this space and hope the other Europeans see sense, pardon the pun :ok:

[ACIDO]

What do you mean with "direct experience"?

Bye

ACIDO:ugh:

[Irishwingz]

2 consultations in LGW and several letters concerning my case over a period of 2-3 years

[Kengineer-130]

Are there any further developments on this subject? :ok:

[Le Bigleux]

Hello everyone,

This is my first post on that forum. As there doesn't seem to be a presentation thread, I'm going to introduce myself : I'm French ("oh no, not another one !!", yes you just said that out loud ;) ) and BTW, please excuse me in advance if I unintentionally mistreat your language. I graduated from an engineering college last year and now I'm working as a consultant. Very interesting job from all points of view. Except one : I certainly like to deal with computer software and all that stuff, but I would so love to be an airliner pilot...
I had my first flying lesson when I was 14, on a Jodel D120. After that I passed the french Brevet de Base, then the TT licence (which was our national PPL). More recently I got my FI rating so it's now my turn to transmit my passion.
Now, as I didn't pick a random thread to do this presentation, guess what did prevent me to become professional ? Yeah, I'm short-sighted. -7 dioptres, which is outside the limits.

BTW I would have liked to create a new thread to expose what follows, but apparently I can't (maybe 'cause I'm a newbie here). This one seems quite appropriate, though.

Well, short version : I got my class-1 medical ! In France, furthermore.

Longer version : a few years ago, the visual requirements were -3/+3 (like anywhere else, I think). When I saw the JAA tended to relax them by explicitely allowing variations until -5 at the initial and until -8 at the renewal, I began to wonder what were the reasons of those limits.

I came with these two facts :
- the more refractive a corrective lens is, the more peripherical deformations there are;
- myopia is caused by a too long eyeball. The retina is prone to potentially serious problems.

So I think the first fact is the main reason of that obsolete -3/+3 limit. Actually, it was an ICAO requirement. Optical technology evoluted, and now you can either wear glasses with high-index corrective lenses (which is my case), either wear contact lenses (which eliminate totally the problem). Furthermore, it was proven by experience than using high refractive correction is not a liability for flight safety.
In 2000, the ICAO removed all kind of limits in dioptres.

Now, about the second fact, the JAA Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine (JAA | Licensing: Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine (http://www.jaat.eu/licensing/manual_civil_aviation_2006.html)) says that "the risk of chorio-retinal degeneration and retinal detachment rapidly increases if the myopia exceeds 5–6 dioptres", which motivates the current -6 limit.
I have the chance to have a ophtalmologist who proved, in spite of being constantly overbooked, to be dedicated and willingful to help me to get my medical certificate. According to him, even if many high refractive myopia are evolutive and will cause many serious problems (like the ones quoted), it's not my case (even if I have to undergo a comprehensive eye exam every two years, just to check).

My confidence grew considerably and I took an appointment to take the class-1 initial exam.

Now, please allow me to describe briefly the French aeromedical system, which is quite different from the UK one, I believe : there are five aeromedical centers (in which two of them are only allowed to do renewal exams). If you don't meet all the requirements, your medical folder is sent to the CMAC (Civil Aviation Medical Council) which, after studying it, decides whether to grant you a variation.

Well, back to my story : I went for the initial exam. Without surprise, I had to fill a variation request. A few weeks after, I learnt that not only I didn't get a class 1 variation, but that I no longer could do aerobatics (I never got to know for sure from where that limitation came).

Followed a quite crazy medico-administrative battle, involving a lot of letters, the French Ombudsman, the retirement of the CMAC president and finally an exam by an expert. I was notified of my class-1 variation (as well as the disappearance of that non-sense limitation on aerobatics) in January and I'm now studying the ATPL theorical knowledge by distance learning.

Now, it seems the attitude of the CMAC has changed considerably since the retirement of its former president. After reading that story, some nearsighted guys took the initial exam and got their class-1 too !


To conclude that post, I'm a bit surprised nobody here (or at least in that part of the forum, I didn't check the other ones) talks about the NPA on the future EASA medical regulation (NPA 2008-17, Part-Medical available here : Rulemaking | Notices of Proposed Amendment (NPAs) (http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/r_npa.php))
The main breakthrough is there will no longer be variations. There will no longer be dioptre limits other than as an AMC (Acceptable Mean of Compliance), which will not to be strictly enforced.

Anyway, I think you short-sighted people can let your hopes grow about a future nice class-1 medical certificate !

Have a nice week-end !

[ACIDO]

I read Npa 17c-2008, but I'm not sure it removed refractive limits.
The documents is composed of two parts: the first is named "Draft of opinion", the second, "Draft of decision".
In the "Draft of opinion" (page 3), there are no refractive limits indeed, but only visual acuity requirements that can be reached with or without correction as well.
In the "Draft of decision" (page 22), instead, the rules are the same as the ones established by the actual version of JAR-FCL 3, then max refractive error is -6,00, +5,00.

So, It seems that the proposal of refractive limits removal, contained in the "Draft of opinion" was rejected in the "Draft of decision". Wasn't it?


Bye

ACIDO

[Bips]

I noticed that the CAA have just posted new guidelines for vision dated August 2008. Unfortunately they looked exactly the same as the previous ones (Dec 2006). I was hoping for the removal of the uncorrected dioptre restriction. Has anyone spotted a difference?

[Malta_Flyer]

If you hold a Class 1, and all of a sudden your myopia has increased out of initial limits (nothing too dramatic..somewhere between -6 and -8 diopters), you can still get 6/6 correction with your specs and you have no pathology...can the doc NOT revalidate your medical???

My question comes from the 'MAY CONSIDER' wording in the requirements. Its like we dont have anything to support our claim that we are suitable..as a lot seems to be left to the discretion of the AME!

[fabbe92]

The changes that are listed in the first post in this thread, are they valid yet?

[Otterman]

As far as I know, but you will be able to find them on different sites.

[fabbe92]

I don´t understand. Does this mean that the new rules in the first thread are the ones they use today? That a you can become a pilot if you have type 2 diabetes and such?

[Otterman]

Sorry can't help you out on specifics. You either have to read the different national sites. Or you can contact an AME to get the information. Good luck.

[ZEEBEE]

Have to agree with Old King.

Nice to have the 'tick' every 6 months and pick up potential problems as early as possible

Can't disagree with you on that, though nothing to stop you going to the quack every week if you feel it helps.

[cap2e]

Nice post Otterman,

You say in your post that the USA and Canada are less restrictive on there medical requirements. Well, I'm an insulin dependent pilot who lives in the USA and was flying for a major carrier as a Captain on the B-737. As of now I'm no longer able to fly because of the FAA rules on Insulin dependent pilots, but if I lived in Canada or Europe and now JAL rules I would still be able to fly. So my point is this, I think it's great that the medical requirements are less strigent for those that it may apply to. But the USA (FAA) is more strict then ICAO, JAL as far as medical requirements go. The FAA is always the last agency to follow reducing requirements. I have written everyone I can think of from the white House, to state officials Governor, Congressman, Senators, EEOC, FAA Medical Surgeons ETC... with no response to my condition. I f you would by any chance have any info on how and why JAL changed there policy on Insulin dependent pilots to carry a Class 1- medical that would be great. If so, I would use that info to send to the FAA and try once again to get the ball rolling for pilots in the USA. I need as much help as possible to get the FAA's attention on this matter. Thank you in advance if you can help at all. :ok:

[SAS-A321]

cap2e

Did you write to any of the states that accepts pilots, who are insulin dependant? It seems like you have been caught in a black hole. Normally when a state adopts a new rule, already licensed people get grandfathers rights. If you cannot get through to the people, who makes the rules and normally don't know **** about our industry, why not move overseas to get a job? I know it might be hard to move family, but it seems like you want to continue cloud surfing!

[Otterman]

cap2e.
I am sorry but I don't know enough on this issue. In the last five years there has been a great loosening of medical requirements in Europe. In some cases more liberal then the USA (ie only one medical per year above 40). I am sure you can check online what the JAR (or is it EU-OPS) view is on diabetes.
Best of luck, sorry to read about your issue.

[cap2e]

SAS;

Thank's for the reply. Yes the move would be hard on the family. I'm still with the same company working in the training dept as a check airman, And I'm developing RNP procedures and training for the company as well. This task will be complete at the end of 2010. So I'm still making good money, but I miss flying terribly. Have a great day. Stay away from those big clouds when your surfing, they can be dangerous.

SeeYa,

Cap2e:ok:

[cap2e]

Otterman,

Thank's for the reply. I'm going to keep fighting and working on the FAA. :ugh: Have a great day!!

Cap2e :ok:

[wondering]

New EASA medical rules should be implemented in April 2012. If one can hang on until then, here is the draft: http://easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/doc/NPA/NPA%202008-17c.pdf

Hope that answers a few questions. Good luck.

[OYPJN]

Looks like good news for me. Have been waiting for this for a LONG time!!! The limit on diopter has been lifted in EASA's opinions regarding 2008-17C.

EASA - Opinions (http://easa.europa.eu/agency-measures/opinions.php)

Applicants with:
(1) astigmatism;
(2) anisometropia;
may be assessed as fit subject to satisfactory ophthalmic evaluation.

Distant visual acuity, with or without correction, shall be:
(1) in the case of class 1 medical certificates, 6/9 (0,7) or better in each eye separately and visual acuity with both eyes shall be 6/6 (1,0) or better;

(i) Applicants with diplopia shall be assessed as unfit.
(j) Spectacles and contact lenses. If satisfactory visual function is achieved only with the use of correction:
(1) (i) for distant vision, spectacles or contact lenses shall be worn whilst exercising the privileges of the applicable licence(s);
(ii) for near vision, a pair of spectacles for near use shall be kept available during the exercise of the privileges of the licence;
(2) a spare set of similarly correcting spectacles shall be readily available for immediate use whilst exercising the privileges of the applicable licence(s);
(3) the correction shall provide optimal visual function, be well-tolerated and suitable for aviation purposes;
(4) if contact lenses are worn, they shall be for distant vision, monofocal, non-tinted and well tolerated;
(5) applicants with a large refractive error shall use contact lenses or high-index spectacle lenses;
(6) no more than one pair of spectacles shall be used to meet the visual requirements; (7) orthokeratologicallensesshallnotbeused.

Stil some way to go until implementation, but its great news. Probably sometime in 2012

[Irishwingz]

Intersting and just published yesterday. you are on the ball OYPJN!

I dont want to get over excited here but it seems there are NO limits for the refractive error (lens strength) for glasses or contacts. A bit like in the USA where if you can wear corrective lenses in oder to comply with the rules then its OK. At present its +/-5 dioptres for long sight for example.

it would be great if this opinion was adopted.:ok::ok::D

PS if you click that link then choose the second PDF entitled draft regulation on part MED page 24

[Jimmy The Big Greek]

I have been reading the new EASA PART-MED medical standards that will be effective earliest Oct 2011 and it seems like EASA is going to tighten a bit the medical requirements regarding vision and cardio. Can someone confirm this.

[OYPJN]

This is not what I see on EASA's webpage.
Opinion Part-Medical (http://www.easa.europa.eu/flightstandards/crd_part_medical.html)

Do you have a link to where you found the information?

Regards

[Robot1]

Hi All

Notice that this thread hasn't been updated in a while... Just wondering if any of you have managed to decipher any of of 'info' that's available on EASA website with regard to medical licensing???? I've gleaned that they will be be taking up the former JAA medical function from APR 2012 but have no idea if there will be any changes to the requirements.

If anyone has had the time or inclination to navigate the site I appreciate their interpretation.

Robot:confused:

[joasom]

Yeah a big plus to these guys!Thanx for the updates man.