Eyesight discrimination?

[Kengineer-130]

Ok, this might sound a bit odd, but in the current situation of political correctness, equality etc etc, If someone was just outside the class 1 eyesight reqirements, and could prove they could safly fly an aeroplane and complete all the required training, If the CAA then refused to issue a Class 1 medical would there be grounds for a discrimination charge against them, as it has been PROVEN by the succesful completion of training and flight tests that the person is competent and safe. I cannot see how they could fight this as it would be blatent discrimination :confused:

[Bealzebub]

Sounds like you want a legal opinion, but common sense would rather suggest not. it wouldn't be a "charge" so much as civil suit for damages. The point of having limits is that you should fall within them.

It is perhaps worth remembering that the reason for a high standard of eyesight is because it is an important requirement in flying. The ability to have good visual acuity in busy airport environments is a major factor in preventing missed signage, stopbars, lights etc, and the possibility of runway incursions.

Most peoples eyesight deteriorates with age and allowance is made for this by setting a high standard at initial licence issue. That deterioration is to some extent compensated by experience gained over the years in between.

If the authority were to permit somebody with sub standard eyesight to hold a class 1, in violation of their own standards and variations they most definetaly would lay themselves open to a civil suit in the event that person became causal in a subsequent incident or accident where such negligence might be a significant factor.

The sucessful completion of flight training does not and never has entitled you to a class 1 medical, and it would be foolish to embark on such training without first meeting the requirements and obtaining the required class 1 medical certificate.

The regulatory authority is required to discriminate, it is a part of their safety and oversight function.

[L-H]

I disagree. Although that concept may have had weight in the past, in todays climate there is no real excuse to discriminate because of poor visual acuity.

Standards of corrective lenses are such that an individual can have their vision corrected to better than the minimum requirement, for example the acknowledged minimum is 6/6 whereas in my case my eyesight is corrected to 6/4. And FYI info I have been working in and around airfields for a very long time and never once missed any form of signage, additionally I have been flying recreationally for over 20 years, not PPL(A), and have an unblemished record even though my visual acuity is way, way below JAA standards for PPL

Furthermore, given the inconsistences surrounding this issue globally, your argument lacks weight. The US FAA checks both uncorrected and corrected vision and it is the corrected visual acuity that counts - the applicant is simply issued a waiver if they require corrective lenses. Also, the practice of the airlines to over rule the FAA by implementing their own medical standards I believe was stopped in the mid '90's because it was discriminatory, but I await to be corrected on that.

This is nothing to do with possible legal suits for negligence but more to do with a resistance to change. There is sufficient evidence in place to suggest that this eyesight requirements should be reviewed, indeed it is my understanding that ICAO have been recommending to national regulatory authorities for some time to do this, clearly without much success.

All JAA has to do is simply change the requirement, not hard really.

[chrisbl]

This is a pointless argument. The CAA have provision for just theae sort of cases.
My eyesight does not meet the requirements for the issue of a class1 medical certificate but does meet the requirements for the revalidation of a class 1.
Therefore they have said that I can have a class 1 with a deviation and upon getting the CPL that class 1 will be revalidated with the deviation lifted.
That is a really pragmatic solution to the problem and well done to the CAA for finding a work around.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/49/SRG_MED_JAR_C1_Initial_Visual_Stds.pdf

[Eddie_Crane]

My eyesight does not meet the requirements for the issue of a class1 medical certificate but does meet the requirements for the revalidation of a class 1.
Therefore they have said that I can have a class 1 with a deviation and upon getting the CPL that class 1 will be revalidated with the deviation lifted.


I am going through this route myself. However you need to show refraction stability at least in the last three years and, as far as I understand, it seems you also need to already hold a PPL (which I do not, so I am trying to see what my options are now...).

[L-H]

This is a pointless argument. The CAA have provision for just theae sort of cases.

Not really, what happens when your eyseight is below the revalidation criteria? My eyesight is approx -9 LH and -10 RH yet is corrected to 6/4 and is refractually stable and has been for more than 3 years. For me this is a pointless argument as I no longer care to fly but for many others it is an issue that really ought to be revisited.

[Strepsils]

as it has been PROVEN by the succesful completion of training and flight tests that the person is competent and safe

And how exactly do you do that? You require a class one medical before you can complete a CPL/IR course, which, loosely speaking, is the minimum "career pilot" qualification. Without the medical, you will prove nothing.

If you only mean PPL, why bother with the expense of a class one?

When you say "just outside the requirements", how just outside are you?

As for PC/discrimination, AAARRRRGGGHHH:mad: :mad: :yuk: :* This isn't America!!

[PhilM]

Would be a whole lot easier for the "borderline" guys to qualify for Class1s if the CAA (and JAA) adopted the FAAs approach, ie, if you meet the acuity requirements corrected or otherwise, then the refraction is unimportant.

I am in a situation where I am corrected to 20/20 (6/6), and my current prescription is -0.5D, all very good you might say. However my pre-lasik prescription was ~-10D, and as such I seem to be ruled out of holding a Class1 on the basis I in the past, did not meet renewel requirements! :(

[Eddie_Crane]

You require a class one medical before you can complete a CPL/IR course, which, loosely speaking, is the minimum "career pilot" qualification. Without the medical, you will prove nothing.
If you only mean PPL, why bother with the expense of a class one?

Hmm yeah, that's where I'm a bit unclear about the whole deviation thing... I haven't fully grasped the concept of this Class 1 via deviation. Is it a class 1, with some sort of limitation on it, which is lifted upon obtaining a CPL, or what...
Then again, how do you go about training for a CPL with a "limited Class 1", assuming you got no flying experience under your belt..
Obviously if there are people doing it and the CAA allow it then there must be something I'm missing... people have gone to OAT under this situation, I'm assuming they issue a Class 1 Medical of some sort then! And still the CAA themselves told me I need a PPL to go through this route? But then... as it's been said, why bother doing a class 1 if I can meet Class 2 requirements without any trouble (for a PPL...). I only became aware of this Class 1 via deviation a few weeks ago, thought I'd understood what it involves, but honestly.. I'm more confused than ever before :ugh:
I guess I'm just gonna have to wait and see what the CAA say about my case...

PS Strepsils: the deviation route is in place for those who don't meet initial eyesight requirements for a Class 1 but do meet renewal requirements.. so "just outside" would mean anywhere outside initial but within renewal.

[Strepsils]

Cesco - I have no idea what the CAA's criteria are in this case, although often in these types of scenarios you find that if you phone another day and get a different person the problem goes away!

If you can, it might be worth contacting Oxford or Cabair to try and talk to students who started training in this situation, they may be able to explain how/why they were able to qualify.

[Eddie_Crane]

Cesco - I have no idea what the CAA's criteria are in this case, although often in these types of scenarios you find that if you phone another day and get a different person the problem goes away!

Something similar happened to me too! However in the end they put me through to Adrian Chorley, so I managed to have a chat with him about this deviation thing. I know about the criteria now, but I am still not sure what sort of Medical they eventually issue :ugh:

If you can, it might be worth contacting Oxford or Cabair to try and talk to students who started training in this situation, they may be able to explain how/why they were able to qualify.

I did ask OAT and they have had students who started in that situation. I was told these chaps started with a Class 1 Medical which had "a note attached", saying "the student will obtain a full Class 1 upon renewal".
However I am planning to also try n have a chat with FTE and CCAT.. possibily at the next Prof Flight Training Show if I manage to get a minute at their respective "stalls".

[EGBKFLYER]

To cut a long story short - I have a prescription which is outside initial class 1 limits but well inside the renewals. Couldn't get a class 1 til JAA came along:D . I went for my initial at LGW and the eyes man confirmed the above. He said (based on his examination) that he would pass me. The rest of the medical was fine, so I got a normal class 1 piece of paper.

In the 'limitations' box is 2VDL (needs to wear glasses) and another box, which notes that the class 1 was issued with a deviation. In plain English, this means they bent the rules slightly to give you the certificate! The cert is a normal class 1, with full class 1 rights.

When I renewed for the first time, since my eyes were then within the rules, no deviation required meant that the box disappeared. I now have a normal class 1, just like everyone else except for the 2VDL limit, which will always be there.

No extra cost, no messing about - simple as that.

[Eddie_Crane]

Cheers for that EGBKFLYER.
It all sounds pretty straightforward.
Just one doubt remains, did you already hold a PPL when your Class 1 was issued or were you (like me right now and perhaps other people in this situation) with no flying experience under your belt?
I 'd been told one of the requirements for an initial "deviated" Class 1 is well.. holding a PPL. Anyone who's been through the process can confirm this or can that "rule" be bent as well?

[EGBKFLYER]

Yes I did have a PPL and about 10 years/ 130 hours ish when I was examined. I don't know how much of a factor experience is when they are deciding on a deviation - I was certainly asked about what I flew, how often, any probs etc.

I think the medics are trying to establish what 'risk' there is in particular cases. Obviously, if you have been flying about happily for a while with no ill effects, that's a good indication (though not fool-proof of course) that your eyesight is acceptable. I don't think they would be as prescriptive as saying you need a PPL in order to get the deviation, but I reckon they might be a bit more wary and ask some more questions...

Best of luck anyway.

[Kengineer-130]

Thanks for the reply guys, I have just done my PPL , 25 hrs and a night rating,all in the USA, but due to work commitments have not had chance to get a class 2 medical and send off for my licence yet. The reason I want to know about a class 1 medical is that I want to train as a commercial pilot, but due to my prescription ( -8.25 and a "lazy eye", or dominant right eye) I don't think I even fall inside the class 1 renewal limits, let alone the initial issue requirements :{ .

The point I am trying to make is that I think this is grossly unfair, as I have proven I can safley fly an aircraft at PPL standard, and with all the extra training to achive a CPL/ME/IR I can't see (no pun intended) a problem as long as the examiner is happy with the check flights. I can understand there being requirements to have healthy eyes, but what is the problem with corrected visual defects as long as all the critera for safe flying has been met? Personally I think it is discrimination, and if this occured in any other line of work then there would be uproar :( .

If you can fly safley and pass the exams, whats the problem? :mad:

[fhchiang]

Honestly... it's pretty pointless to put any limit..


UK CAA sets the limit.. pilots in the UK are within the limit..

But what's the point?

Pilots flying jets from US and Australia may be wearing glasses of -9D...


so? you still get pilots flying jets with -9d in British Skies...

whilist British pilot could wear no mroe than -8D

[Flight my fire]

To cut a long story short - I have a prescription which is outside initial class 1 limits but well inside the renewals. Couldn't get a class 1 til JAA came along:D . I went for my initial at LGW and the eyes man confirmed the above. He said (based on his examination) that he would pass me. The rest of the medical was fine, so I got a normal class 1 piece of paper.
In the 'limitations' box is 2VDL (needs to wear glasses) and another box, which notes that the class 1 was issued with a deviation. In plain English, this means they bent the rules slightly to give you the certificate! The cert is a normal class 1, with full class 1 rights.
When I renewed for the first time, since my eyes were then within the rules, no deviation required meant that the box disappeared. I now have a normal class 1, just like everyone else except for the 2VDL limit, which will always be there.
No extra cost, no messing about - simple as that.


Hi there , to all of you !

EGBKFLYER . For my curiosity can you tell us what's your prescription.
I personally would like to try an initial class 1 in UK but i'm outside the initial limits for JAA. Left eye: -5.75 myopia ( +0.5 astigmatism component )
Right eye: -5.50 myopia ( +0.25 astigmatism component )

[Flight my fire]

To cut a long story short - I have a prescription which is outside initial class 1 limits but well inside the renewals. Couldn't get a class 1 til JAA came along:D . I went for my initial at LGW and the eyes man confirmed the above. He said (based on his examination) that he would pass me. The rest of the medical was fine, so I got a normal class 1 piece of paper.
In the 'limitations' box is 2VDL (needs to wear glasses) and another box, which notes that the class 1 was issued with a deviation. In plain English, this means they bent the rules slightly to give you the certificate! The cert is a normal class 1, with full class 1 rights.
When I renewed for the first time, since my eyes were then within the rules, no deviation required meant that the box disappeared. I now have a normal class 1, just like everyone else except for the 2VDL limit, which will always be there.
No extra cost, no messing about - simple as that.

But it is within renewal limits

[EGBKFLYER]

My current prescription is -5.75/ -5.25 with around 1.5D astigmatism and all other parameters normal. I've had a stable prescription for about 8 years now. Stability is something you will be asked about and it's something to track. Before age 22, my eyes got worse every time I went to the optician (my parents are both pretty short-sighted) but things settled down after that. This is normal.

FMF - as you see you are about as blind as I am, so if you have nothing else wrong, I would expect you will be granted a Class 1 with a deviation.

K-130. They used to give me all the excuses about distortion at high lens powers, poor peripheral vision, losing glasses etc etc. While those arguments may have held water when we all flew Tiger Moths, modern lens (contacts too) technology has solved most of this and the rest is a load of b**ks anyway.

I would suggest to anyone that they contact the CAA medics. They are helpful (i.e. they want to give you a medical if they reasonably can) and are used to eyesight enquiries. They will advise on the best course of action - in my case they said 'come for an initial class 1. We'll do your eyes first and if you fail, you'll only pay for that bit'. Can't say fairer than that.

[Mark 3:16]

I agree with EGB's post above re: the PPL.

I'm in the same situation, eyes at -5.25 and -5.75 bit otherwise healthy. I was going to do the integrated route and sent my prescriptions for the last 3 years off the CAA to check I could get a Class 1. As there was stability - and that's the key - they said yes I could with Deviation.

I'm now going down the PPL route first, and then probably off down the modular route after that. I spoke with CAA yesterday and they confirmed - I'll get a Class 2 now. Once I have my PPL I can go down and have the Class 1 medical. All being well with everything else, I'll get the Class 1 with deviation because by getting my PPL and flying round happily with no problem then it proves to them that eyesight is not an issue.

Seems a bit harsh that effectively we have to pay for a Class 2 then a Class 1 as opposed to just getting a Class 1 straight off, especially if we are just outside the limit. All money for old rope as we know, and we have to do it.

Main thing to remember is - IT CAN BE DONE. I was always put off by my eyesight for ages, thinking I couldn't be a pilot because of it. Its only when I bothered to check properly that I was sparked into life!

Good luck
Mark

[Eddie_Crane]

Ehmm... that effectively precludes the route of Integrated Training somehow though.. doesnt it.
What I don't understand is why you have to have a PPL to get this done. Obviously if I was interested in getting a PPL I'd probably just go for a Class 2 straight away and then try to go the deviation route IF I were interested in pursuing further licensing. It doesn't make any sense to me that you have to get a PPL in order to obtain your deviated Class 1. I mean, it's quite straightforward that your Class 1 would be renewed anyway if you obtained it with say -5 each eye at the Initial and then at renewal you were -6. If you can still fly with a Class 1 after your renewal, having a refraction somewhere between -5 and -8 why can't you fly with that same refraction on a deviated Class 1 straight away? It just doesn't make any sense to me that someone has to get a PPL to get a Class 1 with a deviation. Requirements of age above 21 and refraction stability sound sensible enough.
Like Mark, I never got a PPL because I'd planned to go the Integrated route, so what is the point in getting a Class 2 and a PPL (i.e. additional expense) before a Class 1 and perhaps before an ab-initio course. The whole point of ab-initio courses is that you don't need any flying experience to enter them. Yet to obtain a deviated Class 1 you need a PPL. This whole deviation thing may not be discrimination, but it sure does close a number of doors to the wannabes in this situation. :*

[EGBKFLYER]

:eek: Hang on a minute gys and gals - who said you have to get a PPL in order to get a deviated class 1? I certainly didn't.:D

There is no reason why - as an ab-initio - you couldn't get a deviated class 1. Having flying experience may help your case when convincing the bods at Gatwick to give you the deviation but they could give you it even if you've never seen a Cessna in your life.

At the risk of stating the obvious - TALK to the medics at Gatwick and don't take everything on here as gospel!!! They will give you the answer for your particular situation, whether you are modular, integrated or anything in between.

:ok:

[Eddie_Crane]

I did ask them.
It sounded like they have three requirements: age above 21, refraction stability in at least the last 3 years AND a PPL. I did talk to quite a few of the Gat people. A lady on the phone told me about the PPL bit, which left me quite literally... ehmmm "flabbergasted". It sounded to me like the same "requirements" had been confirmed by the eyes man himself.
Now, if I can get a definitive answer from the folks at Gatwick, that'd help make matters clear once and for all.
However, it sounds like Mark 3:16 had to go the way I am "suggesting".

EGBKFLYER, I don't understand... you said in one post you had 130ish hours and a PPL when you were examined. Perhaps they didn't mention that "requirement" because they saw you already had flying experience.

The point I am trying to make is that one will find oneself in somewhat of a "catch 22" situation, were one (like me) wishing to take up Integrated training.
You need a Class 1 to start training on an ab-initio scheme. However, sounds like you need a PPL to get a deviated Class 1. :confused: Can't get to train at say OATS, CCAT, FTE, what-have-you without a Class 1, but can't get a Class 1 with no PPL.. :eek:
I am going to speak to the Gatwick folks once again (provided they establish my refraction being stable), to try and find out if a deviated Class 1 CAN be obtained with no PPL and used to enter ab-initio training. I know for a fact that a deviated Class 1 can be accepted for Integrated training (I spoke to one large FTO, they had students in that situation, but the deviation note had to be of the sort "the candidate WILL have the deviation lifted at renewal").

[EGBKFLYER]

You're right Cesco - maybe it didn't come up for me because I already had the ticket.

One thing I would be insistent on is speaking to a CAA doctor, not anyone else. I've had bum advice (on a licence issue) before because I got the monkey not the organ grinder...

Will be interested to hear what the doc says - if they are applying some other rule on deviations than that stated, we need to know...

Good luck:ok:

[Niland]

It is worth remembering that the proposed amendments in the current medical NPA should be part of JAR-FCL 3 by Q3 2006.

[EGBKFLYER]

Forgive my ignorance - what is NPA? Can you expand a bit more on this?

[Eddie_Crane]

some info about that on here:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=198207

[EGBKFLYER]

Great - thanks for that Cesco. Like cleaning my thick specs - all is clear now:ok:

[Eddie_Crane]

Great - thanks for that Cesco. Like cleaning my thick specs - all is clear now:ok:
:8

btw... I am still going to be "half outside" the future Initial requirements :ugh: .. -5.75 and -6.25 meself...
anyhow... I need to investigate if say... being accepted for an Integrated ab-initio course would be comparable to the "requirement of a PPL" for a deviated Class 1.
If not... well "I'm stuffed" as that will somewhat limit my training choices and "bust" my plans :ouch:

[Eddie_Crane]

I can confirm that there are three requirements to get a "deviated" Class 1:
age above 21, stable refraction in the last 3 years AND a PPL.

Third requirement makes NO sense whatsoever to me but whatever.. :hmm: :*

Anyone knowing different or having gone through this without a PPL: your contribution would be much appreciated, cheers.

[richardlong]

It is an axiomatic requirement that good eyesight and visual acuity are congruent with flying an aircraft at any level and that the limits placed on us by the regulators provide for this. However I disagree that limitations should extend to refractive error.

Visual standards should be based on visual performance rather than condition - most, if not all standards are based on this principle. If a pilot is able to meet the acuity requirements on >5.00D refractive error why should this matter? Without correction, a pilot who requires refractive corrective lenses has - for all intents and purposes - visual performance no better than that of a person outside these limits.

[Eddie_Crane]

Without correction, a pilot who requires refractive corrective lenses has - for all intents and purposes - visual performance no better than that of a person outside these limits.
Agreed.

An approach similar to that of the FAA (or perhaps to that of the Australian CAA..) would eliminate all these problems, and the "jumping through hoops" of deviation. However this isn't "FAA-land" and people in a situation like mine have no choice but going via the "deviation route". Personally I am thankful the UK CAA devised such a procedure. I do feel that it somehow restricts my training options (should the CAA decide positively on my case!). Better than having none though.

My "appeal" still stands. Anyone having gone through the deviation route without a PPL in the first place would be very welcome to contribute with any info they might feel worthwhile sharing.

[fhchiang]

some PUN intented

i know why they don't allow pilots who is more than -8D to fly...



pilots who is -8D,

once they accidentally drop their specs or break it in the cockpit..... they can't even see where is their SPECS... or where's the SPare ones.....

and if the CAPT decided to answer nature's call...... who is going to handle all the flight operations for the few secodns or perhaps minutes...

:P

[PhilM]

some PUN intented
i know why they don't allow pilots who is more than -8D to fly...
pilots who is -8D,
once they accidentally drop their specs or break it in the cockpit..... they can't even see where is their SPECS... or where's the SPare ones.....
and if the CAPT decided to answer nature's call...... who is going to handle all the flight operations for the few secodns or perhaps minutes...
:P


Makes sense and I agree with your point. However, why do the CAA/JAA/NAAs as a whole bar people of greater refraction than -8D from having sucessful LASIK and then flying.

If you were over -8D, had LASIK, and are now 20/20, why shouldn't you have a Class1, you will never end up in the situation you described as LASIK is permenant.

The only disadvantage is an increased risk of retinal detachment, but that is really nothing to lose sleep over.

[Mark 3:16]

You definitely can join an integrated scheme with a deviated Class 1. I got to Phase 3 of the CTC scheme, and obviously questioned them on this then. They - like other schools - have students in that situation.

I have a letter from CAA, which says: you prescription shows stability so you can come in for Class 1 with deviation, blah blah blah....then, and I quote:

"If you are successful at the initial examination, you will be issue with a JAA Class 2 medical certificate until you achieve your PPL. Once this is achieved yoiu will be issues with a JAA Class 1 certificate, with a Deviation, The Deviation may be lifted when you achieve your professional license"

So it seems like this is the case. I presume from this that we have to pay for an all out Class 1 examination when you get your PPL, as opposed to just renewing, but I may be wrong.

It looks like we blind boys are effectvely then precluded from joing an Integrated Course unless we have our PPL. And then what's the point? The ab-initio courses are designed to take you from zero experience.

Nobody said it was easy. If anything, going this route and then perhaps modular should show any prospective employer how bloody keen we are to do this job by going round all the houses to get where we want to be.

Cheers
Mark

[Eddie_Crane]

You definitely can join an integrated scheme with a deviated Class 1. I got to Phase 3 of the CTC scheme, and obviously questioned them on this then. They - like other schools - have students in that situation.

Yep. Although deviated Class 1 means already possessing a PPL.


It looks like we blind boys are effectvely then precluded from joing an Integrated Course unless we have our PPL. And then what's the point? The ab-initio courses are designed to take you from zero experience.

my point exactly. I never bothered to get a PPL because I'd always been interested in ab-initio training. Then again, I became aware of the possibility of a Class 1 via deviation only in Feb this year, and the PPL requirement was confirmed to me just very recently :ugh: bit of a blow that one


Nobody said it was easy. If anything, going this route and then perhaps modular should show any prospective employer how bloody keen we are to do this job by going round all the houses to get where we want to be.

Well... I really bl00dy hope so... because I 'm already late catching the boat, and going modular means having to re-formulate everything, starting from what school, how much, whathaveyou.

[Cosmo]

I believe that one of the main arguments behind the refractive limit is the increased risk of retinal detachment. This risk is, according to the JAA medical manual, greatly increased at around -6 diopters. In the mentioned manual you can also find a chapter outlining the level of acceptable risk regarding incapacitation. These combined points, I believe, are the arguments for maintaining a refractive error limit.

Having said that, I do have doubts as to the level of legal certainty involved in having such limits set. My doubts have arisen form the differing ways in which one's objective refractive error (shape of one's eye) is determined, and from comments made by an expert in the field of aviation ophthalmology.

I've heard comments indicating that some applicants have been tested in one way, whereas others in another (subjective vs. objective methods of determining refractive error). This coupled with comments from experts stating that the limits are politically set, and the fact that anyone can be unfortunate enough to suffer from retinal detachment, have left me wondering.

I have no objections to setting standards for our profession, but they must be such that legal certainty prevails. Personally, I believe that the UK CAA is on the right track in pursuing the abolishment of refractive error limits (this according to what has been posted on this forum previously).

[Eddie_Crane]

Personally, I believe that the UK CAA is on the right track in pursuing the abolishment of refractive error limits (this according to what has been posted on this forum previously).

The CAA is certainly to praise for their point of view and for the effort they're making to help and allow people in situations like mine to enter the world of commercial aviation (as flight crew, hopefully).

[EGBKFLYER]

It's good to get the latest news in this area. It is another example of what I hate about our regulations - there are all kinds of unstated hurdles which only become evident when you ask. Why oh why can't the CAA or JAA or whoever just publish these sort of requirements formally and save us all this discussion?:confused:

Cesco - don't understand why you're still down? Mark 3:16 has good evidence that you can commence an integrated course with eyesight outside class 1 initial limits and you can also commence a modular course. You are therefore not barred from trying to obtain your CPL/IR once you have a stable script and are over 21, unless I am misunderstanding something?:ok:

[Eddie_Crane]

Hi EGBKFLYER.
No I'm not really down, just a little disappointed about the fact that what you need to get a deviated Class 1 is a PPL in the first place. I am not quite sure why this "requirement" is in place, but obviously it means getting a Class 2 first, then a PPL, then an Initial Class 1 with deviation, then a full Class 1 (i.e. deviation lifted) upon completion of the CPL (as Mark 3:16 also said).
To me, it'd make a lot more sense if you got a deviated Class 1 right away, because if you are wishing to go the Integrated way you can't really go and start training with a Class 2. However, I am quite happy that I can actually still train towards a commercial license via the modular route, all I'm saying is that this somehow places a limit on training choices IF you don't hold a PPL prior to the issue of a Class 1 with deviation, in which case I'm going to have to re-formulate and investigate everything all over again, as I'd never really looked at the Modular route (which is also why I never got a PPL, since it is not necessary for ab-initio training).
That being said, I suspect that whoever managed to enter Intergrated training with a deviated Class 1, probably already had a PPL handy. I stand to be corrected on this one though, should there be anyone who knows different.
Anyway, surely not down here, just a little stressed over the fact I need to pull out "contingency plan C" ;)

[EGBKFLYER]

That's good to hear! I had to wait 10 years to begin my commercial training because deviations didn't exist then - that is definitely disappointing I can tell you!

I wish you the best of luck anyway and hope you make it - it's well worth the effort.:ok:

[Eddie_Crane]

I wish you the best of luck anyway and hope you make it - it's well worth the effort.

Thanks, I'm going to need some (luck)! :)
"Plan C" under way already, got a visit at SFC booked for Friday :D so certainly not wasting time :8

[Kengineer-130]

does this deviation allow for people who are over the renewal limits? I have my ppl, night rating and have not yet got my class 2 due to work commitments, but my prescription is -8.5, do I stand any chance whatsoever of getting a class 1? :confused: :{

On a different note, I was chatting to a few RAF pilots, and thier view is that it is actually safer flying commercially than PPL, as most of the time in the big jets you are in airways on IFR plans using instruments,so eyesight is not such a major factor, and you have the back-up of another pilot, where as PPL you are reliant entirely on yourself, and much more of the time flying VFR and using the "see and avoid" rule, so if eyesight was a problem, then it would be far more evident in a PPL enviorment? I thought that was a very good point.....

[Mark 3:16]

Cesco - my uncle got his first airline job, on a 320, at the age of 45, having commenced training at 40. Not worth worrying too much about the clock ticking (although I don't know how old you are!).

Had my first lesson today - absolutlely loved every second of it. Its going to take longer than our fellow trainees with the perfect eyes, but I for one am going to enjoy every minute of it.

Good luck!
Mark

[Eddie_Crane]

Hi guys,
Mark
I am 30. I'm not particularly bothered about what kind of job (e.g. instructing, t/p, jet) I'd be able to get after training, I just think it's quite late to get into flying, not impossible, just late. Nevertheless I need to do this, as all I've been doing up to now is making as much money as I could to pay for training, investigating my chances (i.e. finding out about deviation) and keeping up-to-date with the state of commercial aviation.
Just like many others before me, I can't see myself being an office drone for the rest of my days...
[...] am going to enjoy every minute of it
Once I start training myself, I am 200% sure I'll enjoy it just as much! :)

Kengineer-130
I suspect you may not qualify for the deviation route either :ugh:
perhaps if you phoned the CAA Aeromedical section and gave them a few details they could come up with something or at least tell you where you stand?
I've found them to be very helpful.

[Mark 3:16]

[QUOTE=Kengineer-130]does this deviation allow for people who are over the renewal limits? I have my ppl, night rating and have not yet got my class 2 due to work commitments, but my prescription is -8.5, do I stand any chance whatsoever of getting a class 1?
QUOTE]

Don't mean to confuse things further, but I thought you needed to get your Class 2 before you flew solo for the first time? This is what I have been told by the instructor who took me up the other day, and always thought this was the case.

[PhilM]

Who needs distance vision if you can see the instrument panel and you have TCAS :{ :ok:

[Kengineer-130]

Mark, I did my licence in the USA :ok: , so I just had a student solo medical, which in america is being able to breath unassisted and write your name down :eek:

[EGBKFLYER]

That sounds more like a GCSE :p

[chrisbl]

Kengineer -130.

The bad news is that you will not get a deviation on a Class 1. The deviation only applies to those outside the initial requirements but within the renewal requirements.

Being outside the renewal requirements gives the CAA no scope for any deviation. The deviation is a concession by the CAA, a pragmatic concession but the can only go so far in JAAland.

From the look of this, you are outside the limits for a class 2 certificate so a call to the CAA would be advisable before you do much else.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/49/SRG_MED_JAR_C2_Initial_Visual_Stds.pdf

[BizJetJock]

The original question was is it discrimination to have these limits. The answer to that is an emphatic yes - it is discrimination based on prejudice as demonstrated by fhchiang. People (including many doctors) come up with these scenarios where they assume that someone with a high correction will be unable to cope. They don't bother to actually check the facts and find out if their scenario has any relationship with reality.
I have been flying for twenty years and 10,000 hours with a prescription outside the JAA renewal limits. In that time, I have once dropped a contact lens I was fiddling with but had the situation sorted before the other pilot even realised I was doing anything; I also once lost my glasses in the sudden deceleration of an accident, yet was strangely able to both evacuate the aircraft myself and assist others.
Furthermore, for my own peace of mind I arranged some years ago to do a flight (with no passengers and an instructor) without my glasses. As you would expect I found it near impossible to spot other aircraft, but I flew a visual circuit and landing with no difficulty whatsoever.
Of course, I hear the nay-sayers cry, one example is not proof. The proof is in the FAA statistics: there are nearly as many people flying on FAA licences who are outside the JAA limits as there are JAA pilots in total. Where then are all these accidents? Even the CAA are convinced of this, and have been arguing for some years to have the same system as the FAA, that there is no limit on the correction as long as you can pass all the tests. Unfortunately they are outvoted at JAA meetings, so the system remains as it is.
K-engineer 130, if you wish to fly, go down the FAA route. Whilst there are not nearly as many opportunities for work in Europe with an FAA licence as JAA, they do exist. And possibly by the time you've got enough experience to be looking at airline jobs the rules may have changed.

Good luck!

BJJ

[Kengineer-130]

What are the FAA limits? :confused: I did my PPL there and they would only grant me a student medical becasue I have a right eye dominance. I would consider FAA as I wouldn't mind working in the states, but it all seems a hell of a long way round to get a job :( , and I am beginning to wonder if its all really worth it, and just keep flying as a enjoyable hobby.

[fhchiang]

FAA has no limits.


honestly guys.... i would agree if all authorities in the world take away the diopter limits...

because i myself wears spectacles... and i'm constantly worrying that i'll lose the medical someday

[Eddie_Crane]

Still waiting to know the CAA's decision on my case here...
First got in touch with them with documents on 7th of Feb... then sent some more docs, now hopefully they'll let me know whether or not I can go ahead with this Class 1 via deviation route...:hmm:
sitting tight, waiting for their letter...

[aswind]

Cesco, in bocca al lupo, I hope you can receive good news.

Yes, not only for eyesight but also for color vision, the JAA is discrimitating.

Guys, think about FAA: Can you see (clearly) and distinguish (clearly) that object, light or whatelse? YES, you can go on. Can't you? I'm afraid...

And what about JAA? No... only (unfair) rules...
eh... how I love JAA (especially UK CAA's way...)!

[Eddie_Crane]

hey thanks aswind (i do hope to get good news, holdin my breath now..)
(crepi ;))
There was a link to the 24-plate Ishihara test in one of the sticky posts, I reported that in the colour blindness thread. If you can see all those plates correctly, I assume there wouldnt be much of a problem with the 38-plate at the CAA, though I may well stand to be corrected on this one. I will soon find out anyway I guess (after this "belated" letter gets into my mailbox and I get to know if I can go ahead with this deviated Class 1 business...).
Unfortunately being JAA rules and not FAA does mean we have to be within some sort of (edit: more restrictive) standard. I strongly agree with Cosmo and find his opinion much along my line of thought. I am sure the CAA is at the forefront of making eyesight requirements somewhat more "permissive" in the future. Things will certainly change with EASA, to what extent I am not too sure, but time will tell. In the meantime, let us hope we are not going to be held from achieving a lifelong ambition on "medical grounds". Good luck to us all.

[aswind]

well, I have already done the class one...
I have a restricted class one (CP4 - colour unsafe) because I've failed the Ishihare test (4 mistakes), the 2 lantern tests (4 mistakes) and also I've failed the Nagel Anomaloscope (my matching range is 5... when the maximun acceptable for the JAA is 4. NB that the matching range scale goes from 0 to 90ish... so you can easily understand how the JAA limit is harsh)

You're right... the only thing I can do is hoping for news rules from JAA/EASA.
I've been told many times that they will change a lot of things... and also that they will harmonise some rules with the FAA... but WHEN, HOW and WHAT?!?
A.

[Eddie_Crane]

well, I have already done the class one...
I have a restricted class one (CP4 - colour unsafe) because I've failed the Ishihare test (4 mistakes)

Gosh, ok. 4 wrong out of 38 I guess right? That's like a ... 10% fail. Pretty slim margin for error then. :ooh: Are you supposed to get ALL plates right then, or is the error margin limited to what... one or two plates..
Is that restriction on your Class 1 going to prevent you from achieving a .. "normal" CPL/IR? It would be good to know if you can somehow appeal for a further assessment or something.

[aswind]

no, well 4 mistakes out of 15 (only the first 15 plates)...
Yes, with this CP4 class one i can only be flight instructor. (restricted class one means NO PUBLIC TRANSPORT, NO NIGHT FLIGHTS and NO IFR)
check the Collective Color Blindness Thread for info about colour vision.

how many weeks, months, years we have to wait for new (and fairer) rules?
I know there are many JAA meetings throughout the years.... but when?!?!? :hmm:

[Eddie_Crane]

no, well 4 mistakes out of 15 (only the first 15 plates)...
Yes, with this CP4 class one i can only be flight instructor. (restricted class one means NO PUBLIC TRANSPORT, NO NIGHT FLIGHTS and NO IFR)
check the Collective Color Blindness Thread for info about colour vision.

Yeap, right on. Better keep anything colour vision related to... well the colour vision thread ;) (before mods cut our posts n paste into the CB thread)
Back to topic now...
how many weeks, months, years we have to wait for new (and fairer) rules?
I know there are many JAA meetings throughout the years.... but when?!?!? :hmm:
That's the main problem, what are the timescales of such changes..
in my case, any NPA amendments will not make such a huge difference. I will still be outside the initial limits, I will still have to go through the deviation process. In your case.. well I wouldn't know how to tackle that one. I'd just go and do my VFR training, perhaps get a VFR Instructor's license (if there is one as such) and still work in aviation as an instructor. You're young, rules may well change big time in 5 years or less, you'll still be what.. 25, plenty of time to get a CPL/IR+MCC done. Patience seems to be a virtue we need to be well equipped with if we want to get that lucky break in this industry ;)

[aswind]

Please guys and gals, be careful when you want to take a medical certificate.
Don't check only your eyesight, but if you can ask your optician to check your coulor vision, because it's one of the most common reason to fail or restrict a class 1 or 2, believe me.

I've been told I am a slight green deficient: I've been told I am a Deutaranomalus (but I've never had problem playing football or driving my car)
... I want to be an Airline pilot. And I will. It's only matter of time...

(e domani compierò 21 anni... e il tempo correrà sempre di più...)
A.