Where is it best to try again for a medical ....

[underacloud]

I've recently been extremely disappointed to be denied my class 2 CAA medical certification to continue flying my turbine helicopter. NPPL is not an option as helis aren't covered by this alledgedly "easier medical" license type.
So, my question is, where else can I try? I have heard that some people have success in the states getting an FAA license, and I am going to try there, but I'm wondering whether any of you out there have succeded somewhere else, maybe somewhere where the standards aren't quite so exacting. It is incredibly frustrating because I am denied my CAA certification almost on a technicality but, as they say, rules is rules - so I'm out!
It's only for a PPL, just to be able to whiz about in my heli again..... so any advice or information will be almost pathetically gratefully received.

[moosp]

I wouldn't call it an "easier" medical but other countries do have a different emphasis on certain aspects of your body. So you may find that the FAA does not have this technicality that has grounded you, but may be tighter in another area where you are perfectly fit.

Australia has medicals like this. Find an Australian authorized DAME in UK (the CASA web site should help you on that) and have a word. Then you can have a neat holiday in Oz and do your PPL flight test (you'll need to do air law- groan...)

Now this is the bit I am not sure of in UK, but as far as I know you will then need to re-register your machine under a VH reggo. You will need to have an Oz mechanic sign off on the maintenance but that is not as difficult as it sounds. There's probably half a dozen passing through Earls Court on any given day who would be happy for the holiday pay. :)

Never give up. There are most likely ways round this.

[underacloud]

Thanks Moosp - I will most certainly investigate that.

[Hufty]

I think you should try FAA - there are plenty of FAA medical examiners in the UK. The FAA website will help you find one and the CAA listing of examiners will tell you which other countries they can examine for and to what level.

You should be able to operate your heli on an FAA PPL while keeping it on the G-register as far as I know, although from memory (and it has been a while) you might not be allowed to take it out of the country?

Either way, as Moosp says, re-register it and keep flying!

Good luck!

[helimutt]

Once again, the so called 'CAA technicality' grounds a pilot. Without knowing what the problem is, again, no doubt i'll be slated for this, but if you can't pass the medical for the country you want to fly in, do you think it's fair to play the system to allow you to get around a rule?

My own personal feeling is you shouldn't fly anyway if a medical 'expert' has decided you're not fit enough.:ugh:

Why do you think the 'rules is rules'?? Just to piss people off when they fail? No!!
Ask any one of us who has had to pass the CAA Class 1 to work in a professional capacity.

[LimaRomeo]

Go for the FAA option. So basicly;
1/ Get the FAA Class 3 medical (FAA standards are a lot more logic than the absurd JAA rules). There are plenty of FAA examiners in UK.
2/ Get your FAA PPL license (if you already have/had a JAA certificate, this should be a piece of cake)
3/ Fly on your G-reg heli with this FAA paper, even outside UK Airspace! I have this written down in an official mail from CAA UK: You can fly a G-reg aircraft, even outside UK airspace as long as it is VFR, for private use and the visiting country allows this.
4/ Or put your machine on the N-reg. No sweat...

@helimutt: I was denied a JAA class II medical because my vision correction is -8.5 and the limit is -8.0 (I wear glasses). Two days later, the FAA DOES grant me a PPL medical because they are more logic: you'll be flying with glasses so it's the vision you have when wearing glasses that counts of course. I have been flying for quite soms time now and can make a flight from point A to B with an N-reg aircraft. Safe and sound. If I do this same flight, in the same airspace with the same aircraft on JAA-reg, this would be 'dangerous' according to your so called specialists. This really makes me laugh and is proof o the absurd JAA rules. So please refrain from making comments if you don't know what you are talking about. Regards.

[underacloud]

Helimutt, I must say I am quite offended by your remarks. You have no knowledge whatsoever of my situation and yet you have the temerity to pass judgement in such a disparaging way.

The CAA, even whilst acknowledging the eminence of the consultant representing me, have chosen to ignore his opinion and simply apply the letter of the ruling, even though they admit themselves there is much ambiguity and a certain vagueness with regard to the particular element of the medical that I have been refused on. Have you never been frustrated by someones absolute application of a rule when common sense (and better informed consensus) clearly points to an injustice? Charitably I will say that I hope you haven't, and I hope you never will, but please don't comment in such a disparaging way without at least having the full knowledge of the particular case.

Or possibly you may agree with the CAA's stance in the post above and would prefer that someone whose vision is fine when wearing prescription glasses should still be disqualified from flying because without them their vision is not 20/20?

I can only assume that you enjoy the rudest of rude health and, if so, I'm happy for you - but please leave the rude part just in that sentence and not here in this forum where I am simply looking for help to try and do again what all of us here are so passionate about: FLY!

[TelBoy]

JAA rules are stupid,

My problem is colour vision. I have failed all the CAA tests and have a choice of a couple of other JAA tests which I will have to go abroad for. However I have passed the FAA Tower Signal Test which is good for a class 1 FAA medical.

This leaves my in the UK to be restricted to no night flight and commercially no public transport - not even freight! However I could fly an N reg 747 around the UK and EU all day and night (no not 24 hour rosters :)) and the CAA would be very happy, but put a G on the tail and I'm immediatley unsafe.

Now I will leave you to make up your own minds on this as either the CAA are neglegent in their responsibilities of letting "unsafe" FAA licenced air crew into our skies or they are discrimination against us CVD.

[Bealzebub]

Telboy,
Whilst I sympathize with your predicament, you do (No pun intended) rather see things in black and white.

A tower signal test has no real relevance whatsoever to the subtlety of colours that make up the reality of commercial aviation operations. For example most flight displays these days are CRTs and LCD displays. Failures of colour guns, tubes or generators can cause problems with normal colour vision. Have you considered how those problems may change for people with colour vision deficiencies ? The same can be said for airport lighting systems, where violations can already be problematic without adding another deficiency to the equation.

It might well be that other countries licensing and medical authorities take a viewpoint based on their own perception of risk in those countries. There are already many different standards of flight operation that some countries find acceptable, that others do not.

In the USA or Australia it might well be that airline screening negates the need for stricter state medical standards in any one particular regard, such that the likelyhood of a problem occuring because of a deficiency is considered "sufficiently" remote to be a problem in that jurisdiction. However that does not in itself mean that such a standard should be considered as prudent or acceptable everywhere else.

You make a lot of assumptions about flying N reg 747's around the world, because of course you don't. If you are one day in the position of doing so, then bilateral and international agreements would normally afford you the courtesy of continuing to operate to a different countries licensing requirements whilst operating abroad. Indeed that happens with almost every international flight that occurs. However this does not mean that a country or in the case of the JAA ( a supranational collective of countries) should necessarily adopt another countries standards as its own. This courtesy does not make you either unsafe or indeed safe in itself. In all probability it is simply a perception of acceptable risk.

On your final point, the CAA are clearly not "negligent" in allowing FAA pilots to operate in this jurisdiction for the reasons I have already given. I doubt there are many foreign pilots operating within the jurisdiction that are not at a standard acceptable to the authority, and for the few that might be, the risk may be deemed acceptable. Are the CAA discriminating against pilots with a high CVD ? Yes that is their job. They are obligated to discriminate in a way that ensures compliance with the standards laid down at any given time. These standards apply to other health issues and not just visual accuity.

Finally, I do wish you well, and hope that you are able to find a way to overcome a difficulty that obstructs your career path. However suggesting that medical authorities are being either negligent or "stupid" in this regard, is being overly simplistic and failing to consider any other viewpoint than your own.

[moosp]

Helimutt I sense your frustration in thinking that some people are finding a back door way to keep flying when a single doctor tells them that they are unfit. Or indeed when several doctors who are following the letter of the regulations of their country tell them so.

The UK, and hence the new JAR medical is known for being a mix of all the previous medical restrictions of EEC countries rolled into one. It is a prototypical horse designed by a committee. It bears very little resemblance to a medical system which keeps medically unfit pilots grounded and fit pilots flying.

Many, many other countries in the world see the bureaucratic stupidity of JAR and decide to apply their own standards to flight crew licencing, and indeed to many other areas of aviation, most particularly engineering standards. These countries are often guided by what they see as a good working system under the FAA and then modify them to become a kind of localised FAA. They are often more restrictive than FAA but still far more sensible and practical than JAR.

Medical is the case in point here. We are not suggesting that underacloud should go to darkest wherever and get the best medical that money can buy, but that he should try to pass a medical in a jurisdiction where sound medical principles apply over bureaucratic nonsense.

There is a lovely description in a boating book, "Sods Law of the Sea" when it describes one of the more eccentric yachties on the east coast of England. To paraphrase, "It wasn't that he was getting worse, it was just that as the National Health got themselves more organised, their idea of normality deviated further from his."

Think about it. It's so true in aviation medicine today.

[TelBoy]

Bealzebub,

I thank you for your reply and it is always good to have another view point.

Our views are obvioustley different and to save getting into needless arguments, better just agree to "see things differentley"

I would agree with you on the FAA and CASA Tower Signal Test, I feel they are just playing along with the ICAO. In fact since I took the signal test the FAA have relaxed colour vision requirements even more - oh and no CV related incidents!

I feel strongley that we all go through a LOT of testing and indeed this is only right. All applicants during their practical flight test(s) should demonstrate all procedures to the correct standard for the rating being taken, it is as simple as that - yes black and white. If they can they can and if they can't they can't.

Interesting you mention problems with the glass cockpit and colour normals having problems. In fact CVD's would probably cope better, examples like being able to distinguish camoflage etc better than colour normals. However all that is of course a completley different matter.

As for CVD pilots in our airspace and airline screening - there are a LOT of CVD pilots and thousands with ATP (just over 2000 I think) so it would seem logical, that for them to get to such standards they are flying commercially, even if only in there own airspace. As I have already said, I think if they (we) cannot fulfill the tasks needed, we will not get our ratings.

As for the CAA giving "courtesy" to other nations that do not have the same standards as ours - well if we see these standads as what is needed then those are what should be in our sky. We would not accept a drunk driver from on our roads simply because they come from a country that accepts it.

Your comments have been taken on board and will be of great help to us.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Back to the original poster; it all very much depends on what your 'problem' is.

Contrary to popular belief the FAA medical is not easier; it is different; their starting point is very different from that in JAA land.

I know of people who have had less problems getting a JAA medical issued by the CAA than an FAA by the feds.

Regarding colourvision the tower colour vision test as done by the FAA (don't know about CASA one) gives, when passed, the same level of ICAO compliant medical certificate as those that pass the Ishihara plates or JAR's lantern test.

That is the reason that FAA jocks can fly their 747s through JAR skies, not because of some 'courtesy'