Eyesight worries

[Tordan]

Hi all, having passed all tests and interview for ATCO training I now face the dreaded medical. After some searching I found the requirements which was quite a list. What caught my eye in more ways than one was the fact that refractive eyesurgery was a big no-no, but that exceptions could be made if a number of factors are fulfilled. Since I have done that kind of surgery over ten years ago I started to feel butterflies in my stomach. My biggest worry is that one of those factors are that the original nearsightedness can at most be -6 diopters and I had -8.
If this disqualifies me there´s not much to be done. I have my hopes up since it´s been a long time since I did the surgery and I have had stable eyesight with no deteriation since. I can not really understand where the -6 figure comes from, for me it seems more prudent to look at the result. I can also understand if pilots have certain requirements but some (all?) of those for ATCOs seem to be simply copied from the pilots list. Obviously an ATCO must have good eyesight so as to not miss anything looking at a monitor/radar screen or standing at a tower, but the current eyesight should matter, especially since I have a fair bit of time with no changes.
My opinions are of course coloured since this is something that is likely to cut short my hopes for an ATCO career and this post can in part be considered a ventilation of frustration, but I´m still interested in your thoughts, opinions and most importantly experience of the application of these rules. Are they rock solid or can one argue ones case? I already have a pilots license and can fly around the skies, but apparently not sit behind a screen watching dots move around :D

Cheers!

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

But can you sit in a tower watching real "dots" flying around five miles from the airfield? The medical requirements for a PPL are somewhat lower than for an ATCO licemce.

I am sure that in your country there must be an organisation similar to our Civil Aviation Authority in the UK, which determines the medical standards required for various licences. Why do you not consult them about your worries so they can tell you immediately whether you would be OK?

You may have had a better response in the Medical forum?

[Tordan]

HD, perhaps I was unclear with "so as to not miss anything looking at a monitor/radar screen or standing at a tower" apart from the fact it should be "...standing in a tower." I have absolutely no issue with there being certain rigorous requirements, I´m just curious to why my level of nearsightedness ten years ago is more or of equal importance than my current level of sight. I will obviously take the medical and ask any questions there, so as I mentioned originally, take this post as a bit of venting of nervous energy coupled with curiosity if anyone has had the same issue but was allowed to go on to training anyway or if the national organizations always follow the standards to the letter.

I missed the Medical forum, thanks for the hint, will go there and look for info, I´m sure it´s not the first time the issue has surfaced. :ok:

Later.

[cambioso]

"Don't tell 'em Pyke" !!!

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Just "forget" to put it on the medical questionaire.>>

Completely and utterly stupid and highly irresponsible, as has been said before on PPrune.

The medical is there for a good reason - to preserve certain standards of fitness. They medics are not idiots and will do all they can to pass someone; if they fail then there is a good reason and specialists will have been consulted.

Next time you, or your wife and kids, are flying in bad weather just wonder if the bloke up front, or the radar controller directing him might have some "hidden" medical problem which they had kept quiet about...

[Moira]

Tordan, I understand your worries, but can only agree with HD.

Besides, I don't know about the practical side of the medical in your country, but e.g. with Eurocontrol you have to see an ophthalmologist who has to fill out a - very thorough - questionnaire. Think he'll be keen on 'forgetting' to mention it? And what would it make you look like if they notice during the medical? :\ Surgery of any kind always leaves some scarring ...

[stoneyrosetreered]

'Heathrow Director why don't you go :mad:

"They medics are not idiots and will do all they can to pass someone"

i can give you names and addresses of 3 people that have been completely shafted by nats medical in the past who have had absolutely nothing wrong with them.

You are a total :mad: and the company will be better off once you've been retired '

Easy mate, remember there is a person on the end of that post. Although I have complete sympathy for anyone who fails a medical, there has to be a line between what is acceptable and what is not, if we all ran around with this idea that we can 'forget' what we don't think is important on medial forms then how long do you think it would be before someone with a serious, say heart condition lies about it because they believe they have it under control. The whole idea with medicals is to limit risk and keep the employees safe, that all goes out the window with what you are proposing.

[DTY/LKS]

r-u-m-o-u-r

Don't be so rude. You are an eejit!!!!

HD has already retired (his age is a clue)
I do not know the man but he has years of experience and knows more about ATC than you. It is a safety industry and the medical branch don't make decisions for the fun of it.

Why not apologise to HD or take your own advice!

[ZOOKER]

r-u-m-o-u-r
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe giving false information to obtain an ATC Licence, (or indeed any other aviation licence), is an offence under the Air Navigation Order.

[niknak]

rumour

You really are treading on very dangerous ground my friend.

I know from personal experience that the Medical Branch will pull out all the stops to assist anyone who has a medical problem, but ultimately, they are there to uphold professional standards, which, by the way, is also the law of the land.

You've slandered the Medical Branch, all of whom are very experienced professionals, if you've got facts to back up your twaddle, put them here or withdraw your accusations and insults.

BTW = deleting the post won't help you, if necessary you can be traced should the CAA want a word in your ear.

[criss]

I'm not from the UK, but what I can say is that ATCOs, like a good percentage of private and commercial pilots, are certainly no jet fighter pilots. My experience is that while medical requirements seem strict at first reading, there are many exceptions to the rule (like if you fail the hearing test, you can pass if you simply hear a low-level speech from a medium distance), and most doctors will do whatever they can to pass you, and they will seek even more possible exceptions when you are already a licence holder. However, providing false information might constitute a breach of law that will eliminate you as a candidate (here we have to provide a statement from a court we have a free criminal record).

[Use the Force]

Mr Heathrow Director,

Your name demands respect. I have however read some slamming reports from you about spelling!

What does "licemce" mean?

[ZOOKER]

"What does licemce mean"

It means a retired Air Traffic Control Officer is probably enjoying a wee dram (or a glass of Chardonnay), whilst contributing to these discussions.

[Vino Collapso]

The medical requirements for an ATCO licence have always been over the top. Things will not change under 'Europeanisation'. There seems to be some illogical link with professional pilot medicals for which there is no substantive facts.

If you are of average fitness and have eyesight that can be corrected to 'normal' by whatever means then that should be good enough.

The age old dramatics of controllers dying in harness through stress and ill health is a legend brought about by a need to spice up the profession.

But we are stuck with the rules as written and a few sensible AME's will give a wider allowance than perhaps they should if sticking to those rules.

Perhaps Heathrow Director would like to quote the last time an aircraft came to grief due to controller incapacitiation.:eek:

[niknak]

Vino,

a year ago, very good friend and fellow ATCO died of a heart attack just a couple of hours after going off duty.
I had been working with him for the previous two days and on the morning of day of his death.
I noticed that he was making some odd, but not life threatening, tactical decisions and it was only sometime later after consulting colleagues, that he had been doing the same during the week prior to his death.
Being professionals, we all had immediately suggested alternate courses of action which he accepted, but not with his usual good grace, again, this only came to light as a significant factor afterwards.

Robin could easily have died whilst working but because he got an early go that day (two hours early), purely and only because of that, no one flying was directly affected.

Who Sir, are you to ever make such an ill considered judgement or a pathetic assumption, that "age old dramatics of controllers dying in harness through stress and ill health" has never happened?:mad:
Unknown to us, that's exactly what Robin was suffering from, and it's what many atcos and pilots have done in the past, do now and will do in the future.

It's not particualrly the fact that I was personally affected that I find offensive (althoough that's bad enough), but it's your cavalier assumptions upon the whole profession which is insulting.
If you have anything about you, the next post you make should be an unreserved apology for your ill mannered comments.

[Jerricho]

@niknak

:D

Some of the attitudes being displayed here (and that have been removed) highlight the difference between somebody who it "just a controller" and a good controller.

[Tordan]

Behave kids! ;)
I´ve been away a couple of days and it seems that some mudslinging has taken place. Since apparently posts have been deleted I want to make it perfectly clear that as I stated in both my posts I will respect whatever ruling will be decided. Primarily because I´m simply not the type that is comfortable with telling a lie, especially one that sooner or later will come back and bite me in the @rse, and secondly because I know that eyesurgery can´t be hidden from an examiner (I can´t spell to ophthalmollyist). Any questions or questionaires will be answered truthfully. What I was curious about was what my eyesight 10 years ago has to do with my current, stable eyesight?

The medical forum thread about eyesight ground to a halt after my post there... :zzz:

[Moira]

Hej Tordan,

found this on the website of some eye surgeon, regarding LASIK refractive surgery:

Your prescription must be within certain limits. For example, very high amounts of myopia, which would require removal of too much corneal tissue, may preclude LASIK

Of course I'm not a medic so I really don't know if this actually is the idea behind the limit ...
Anyway: good luck with your medical!

And oh yes ... I had to check the spelling of the ophthalwhatever too! :E

[Tordan]

Thanks Moria, that does sound sensible. Time will tell,eh!
PS. I´ll stick to calling them eyedoctors :} DS

*Zlatan for president*

[littlehobo75]

I am in a similar position for you, my pre-op eyesight was -6.5, and is now perfect and I am 2 and a bit years post lasik. The HR people have told me to go ahead and apply and the LASIK issue will be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Unofficially, I think the reason they want your pre-op eyesight to be within a suitable range is to put off having LASIK purely to pass a Class 1 medical.

Also, there is no point lying about LASIK, as it leaves a scar which can be seen by an opthamologist, and you then need to provide proof of your pre-op prescription,