WHEN WILL IT CHANGE ?!?!

[FANS]

The current eyesight situation is absolute madness. In the UK, we have non-UK citizens flying into UK airspace with eyesight prescriptions well over -5.0 etc., and guess what - they don't crash because of their prescription!

Yet a UK citizen with eyesight outside current limits but within FAA limits, can not fly. If it's dangerous,( which is the purpose of medicals: to prevent 'unfit' people from flying and thus endangering others) then those not meeting such standards should not endanger people by being allowed to fly within the UK.

In addition, it leads people to Bates' methods, laser treatment, just to meet unnecessary standards.

There is no logic whatsoever for this standard, and it's about time the UK stuck to its guns (it seems that others JAA states are preventing this rational change) and
changed its situation asap.

Can legal action not be brought, possibly under employment law, as it's discrimination and deprives us of our right to work. Equally, a judicial review action may be appropriate.

Let's get this changed,
FANS.

[long final]

Here here Fans,

Ive been following the issues, as I expect have many ppruners, and small changes are afoot - but as you say the whole situation is unbelievable. The CAA, I have to say, do not seem to like the situation either, and appear to help where they can, but other states have been complaining when the rules are 'bent'. This issue is the only thing stopping me being able to further my career in aviation - very frustrating - especially as I am within the revalidation envelope but not the initial ( for astigmatism ), and I can prove my eyesight hasn't changed in the last 15 years.
I do believe that within the next 5 or so years most of these limits will be abolished - but for me that means the big buses are probably out.
Like you I have been wondering about the legalities of these criteria, it wouldn't do any harm to have a sniff around - any legal types have any comment?
Regards
LF
:confused:

[inverted flatspin]

I am no lawyer but here is my take on it as regards the UK.

First the relevant legislation as copied from the government website ( I only copied the bit I think is relevant)

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c. 50)
1995 Chapter 50 - continued

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


PART III
DISCRIMINATION IN OTHER AREAS

Goods, facilities and services
Discrimination in relation to goods, facilities and services. 19. - (1) It is unlawful for a provider of services to discriminate against a disabled person-

(a) in refusing to provide, or deliberately not providing, to the disabled person any service which he provides, or is prepared to provide, to members of the public;
(b) in failing to comply with any duty imposed on him by section 21 in circumstances in which the effect of that failure is to make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for the disabled person to make use of any such service;
(c) in the standard of service which he provides to the disabled person or the manner in which he provides it to him; or
(d) in the terms on which he provides a service to the disabled person.
(2) For the purposes of this section and sections 20 and 21-

(a) the provision of services includes the provision of any goods or facilities;
(b) a person is "a provider of services" if he is concerned with the provision, in the United Kingdom, of services to the public or to a section of the public; and
(c) it is irrelevant whether a service is provided on payment or without payment.
(3) The following are examples of services to which this section and sections 20 and 21 apply-

(a) access to and use of any place which members of the public are permitted to enter;
(b) access to and use of means of communication;
(c) access to and use of information services;
(d) accommodation in a hotel, boarding house or other similar establishment;
(e) facilities by way of banking or insurance or for grants, loans, credit or finance;
(f) facilities for entertainment, recreation or refreshment;
(g) facilities provided by employment agencies or under section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973;
(h) the services of any profession or trade, or any local or other public authority.
(4) In the case of an act which constitutes discrimination by virtue of section 55, this section also applies to discrimination against a person who is not disabled.

(5) Except in such circumstances as may be prescribed, this section and sections 20 and 21 do not apply to-

(a) education which is funded, or secured, by a relevant body or provided at-
(i) an establishment which is funded by such a body or by a Minister of the Crown; or
(ii) any other establishment which is a school as defined in section 14(5) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 or section 135(1) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980;
(b) any service so far as it consists of the use of any means of transport; or
(c) such other services as may be prescribed.
(6) In subsection (5) "relevant body" means-

(a) a local education authority in England and Wales;
(b) an education authority in Scotland;
(c) the Funding Agency for Schools;
(d) the Schools Funding Council for Wales;
(e) the Further Education Funding Council for England;
(f) the Further Education Funding Council for Wales;
(g) the Higher Education Funding Council for England;
(h) the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council;
(i) the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales;
(j) the Teacher Training Agency;
(k) a voluntary organisation; or
(l) a body of a prescribed kind.
Meaning of "discrimination". 20. - (1) For the purposes of section 19, a provider of services discriminates against a disabled person if-

(a) for a reason which relates to the disabled person's disability, he treats him less favourably than he treats or would treat others to whom that reason does not or would not apply; and
(b) he cannot show that the treatment in question is justified.
(2) For the purposes of section 19, a provider of services also discriminates against a disabled person if-

(a) he fails to comply with a section 21 duty imposed on him in relation to the disabled person; and
(b) he cannot show that his failure to comply with that duty is justified.
(3) For the purposes of this section, treatment is justified only if-

(a) in the opinion of the provider of services, one or more of the conditions mentioned in subsection (4) are satisfied; and
(b) it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for him to hold that opinion.
(4) The conditions are that-

(a) in any case, the treatment is necessary in order not to endanger the health or safety of any person (which may include that of the disabled person);
(b) in any case, the disabled person is incapable of entering into an enforceable agreement, or of giving an informed consent, and for that reason the treatment is reasonable in that case;
(c) in a case falling within section 19(1)(a), the treatment is necessary because the provider of services would otherwise be unable to provide the service to members of the public;
(d) in a case falling within section 19(1)(c) or (d), the treatment is necessary in order for the provider of services to be able to provide the service to the disabled person or to other members of the public;
(e) in a case falling within section 19(1)(d), the difference in the terms on which the service is provided to the disabled person and those on which it is provided to other members of the public reflects the greater cost to the provider of services in providing the service to the disabled person.
(5) Any increase in the cost of providing a service to a disabled person which results from compliance by a provider of services with a section 21 duty shall be disregarded for the purposes of subsection (4)(e).

(6) Regulations may make provision, for purposes of this section, as to circumstances in which-

(a) it is reasonable for a provider of services to hold the opinion mentioned in subsection (3)(a);
(b) it is not reasonable for a provider of services to hold that opinion.
(7) Regulations may make provision for subsection (4)(b) not to apply in prescribed circumstances where-

(a) a person is acting for a disabled person under a power of attorney;
(b) functions conferred by or under Part VII of the Mental Health Act 1983 are exercisable in relation to a disabled person's property or affairs; or
(c) powers are exercisable in Scotland in relation to a disabled person's property or affairs in consequence of the appointment of a curator bonis, tutor or judicial factor.
(8) Regulations may make provision, for purposes of this section, as to circumstances (other than those mentioned in subsection (4)) in which treatment is to be taken to be justified.



The CAA are providing a service by issuing medicals therefore they are bound by this legislation.

They are discriminating against people as if these people were disabled (if they are or are not disabled is a matter of opinion)

If I am reading this correctly then, an applicant say someone with high strength lenses or poor colour vision could succesfully take an action against the CAA on the grounds that the restriction was unreasonable.

The evidence to prove that it is an unreasonable restriction would come from the records of the FAA and NTSB who can easily show accident data (or more accuratley Lack of accident data) for these conditions.

Like I said I'm no Lawyer so no guarantees on how correct my reading of this is, there may be some loophole for the CAA somewhere in the act. This is one for a legal type.

I will continue my research

[TAHIDA]

ITS GOOD TO SEE THIS TOPIC ALIVE AGAIN.I AM COLOUR DEFECECTIVE,AND THERE ARE MANY ANGRY PEOPLE AROUND WHO ARE BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.SEE THE TOPIC ON COLOUR BLIND LAST YEAR.
AS FAR AS THE LEGAL POSITION IS CONCERNED IT MAY BE WORTH LOOKING AT A CASE INVOLVING A CHAP CALLED ARTHUR PAPE,WHO WON THE RIGHT TO BECOME A COMMERCIAL PILOT EVEN THOUGH HE WAS COLOUR BLIND.IT PROBABLY COST HIM LOADS OF DOSH!!!!THE SITE TO SEE IS:www.aopa.com.au/topics/medical/colourvision.html
THE ONLY WAY TO DEAL WITH THE CAA IN MY VIEW IS RALLY ENOUGH OF US TO AFFORD A COLLECTIVE EFFORT. ANY IDEAS HOW WE MIGHT INITIATE THIS. :confused:

[rahaney]

not sure if this will help but:

as i just put up in the wannabees section here is a page for the new proposed eyesight limits for class 1 and 2.
http://www.srg.caa.co.uk/documents/medical/SRG_MED_JMSC_News_2001.PDF

Cheers :D

[rahaney]

here's the page for those without acrobat reader hope it helps. :D

JAA Medical Subcommittee (MSC) News 2001
See below for a summary of the meetings of the committee and the principal decisions. For
last year’s news see Information/General or click on MSC News in 2000.
March 2001
This meeting mainly discussed changes to the ophthalmology requirements. No consensus
could be reached, and further discussion was deferred to the next meeting (see below).
June 2001
Again, the major topic of discussion was the ophthalmology requirements and the MSC
eventually agreed the changes, but by majority voting. They are summarised below.
However, before they become formally incorporated into JAR FCL 3 (Medical) they need to
be promulgated as a ‘Notice of Proposed Amendment’ (NPA) so that individuals and
organisations can comment. Such comments will be taken into account by the MSC (and
the Flight Crew Licensing Committee, which can overrule a MSC decision) and the proposals
adjusted as necessary. After that there are some legal and administrative procedures to be
followed by the JAA before the new standards become formally incorporated as Joint
Aviation Requirements. This process can take up to two years, particularly for a
controversial subject like ophthalmology. It might be possible for earlier implementation to
occur by the issuance of a ‘Temporary Guidance Leaflet’, but this is unlikely as there was not
unanimous support for the proposed changes. The question of timescales for
implementation will be discussed at the next MSC meeting in late August.
A summary of the proposed Ophthalmology Requirements is given below (note that these
are proposals - see the appropriate Medical Division web pages for the current
requirements).

JAA Class 1 initial:

+5/- 5 dioptres (no requirement for stability)

2 dioptres astigmatism

2 dioptres anisometropia

Refractive surgery: acceptable with a pre-operative refraction between +5 and
-5 dioptres (the UK is already accepting applicants up to these limits with a
good result a year after surgery)

JAA Class 1 revalidation/renewal:

+5/-8 dioptres (an initial applicant between –5 and –8 dioptres cannot gain a
Class 1 certificate, even if stable)

3 dioptres astigmatism

3 dioptres anisometropia

Class 1 holders over 40 years must have an extended eye examination every two
years by an optometrist (or an ophthalmologist if correction is greater than –5 dioptres
or uncorrected visual acuity is worse than 6/60). For pilots under 40 years this two
yearly examination is required for certificate holders who wear glasses or contact
lenses to meet the requirements. Currently the UK CAA is happy for AMEs to do
these examinations (see ‘What’s New’ item on Comprehensive Eye and
Ear/Nose/Throat Examinations)

JAA Class 2 initial:

+5/-8 dioptres

3 dioptres astigmatism

3 dioptres anisometropia

Refractive surgery: acceptable with pre-operative refraction between +5 and -8
dioptres

JAA Class 2 revalidation/renewal:

+5/-8 dioptres

Astigmatism – no limit

Anisometropia – no limit

The UK argued for more relaxed requirements than those stated above, but was
unsuccessful. UK CAA policy changes will be announced on these web pages when
timescales have been agreed for implementation and the exact requirements have been
accepted.
Other items discussed included the relaxation of the limits for Class 1 certificate holders who
develop aortic stenosis (narrowing of the main valve in the heart). There was a long
discussion on psychology requirements, but ultimately no changes were proposed.
Three states brought cases to the committee where the UK had issued initial Class 1
medical certificates to applicants who, according to the three states, did not meet the
standards in JAR-FCL 3. There will be further discussion about this at the next meeting.
However, it may become more of a problem since (in June 2001) the FCL committee
approved NPA 14. This contains the requirement (JAR-FCL 3.065) that all applicants for a
licence must have their initial medical done in the state of licence issue. Thus applicants
may (quite correctly) do an initial medical in their home state before starting to train. If,
subsequently, they decide to train (and eventually apply for a licence) in another JAA state,
they would have to take another initial medical examination in the ‘training’ state. What
would happen if there was a disagreement between the two states over an applicant’s
fitness? Which state would decide? The UK CAA Medical Division feels that amendments
to the regulations, if they do not effect flight safety, should simplify the certification process,
rather than make it more complicated.
July 2001

[long final]

I'm going to prattle on again ....

My astigmsatism is 2.5d each eye, and it hasn't changed for over 15 years - it's not going to change, probably - it's a mishape issue, not really about deterioration.

I can see 6/6 with correction with no problems.

My point is that I can see a possible need for initail and revalidation values for some people, ( Possibly considering young applicants who's eyes may not yet have stoped developing )but in essence the CAA/JAA are saying that I am unsafe now, but in 6 months time and for most probably the next 15-20 years I will be legally able.

I have slight longsightedness - 1.25/1.75 - these elements are much more likely to change with ages, but I have a long way to go before correction would be ineffective :cool:

Committing to undertake ATPL instruction is something not to take lightly, and I believe that the first hurdle anyone must seriously jump is the medical. Passion and determination may well get you through the red tape, but many would be ATPL's, through nature of the individual, may logically decide against the time/cost/hassle and take their skills elsewhere. The aviation industry may be loosing many excellent candidates through unecessary rulings. I must add that these are not egotistical prattlings, I am not saying that I'm all that - looking at it all, the exams appear to be a nightmare, and I know I would have to work harder than most in that area - I'm just tired and annoyed after reading so many comments, and having many off pprune conversations with capable and passionate people ( about flying that is ;) )who have thrown it all in because of this very issue.

Anyway, prattle over, wouldn't it be nice to have some CAA feedback over all of this.

LF :(