A pre-EASA medical opportunity

[IO540]

Currently the UK CAA is allowing an Initial medical using Renewal limits (in essence). Details here (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/49/20100624UKCAADeviationPolicy.pdf).

For some pilots, this may be very important.

Take the audiogram required for the IR. Historically, if you failed in one ear, that meant no JAA IR, ever. But if you lost hearing after the Initial medical, you were OK because on the Renewal medical you got the option of Demonstrated Ability.

This is a bonkers system because every working airline pilot has been flying on Renewal medicals for god knows how many years, so the only possible purpose of the Initial v. Renewal distinction is to erect an artificial barrier to entry into aviation.

EASA was going to merge the initial v. renewal standards. In some areas, however, EASA is planning to continue the above old JAA line. On the hearing tests (highly relevant to the Euro IR) the wording of the EASA CRD and no doubt the forthcoming Opinion is indeed similar to JAA FCL3:

MED.B.075 Otorhino-laryngology (c) (1)
(i) In the case of class 1 medical certificates, and class 2 medical certificates,
when an instrument rating is to be added to the licence held, hearing shall be tested with pure tone audiometry at the initial examination and, at subsequent
revalidation or renewal examinations, every five years until the age 40 and
every two years thereafter.
(ii) When tested on a pure-tone audiometer, initial applicants shall not
have a hearing loss of more than 35 dB at any of the frequencies 500, 1 000 or 2
000 Hz, or more than 50 dB at 3 000 Hz, in either ear separately. Applicants for
revalidation or renewal, with greater hearing loss shall demonstrate satisfactory functional hearing ability.
(iii) Applicants with hypoacusis shall demonstrate satisfactory functional
hearing ability.

That text still maintains the distinction between initial and renewal (revalidation) standards and it may be a reasonable plan to obtain a JAA Class 1 or 2 under the current UK policy which would then automatically mean that a subsequent CAA or EASA medical is performed to Renewal standards. The current UK Deviation policy may not continue when EASA assumes competency, so it is best to get on with it and get this one in the bag (especially if you can get a CAA Class 1).

[Pace]

Please note that the European Aviation Safety Agency is developing medical requirements that are likely to be implemented in the UK between 2012 and 2014. As your medical certificate, which has been issued as a deviation, may not be EASA compliant, you should be aware that there is a risk to the maintenance of your medical certification beyond this date.

10540

The CAA are saying that this deviation medical could be abolished by EASA so you do it at your own risk. The way EASA are behaving I wouldnt count on this being acceptable to EASA any more than N reg.

E xterminate
A viation
S trangle
A viators

Pace

[IO540]

Everything carries a risk, but equally just about everything in aviation is grandfathered into the next version. Especially after you have had at least one straight renewal/revalidation a year later. And a CAA medical is a CAA medical.

[S-Works]

Pace us quite correct. The way it is worded currently is that anyone who was granted a medical as a deviation for example eyesight or being deaf in one ear could actually be in danger of having the medical withdrawn and being made to be tested to the none deviated standard.

There is no history of medical issues being granted grandfather rights.

[421C]

I think the underlying point of the "deviation" is that EASA's draft Part MED makes some significant relaxation of JAR-FCL medical standards; class 1 and 2.

For example, in Class 2, I don't believe there are any 'uncorrected' vision limits any more.

Therefore, the 'deviation' route should be a way of anticipating EASA-MED, rather than waiting 2(?) years.

Clearly one should get advice from an AME who is familiar with the EASA proposals. I imagine there will be sensible deviation cases where the AME can reasonably advise that a deviation medical issued now will be on a basis compliant with EASA MED in the future.

brgds
421C

[2close]

Just to clarify, the CAA deviation I have enjoyed for several years, which allowed me to obtain at very considerable expense, both financially and psychologically ;), a CPL, IR & FI, and permits me to earn an albeit meagre income from those qualifications is to be swept away by the stroke of a Eurocratic pen.

Is the right to work freely within the EU not a fundamental principle of the EU itself, not to mention the right to work a basic human right.........or have I got it all wrong? Maybe the true purpose of EASA is to make life as difficult as possible, with total disregard for the human cost along the way.

Who is going to compensate me for loss of income, not to mention training costs? I don't want compensation; I want to keep my job. Surely that isn't asking too much?

I have a letter from the CAA Chief Medical Officer that the status quo vis-a-vis deviations would not alter under EASA. The CAA seem to be quite exemplary at making empty promises, despite chairing the Part Medical Sub-Committee.

[Pace]

2close

The only people who should loose their jobs are those employed in EASA. Then they may realise that they are playing around and I stress the word PLAYING with real people and causing real damage for un real reasons.
Its all wrong

Pace

[englishal]

They don't live in the real world........ They live in a world of short working weeks, huge expense accounts, 3 hour lunches with wine, meetings in nice places. They feed off the Eurotaxpayer and destroy rain forests by generating reams of absolute bollox which any 6th former could come up with for a final year project in 2 weeks. If any of them went for a real job there is no way they'd get employed.

If I were in EASA, I'd just download the FAR/AIM from the FAA website and do a EDIT > REPLACE and replace "USA" and "N registered" with "European" and "Euro Registered". Job done, £100 million saved, everyone happy.

If we ever get a referendum on pulling out of Europe, guess what I am going to vote for.