Is it possible to get rid of an OML?

[borjaracing]

Hi ppruner´s!

A fellow colleague of mine (honestly, not the typical excuse...), has had an OML restriction for 5 years now, due to a heart condition.
This OML prevents him from flying solo in single pilot ops, on his EASA Class 1. Nevertheless, he flies SP on Chile, under their rules.

The heart problem is no longer a condition, although he's been implanted a stent. Spanish AESA has said, that his OML would be lifted if he can prove them that another pilot, in any country at all, with a similar condition, has had the OML erased from his license.

Does anyone know of a similar case, even if not heart related, in with an OML had been erased for good?

Thanks for your inputs

[Fostex]

"Spanish AESA has said, that his OML would be lifted if he can prove them that another pilot, in any country at all, with a similar condition, has had the OML erased from his license."

That sounds absolutely absurd, an OML is applied based on a statistical risk of incapacitation while performing commercial ops. Whether or not an OML can be lifted or not should always come down to a specialist clinician's appraisal of the pilot's current health, past history and the guidelines laid down by EASA Part-Med. Not what another member state are doing!

[MD11Man]

Mine was erased 5 years after a major head injury (CAA license).

[Flyin'Dutch']

The OML will be based on a condition which will be subject to EASA rules and practical implementation.

Whilst the Spanish may take into consideration what another NAA would do in relation to such a pilot with the same/similar condition, they will give no consideration what is done in Chili with a total different set of rules.

[PSF2J]

I'm a OML of some 3-4 years now. I'm an OML because of medication no medical professional says I need, but the CAA claim I do, just in case.

When I presented medical advice claiming there was no need to take the medication and was considered safe, I was told by the CAA that I (yes me) had to produce a peer-backed study proving that there was a 1% or less chance of incapacitation. This is despite the fact that according to the CAA no pilot has ever been incapacitated with my issue. Go figure. They are a bunch of &$^%£&*@ in my view, that cannot back anything up.

Doesn't help that CAA Medical is now run by an ophthalmologist....even the AME's pass comment on the ridiculous decisions that come out of there....

[captainsmiffy]

‘....CAA medical is now run by an opthalmologist’ - isnt that a little short-sighted?

.....leaving....

[RVF750]

The UK CAA haven't been fit for purpose for a few years.

[3wheels]

Let me tell you what happened to me...

A few years ago I went to my usual AME for a six monthly medical. He spotted something unusual in my ECG and rang the CAA whilst I sat there in front of him. Ther was some discussion and I was instructed to attend at Gatwick at 10.00 the following morning. I turned up on time and they knew nothing about me... Eventually I was seen after lunch.

They put me on the treadmill and the supervising Doctor declared that there was no problem. I asked him for a Class 1 certificate but he said he couldn’t issue me one as he hadn’t done the eyes, ears, throat etc. I was instructed to return to my AME and for him to issue the certificate.

As an ex CAA employee I realised the importance of what he just said and so asked him to write me a letter, for me to present to my AME saying, as far as he was concerned, the AME could issue the Certificate. This he did and the following day I presented the letter to the AME who gave me a new Certifiacte and I returned to flying.

Imagine my horror when,a few weeks later,a letter dropped through my letter box from a different doctor at Gatwick saying that following my attendance there my Medical was withdrawn and would only be renewed subject to a long list of tests and a report from a Cardiloiogist.

I protested to the Chief Medical Officer who would only say that they hoped I would get better service from them next time, but in the mean time all the tests had to be carried out. In all they took 3 weeks to complete and I once again returned to work.

I am gretaeful that that my employer was fully cooperative. Just imagine what would have happened had there been an accident in the intervening period.

RVF750 said that that they have been unfit for purpose for a few years. He is wrong. It’s not years, it’s decades. This took place in about 1999.

And CAA if you are reading this look me up. ATPL 218160/F