Eyesight discrimination?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ubiquitous
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ehmm... that effectively precludes the route of Integrated Training somehow though.. doesnt it.
What I don't understand is why you have to have a PPL to get this done. Obviously if I was interested in getting a PPL I'd probably just go for a Class 2 straight away and then try to go the deviation route IF I were interested in pursuing further licensing. It doesn't make any sense to me that you have to get a PPL in order to obtain your deviated Class 1. I mean, it's quite straightforward that your Class 1 would be renewed anyway if you obtained it with say -5 each eye at the Initial and then at renewal you were -6. If you can still fly with a Class 1 after your renewal, having a refraction somewhere between -5 and -8 why can't you fly with that same refraction on a deviated Class 1 straight away? It just doesn't make any sense to me that someone has to get a PPL to get a Class 1 with a deviation. Requirements of age above 21 and refraction stability sound sensible enough.
Like Mark, I never got a PPL because I'd planned to go the Integrated route, so what is the point in getting a Class 2 and a PPL (i.e. additional expense) before a Class 1 and perhaps before an ab-initio course. The whole point of ab-initio courses is that you don't need any flying experience to enter them. Yet to obtain a deviated Class 1 you need a PPL. This whole deviation thing may not be discrimination, but it sure does close a number of doors to the wannabes in this situation.
What I don't understand is why you have to have a PPL to get this done. Obviously if I was interested in getting a PPL I'd probably just go for a Class 2 straight away and then try to go the deviation route IF I were interested in pursuing further licensing. It doesn't make any sense to me that you have to get a PPL in order to obtain your deviated Class 1. I mean, it's quite straightforward that your Class 1 would be renewed anyway if you obtained it with say -5 each eye at the Initial and then at renewal you were -6. If you can still fly with a Class 1 after your renewal, having a refraction somewhere between -5 and -8 why can't you fly with that same refraction on a deviated Class 1 straight away? It just doesn't make any sense to me that someone has to get a PPL to get a Class 1 with a deviation. Requirements of age above 21 and refraction stability sound sensible enough.
Like Mark, I never got a PPL because I'd planned to go the Integrated route, so what is the point in getting a Class 2 and a PPL (i.e. additional expense) before a Class 1 and perhaps before an ab-initio course. The whole point of ab-initio courses is that you don't need any flying experience to enter them. Yet to obtain a deviated Class 1 you need a PPL. This whole deviation thing may not be discrimination, but it sure does close a number of doors to the wannabes in this situation.
Gizajob
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: uk
Age: 49
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hang on a minute gys and gals - who said you have to get a PPL in order to get a deviated class 1? I certainly didn't.
There is no reason why - as an ab-initio - you couldn't get a deviated class 1. Having flying experience may help your case when convincing the bods at Gatwick to give you the deviation but they could give you it even if you've never seen a Cessna in your life.
At the risk of stating the obvious - TALK to the medics at Gatwick and don't take everything on here as gospel!!! They will give you the answer for your particular situation, whether you are modular, integrated or anything in between.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ubiquitous
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EGBKFLYER
I did ask them.
It sounded like they have three requirements: age above 21, refraction stability in at least the last 3 years AND a PPL. I did talk to quite a few of the Gat people. A lady on the phone told me about the PPL bit, which left me quite literally... ehmmm "flabbergasted". It sounded to me like the same "requirements" had been confirmed by the eyes man himself.
Now, if I can get a definitive answer from the folks at Gatwick, that'd help make matters clear once and for all.
However, it sounds like Mark 3:16 had to go the way I am "suggesting".
EGBKFLYER, I don't understand... you said in one post you had 130ish hours and a PPL when you were examined. Perhaps they didn't mention that "requirement" because they saw you already had flying experience.
The point I am trying to make is that one will find oneself in somewhat of a "catch 22" situation, were one (like me) wishing to take up Integrated training.
You need a Class 1 to start training on an ab-initio scheme. However, sounds like you need a PPL to get a deviated Class 1.
Can't get to train at say OATS, CCAT, FTE, what-have-you without a Class 1, but can't get a Class 1 with no PPL..
I am going to speak to the Gatwick folks once again (provided they establish my refraction being stable), to try and find out if a deviated Class 1 CAN be obtained with no PPL and used to enter ab-initio training. I know for a fact that a deviated Class 1 can be accepted for Integrated training (I spoke to one large FTO, they had students in that situation, but the deviation note had to be of the sort "the candidate WILL have the deviation lifted at renewal").
It sounded like they have three requirements: age above 21, refraction stability in at least the last 3 years AND a PPL. I did talk to quite a few of the Gat people. A lady on the phone told me about the PPL bit, which left me quite literally... ehmmm "flabbergasted". It sounded to me like the same "requirements" had been confirmed by the eyes man himself.
Now, if I can get a definitive answer from the folks at Gatwick, that'd help make matters clear once and for all.
However, it sounds like Mark 3:16 had to go the way I am "suggesting".
EGBKFLYER, I don't understand... you said in one post you had 130ish hours and a PPL when you were examined. Perhaps they didn't mention that "requirement" because they saw you already had flying experience.
The point I am trying to make is that one will find oneself in somewhat of a "catch 22" situation, were one (like me) wishing to take up Integrated training.
You need a Class 1 to start training on an ab-initio scheme. However, sounds like you need a PPL to get a deviated Class 1.
Can't get to train at say OATS, CCAT, FTE, what-have-you without a Class 1, but can't get a Class 1 with no PPL.. I am going to speak to the Gatwick folks once again (provided they establish my refraction being stable), to try and find out if a deviated Class 1 CAN be obtained with no PPL and used to enter ab-initio training. I know for a fact that a deviated Class 1 can be accepted for Integrated training (I spoke to one large FTO, they had students in that situation, but the deviation note had to be of the sort "the candidate WILL have the deviation lifted at renewal").
Gizajob
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: uk
Age: 49
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right Cesco - maybe it didn't come up for me because I already had the ticket.
One thing I would be insistent on is speaking to a CAA doctor, not anyone else. I've had bum advice (on a licence issue) before because I got the monkey not the organ grinder...
Will be interested to hear what the doc says - if they are applying some other rule on deviations than that stated, we need to know...
Good luck
One thing I would be insistent on is speaking to a CAA doctor, not anyone else. I've had bum advice (on a licence issue) before because I got the monkey not the organ grinder...
Will be interested to hear what the doc says - if they are applying some other rule on deviations than that stated, we need to know...
Good luck
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ubiquitous
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ubiquitous
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by EGBKFLYER
Great - thanks for that Cesco. Like cleaning my thick specs - all is clear now
btw... I am still going to be "half outside" the future Initial requirements
.. -5.75 and -6.25 meself... anyhow... I need to investigate if say... being accepted for an Integrated ab-initio course would be comparable to the "requirement of a PPL" for a deviated Class 1.
If not... well "I'm stuffed" as that will somewhat limit my training choices and "bust" my plans
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ubiquitous
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 requirements confirmed
I can confirm that there are three requirements to get a "deviated" Class 1:
age above 21, stable refraction in the last 3 years AND a PPL.
Third requirement makes NO sense whatsoever to me but whatever..
Anyone knowing different or having gone through this without a PPL: your contribution would be much appreciated, cheers.
age above 21, stable refraction in the last 3 years AND a PPL.
Third requirement makes NO sense whatsoever to me but whatever..
Anyone knowing different or having gone through this without a PPL: your contribution would be much appreciated, cheers.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 40
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Refractive limit
It is an axiomatic requirement that good eyesight and visual acuity are congruent with flying an aircraft at any level and that the limits placed on us by the regulators provide for this. However I disagree that limitations should extend to refractive error.
Visual standards should be based on visual performance rather than condition - most, if not all standards are based on this principle. If a pilot is able to meet the acuity requirements on >5.00D refractive error why should this matter? Without correction, a pilot who requires refractive corrective lenses has - for all intents and purposes - visual performance no better than that of a person outside these limits.
Visual standards should be based on visual performance rather than condition - most, if not all standards are based on this principle. If a pilot is able to meet the acuity requirements on >5.00D refractive error why should this matter? Without correction, a pilot who requires refractive corrective lenses has - for all intents and purposes - visual performance no better than that of a person outside these limits.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ubiquitous
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA-like approach needed
Without correction, a pilot who requires refractive corrective lenses has - for all intents and purposes - visual performance no better than that of a person outside these limits.
An approach similar to that of the FAA (or perhaps to that of the Australian CAA..) would eliminate all these problems, and the "jumping through hoops" of deviation. However this isn't "FAA-land" and people in a situation like mine have no choice but going via the "deviation route". Personally I am thankful the UK CAA devised such a procedure. I do feel that it somehow restricts my training options (should the CAA decide positively on my case!). Better than having none though.
My "appeal" still stands. Anyone having gone through the deviation route without a PPL in the first place would be very welcome to contribute with any info they might feel worthwhile sharing.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
some PUN intented
i know why they don't allow pilots who is more than -8D to fly...
pilots who is -8D,
once they accidentally drop their specs or break it in the cockpit..... they can't even see where is their SPECS... or where's the SPare ones.....
and if the CAPT decided to answer nature's call...... who is going to handle all the flight operations for the few secodns or perhaps minutes...
:P
i know why they don't allow pilots who is more than -8D to fly...
pilots who is -8D,
once they accidentally drop their specs or break it in the cockpit..... they can't even see where is their SPECS... or where's the SPare ones.....
and if the CAPT decided to answer nature's call...... who is going to handle all the flight operations for the few secodns or perhaps minutes...
:P
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by fhchiang
some PUN intented
i know why they don't allow pilots who is more than -8D to fly...
pilots who is -8D,
once they accidentally drop their specs or break it in the cockpit..... they can't even see where is their SPECS... or where's the SPare ones.....
and if the CAPT decided to answer nature's call...... who is going to handle all the flight operations for the few secodns or perhaps minutes...
:P
i know why they don't allow pilots who is more than -8D to fly...
pilots who is -8D,
once they accidentally drop their specs or break it in the cockpit..... they can't even see where is their SPECS... or where's the SPare ones.....
and if the CAPT decided to answer nature's call...... who is going to handle all the flight operations for the few secodns or perhaps minutes...
:P
Makes sense and I agree with your point. However, why do the CAA/JAA/NAAs as a whole bar people of greater refraction than -8D from having sucessful LASIK and then flying.
If you were over -8D, had LASIK, and are now 20/20, why shouldn't you have a Class1, you will never end up in the situation you described as LASIK is permenant.
The only disadvantage is an increased risk of retinal detachment, but that is really nothing to lose sleep over.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You definitely can join an integrated scheme with a deviated Class 1. I got to Phase 3 of the CTC scheme, and obviously questioned them on this then. They - like other schools - have students in that situation.
I have a letter from CAA, which says: you prescription shows stability so you can come in for Class 1 with deviation, blah blah blah....then, and I quote:
"If you are successful at the initial examination, you will be issue with a JAA Class 2 medical certificate until you achieve your PPL. Once this is achieved yoiu will be issues with a JAA Class 1 certificate, with a Deviation, The Deviation may be lifted when you achieve your professional license"
So it seems like this is the case. I presume from this that we have to pay for an all out Class 1 examination when you get your PPL, as opposed to just renewing, but I may be wrong.
It looks like we blind boys are effectvely then precluded from joing an Integrated Course unless we have our PPL. And then what's the point? The ab-initio courses are designed to take you from zero experience.
Nobody said it was easy. If anything, going this route and then perhaps modular should show any prospective employer how bloody keen we are to do this job by going round all the houses to get where we want to be.
Cheers
Mark
I have a letter from CAA, which says: you prescription shows stability so you can come in for Class 1 with deviation, blah blah blah....then, and I quote:
"If you are successful at the initial examination, you will be issue with a JAA Class 2 medical certificate until you achieve your PPL. Once this is achieved yoiu will be issues with a JAA Class 1 certificate, with a Deviation, The Deviation may be lifted when you achieve your professional license"
So it seems like this is the case. I presume from this that we have to pay for an all out Class 1 examination when you get your PPL, as opposed to just renewing, but I may be wrong.
It looks like we blind boys are effectvely then precluded from joing an Integrated Course unless we have our PPL. And then what's the point? The ab-initio courses are designed to take you from zero experience.
Nobody said it was easy. If anything, going this route and then perhaps modular should show any prospective employer how bloody keen we are to do this job by going round all the houses to get where we want to be.
Cheers
Mark
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ubiquitous
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mark 3:16
You definitely can join an integrated scheme with a deviated Class 1. I got to Phase 3 of the CTC scheme, and obviously questioned them on this then. They - like other schools - have students in that situation.
It looks like we blind boys are effectvely then precluded from joing an Integrated Course unless we have our PPL. And then what's the point? The ab-initio courses are designed to take you from zero experience.
bit of a blow that one
Nobody said it was easy. If anything, going this route and then perhaps modular should show any prospective employer how bloody keen we are to do this job by going round all the houses to get where we want to be.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: the state of denial
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that one of the main arguments behind the refractive limit is the increased risk of retinal detachment. This risk is, according to the JAA medical manual, greatly increased at around -6 diopters. In the mentioned manual you can also find a chapter outlining the level of acceptable risk regarding incapacitation. These combined points, I believe, are the arguments for maintaining a refractive error limit.
Having said that, I do have doubts as to the level of legal certainty involved in having such limits set. My doubts have arisen form the differing ways in which one's objective refractive error (shape of one's eye) is determined, and from comments made by an expert in the field of aviation ophthalmology.
I've heard comments indicating that some applicants have been tested in one way, whereas others in another (subjective vs. objective methods of determining refractive error). This coupled with comments from experts stating that the limits are politically set, and the fact that anyone can be unfortunate enough to suffer from retinal detachment, have left me wondering.
I have no objections to setting standards for our profession, but they must be such that legal certainty prevails. Personally, I believe that the UK CAA is on the right track in pursuing the abolishment of refractive error limits (this according to what has been posted on this forum previously).
Having said that, I do have doubts as to the level of legal certainty involved in having such limits set. My doubts have arisen form the differing ways in which one's objective refractive error (shape of one's eye) is determined, and from comments made by an expert in the field of aviation ophthalmology.
I've heard comments indicating that some applicants have been tested in one way, whereas others in another (subjective vs. objective methods of determining refractive error). This coupled with comments from experts stating that the limits are politically set, and the fact that anyone can be unfortunate enough to suffer from retinal detachment, have left me wondering.
I have no objections to setting standards for our profession, but they must be such that legal certainty prevails. Personally, I believe that the UK CAA is on the right track in pursuing the abolishment of refractive error limits (this according to what has been posted on this forum previously).
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ubiquitous
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Cosmo
Personally, I believe that the UK CAA is on the right track in pursuing the abolishment of refractive error limits (this according to what has been posted on this forum previously).
Gizajob
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: uk
Age: 49
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's good to get the latest news in this area. It is another example of what I hate about our regulations - there are all kinds of unstated hurdles which only become evident when you ask. Why oh why can't the CAA or JAA or whoever just publish these sort of requirements formally and save us all this discussion?
Cesco - don't understand why you're still down? Mark 3:16 has good evidence that you can commence an integrated course with eyesight outside class 1 initial limits and you can also commence a modular course. You are therefore not barred from trying to obtain your CPL/IR once you have a stable script and are over 21, unless I am misunderstanding something?
Cesco - don't understand why you're still down? Mark 3:16 has good evidence that you can commence an integrated course with eyesight outside class 1 initial limits and you can also commence a modular course. You are therefore not barred from trying to obtain your CPL/IR once you have a stable script and are over 21, unless I am misunderstanding something?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ubiquitous
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi EGBKFLYER.
No I'm not really down, just a little disappointed about the fact that what you need to get a deviated Class 1 is a PPL in the first place. I am not quite sure why this "requirement" is in place, but obviously it means getting a Class 2 first, then a PPL, then an Initial Class 1 with deviation, then a full Class 1 (i.e. deviation lifted) upon completion of the CPL (as Mark 3:16 also said).
To me, it'd make a lot more sense if you got a deviated Class 1 right away, because if you are wishing to go the Integrated way you can't really go and start training with a Class 2. However, I am quite happy that I can actually still train towards a commercial license via the modular route, all I'm saying is that this somehow places a limit on training choices IF you don't hold a PPL prior to the issue of a Class 1 with deviation, in which case I'm going to have to re-formulate and investigate everything all over again, as I'd never really looked at the Modular route (which is also why I never got a PPL, since it is not necessary for ab-initio training).
That being said, I suspect that whoever managed to enter Intergrated training with a deviated Class 1, probably already had a PPL handy. I stand to be corrected on this one though, should there be anyone who knows different.
Anyway, surely not down here, just a little stressed over the fact I need to pull out "contingency plan C"
No I'm not really down, just a little disappointed about the fact that what you need to get a deviated Class 1 is a PPL in the first place. I am not quite sure why this "requirement" is in place, but obviously it means getting a Class 2 first, then a PPL, then an Initial Class 1 with deviation, then a full Class 1 (i.e. deviation lifted) upon completion of the CPL (as Mark 3:16 also said).
To me, it'd make a lot more sense if you got a deviated Class 1 right away, because if you are wishing to go the Integrated way you can't really go and start training with a Class 2. However, I am quite happy that I can actually still train towards a commercial license via the modular route, all I'm saying is that this somehow places a limit on training choices IF you don't hold a PPL prior to the issue of a Class 1 with deviation, in which case I'm going to have to re-formulate and investigate everything all over again, as I'd never really looked at the Modular route (which is also why I never got a PPL, since it is not necessary for ab-initio training).
That being said, I suspect that whoever managed to enter Intergrated training with a deviated Class 1, probably already had a PPL handy. I stand to be corrected on this one though, should there be anyone who knows different.
Anyway, surely not down here, just a little stressed over the fact I need to pull out "contingency plan C"