Eyesight discrimination?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: england
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eyesight discrimination?
Ok, this might sound a bit odd, but in the current situation of political correctness, equality etc etc, If someone was just outside the class 1 eyesight reqirements, and could prove they could safly fly an aeroplane and complete all the required training, If the CAA then refused to issue a Class 1 medical would there be grounds for a discrimination charge against them, as it has been PROVEN by the succesful completion of training and flight tests that the person is competent and safe. I cannot see how they could fight this as it would be blatent discrimination 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like you want a legal opinion, but common sense would rather suggest not. it wouldn't be a "charge" so much as civil suit for damages. The point of having limits is that you should fall within them.
It is perhaps worth remembering that the reason for a high standard of eyesight is because it is an important requirement in flying. The ability to have good visual acuity in busy airport environments is a major factor in preventing missed signage, stopbars, lights etc, and the possibility of runway incursions.
Most peoples eyesight deteriorates with age and allowance is made for this by setting a high standard at initial licence issue. That deterioration is to some extent compensated by experience gained over the years in between.
If the authority were to permit somebody with sub standard eyesight to hold a class 1, in violation of their own standards and variations they most definetaly would lay themselves open to a civil suit in the event that person became causal in a subsequent incident or accident where such negligence might be a significant factor.
The sucessful completion of flight training does not and never has entitled you to a class 1 medical, and it would be foolish to embark on such training without first meeting the requirements and obtaining the required class 1 medical certificate.
The regulatory authority is required to discriminate, it is a part of their safety and oversight function.
It is perhaps worth remembering that the reason for a high standard of eyesight is because it is an important requirement in flying. The ability to have good visual acuity in busy airport environments is a major factor in preventing missed signage, stopbars, lights etc, and the possibility of runway incursions.
Most peoples eyesight deteriorates with age and allowance is made for this by setting a high standard at initial licence issue. That deterioration is to some extent compensated by experience gained over the years in between.
If the authority were to permit somebody with sub standard eyesight to hold a class 1, in violation of their own standards and variations they most definetaly would lay themselves open to a civil suit in the event that person became causal in a subsequent incident or accident where such negligence might be a significant factor.
The sucessful completion of flight training does not and never has entitled you to a class 1 medical, and it would be foolish to embark on such training without first meeting the requirements and obtaining the required class 1 medical certificate.
The regulatory authority is required to discriminate, it is a part of their safety and oversight function.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree. Although that concept may have had weight in the past, in todays climate there is no real excuse to discriminate because of poor visual acuity.
Standards of corrective lenses are such that an individual can have their vision corrected to better than the minimum requirement, for example the acknowledged minimum is 6/6 whereas in my case my eyesight is corrected to 6/4. And FYI info I have been working in and around airfields for a very long time and never once missed any form of signage, additionally I have been flying recreationally for over 20 years, not PPL(A), and have an unblemished record even though my visual acuity is way, way below JAA standards for PPL
Furthermore, given the inconsistences surrounding this issue globally, your argument lacks weight. The US FAA checks both uncorrected and corrected vision and it is the corrected visual acuity that counts - the applicant is simply issued a waiver if they require corrective lenses. Also, the practice of the airlines to over rule the FAA by implementing their own medical standards I believe was stopped in the mid '90's because it was discriminatory, but I await to be corrected on that.
This is nothing to do with possible legal suits for negligence but more to do with a resistance to change. There is sufficient evidence in place to suggest that this eyesight requirements should be reviewed, indeed it is my understanding that ICAO have been recommending to national regulatory authorities for some time to do this, clearly without much success.
All JAA has to do is simply change the requirement, not hard really.
Standards of corrective lenses are such that an individual can have their vision corrected to better than the minimum requirement, for example the acknowledged minimum is 6/6 whereas in my case my eyesight is corrected to 6/4. And FYI info I have been working in and around airfields for a very long time and never once missed any form of signage, additionally I have been flying recreationally for over 20 years, not PPL(A), and have an unblemished record even though my visual acuity is way, way below JAA standards for PPL
Furthermore, given the inconsistences surrounding this issue globally, your argument lacks weight. The US FAA checks both uncorrected and corrected vision and it is the corrected visual acuity that counts - the applicant is simply issued a waiver if they require corrective lenses. Also, the practice of the airlines to over rule the FAA by implementing their own medical standards I believe was stopped in the mid '90's because it was discriminatory, but I await to be corrected on that.
This is nothing to do with possible legal suits for negligence but more to do with a resistance to change. There is sufficient evidence in place to suggest that this eyesight requirements should be reviewed, indeed it is my understanding that ICAO have been recommending to national regulatory authorities for some time to do this, clearly without much success.
All JAA has to do is simply change the requirement, not hard really.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a pointless argument. The CAA have provision for just theae sort of cases.
My eyesight does not meet the requirements for the issue of a class1 medical certificate but does meet the requirements for the revalidation of a class 1.
Therefore they have said that I can have a class 1 with a deviation and upon getting the CPL that class 1 will be revalidated with the deviation lifted.
That is a really pragmatic solution to the problem and well done to the CAA for finding a work around.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/49/SRG_MED...isual_Stds.pdf
My eyesight does not meet the requirements for the issue of a class1 medical certificate but does meet the requirements for the revalidation of a class 1.
Therefore they have said that I can have a class 1 with a deviation and upon getting the CPL that class 1 will be revalidated with the deviation lifted.
That is a really pragmatic solution to the problem and well done to the CAA for finding a work around.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/49/SRG_MED...isual_Stds.pdf
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ubiquitous
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chrisbl
My eyesight does not meet the requirements for the issue of a class1 medical certificate but does meet the requirements for the revalidation of a class 1.
Therefore they have said that I can have a class 1 with a deviation and upon getting the CPL that class 1 will be revalidated with the deviation lifted.
Therefore they have said that I can have a class 1 with a deviation and upon getting the CPL that class 1 will be revalidated with the deviation lifted.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a pointless argument. The CAA have provision for just theae sort of cases.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as it has been PROVEN by the succesful completion of training and flight tests that the person is competent and safe
If you only mean PPL, why bother with the expense of a class one?
When you say "just outside the requirements", how just outside are you?
As for PC/discrimination, AAARRRRGGGHHH
This isn't America!!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would be a whole lot easier for the "borderline" guys to qualify for Class1s if the CAA (and JAA) adopted the FAAs approach, ie, if you meet the acuity requirements corrected or otherwise, then the refraction is unimportant.
I am in a situation where I am corrected to 20/20 (6/6), and my current prescription is -0.5D, all very good you might say. However my pre-lasik prescription was ~-10D, and as such I seem to be ruled out of holding a Class1 on the basis I in the past, did not meet renewel requirements!
I am in a situation where I am corrected to 20/20 (6/6), and my current prescription is -0.5D, all very good you might say. However my pre-lasik prescription was ~-10D, and as such I seem to be ruled out of holding a Class1 on the basis I in the past, did not meet renewel requirements!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ubiquitous
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Strepsils
You require a class one medical before you can complete a CPL/IR course, which, loosely speaking, is the minimum "career pilot" qualification. Without the medical, you will prove nothing.
If you only mean PPL, why bother with the expense of a class one?
If you only mean PPL, why bother with the expense of a class one?
Then again, how do you go about training for a CPL with a "limited Class 1", assuming you got no flying experience under your belt..
Obviously if there are people doing it and the CAA allow it then there must be something I'm missing... people have gone to OAT under this situation, I'm assuming they issue a Class 1 Medical of some sort then! And still the CAA themselves told me I need a PPL to go through this route? But then... as it's been said, why bother doing a class 1 if I can meet Class 2 requirements without any trouble (for a PPL...). I only became aware of this Class 1 via deviation a few weeks ago, thought I'd understood what it involves, but honestly.. I'm more confused than ever before
I guess I'm just gonna have to wait and see what the CAA say about my case...
PS Strepsils: the deviation route is in place for those who don't meet initial eyesight requirements for a Class 1 but do meet renewal requirements.. so "just outside" would mean anywhere outside initial but within renewal.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cesco - I have no idea what the CAA's criteria are in this case, although often in these types of scenarios you find that if you phone another day and get a different person the problem goes away!
If you can, it might be worth contacting Oxford or Cabair to try and talk to students who started training in this situation, they may be able to explain how/why they were able to qualify.
If you can, it might be worth contacting Oxford or Cabair to try and talk to students who started training in this situation, they may be able to explain how/why they were able to qualify.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ubiquitous
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Strepsils
Cesco - I have no idea what the CAA's criteria are in this case, although often in these types of scenarios you find that if you phone another day and get a different person the problem goes away!
Originally Posted by Strepsils
If you can, it might be worth contacting Oxford or Cabair to try and talk to students who started training in this situation, they may be able to explain how/why they were able to qualify.
However I am planning to also try n have a chat with FTE and CCAT.. possibily at the next Prof Flight Training Show if I manage to get a minute at their respective "stalls".
Last edited by Eddie_Crane; 12th Mar 2006 at 17:31.
Gizajob
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: uk
Age: 49
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To cut a long story short - I have a prescription which is outside initial class 1 limits but well inside the renewals. Couldn't get a class 1 til JAA came along
. I went for my initial at LGW and the eyes man confirmed the above. He said (based on his examination) that he would pass me. The rest of the medical was fine, so I got a normal class 1 piece of paper.
In the 'limitations' box is 2VDL (needs to wear glasses) and another box, which notes that the class 1 was issued with a deviation. In plain English, this means they bent the rules slightly to give you the certificate! The cert is a normal class 1, with full class 1 rights.
When I renewed for the first time, since my eyes were then within the rules, no deviation required meant that the box disappeared. I now have a normal class 1, just like everyone else except for the 2VDL limit, which will always be there.
No extra cost, no messing about - simple as that.
. I went for my initial at LGW and the eyes man confirmed the above. He said (based on his examination) that he would pass me. The rest of the medical was fine, so I got a normal class 1 piece of paper.In the 'limitations' box is 2VDL (needs to wear glasses) and another box, which notes that the class 1 was issued with a deviation. In plain English, this means they bent the rules slightly to give you the certificate! The cert is a normal class 1, with full class 1 rights.
When I renewed for the first time, since my eyes were then within the rules, no deviation required meant that the box disappeared. I now have a normal class 1, just like everyone else except for the 2VDL limit, which will always be there.
No extra cost, no messing about - simple as that.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ubiquitous
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheers for that EGBKFLYER.
It all sounds pretty straightforward.
Just one doubt remains, did you already hold a PPL when your Class 1 was issued or were you (like me right now and perhaps other people in this situation) with no flying experience under your belt?
I 'd been told one of the requirements for an initial "deviated" Class 1 is well.. holding a PPL. Anyone who's been through the process can confirm this or can that "rule" be bent as well?
It all sounds pretty straightforward.
Just one doubt remains, did you already hold a PPL when your Class 1 was issued or were you (like me right now and perhaps other people in this situation) with no flying experience under your belt?
I 'd been told one of the requirements for an initial "deviated" Class 1 is well.. holding a PPL. Anyone who's been through the process can confirm this or can that "rule" be bent as well?
Gizajob
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: uk
Age: 49
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I did have a PPL and about 10 years/ 130 hours ish when I was examined. I don't know how much of a factor experience is when they are deciding on a deviation - I was certainly asked about what I flew, how often, any probs etc.
I think the medics are trying to establish what 'risk' there is in particular cases. Obviously, if you have been flying about happily for a while with no ill effects, that's a good indication (though not fool-proof of course) that your eyesight is acceptable. I don't think they would be as prescriptive as saying you need a PPL in order to get the deviation, but I reckon they might be a bit more wary and ask some more questions...
Best of luck anyway.
I think the medics are trying to establish what 'risk' there is in particular cases. Obviously, if you have been flying about happily for a while with no ill effects, that's a good indication (though not fool-proof of course) that your eyesight is acceptable. I don't think they would be as prescriptive as saying you need a PPL in order to get the deviation, but I reckon they might be a bit more wary and ask some more questions...
Best of luck anyway.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: england
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the reply guys, I have just done my PPL , 25 hrs and a night rating,all in the USA, but due to work commitments have not had chance to get a class 2 medical and send off for my licence yet. The reason I want to know about a class 1 medical is that I want to train as a commercial pilot, but due to my prescription ( -8.25 and a "lazy eye", or dominant right eye) I don't think I even fall inside the class 1 renewal limits, let alone the initial issue requirements 
.
The point I am trying to make is that I think this is grossly unfair, as I have proven I can safley fly an aircraft at PPL standard, and with all the extra training to achive a CPL/ME/IR I can't see (no pun intended) a problem as long as the examiner is happy with the check flights. I can understand there being requirements to have healthy eyes, but what is the problem with corrected visual defects as long as all the critera for safe flying has been met? Personally I think it is discrimination, and if this occured in any other line of work then there would be uproar .
If you can fly safley and pass the exams, whats the problem?
.The point I am trying to make is that I think this is grossly unfair, as I have proven I can safley fly an aircraft at PPL standard, and with all the extra training to achive a CPL/ME/IR I can't see (no pun intended) a problem as long as the examiner is happy with the check flights. I can understand there being requirements to have healthy eyes, but what is the problem with corrected visual defects as long as all the critera for safe flying has been met? Personally I think it is discrimination, and if this occured in any other line of work then there would be uproar
.If you can fly safley and pass the exams, whats the problem?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Honestly... it's pretty pointless to put any limit..
UK CAA sets the limit.. pilots in the UK are within the limit..
But what's the point?
Pilots flying jets from US and Australia may be wearing glasses of -9D...
so? you still get pilots flying jets with -9d in British Skies...
whilist British pilot could wear no mroe than -8D
UK CAA sets the limit.. pilots in the UK are within the limit..
But what's the point?
Pilots flying jets from US and Australia may be wearing glasses of -9D...
so? you still get pilots flying jets with -9d in British Skies...
whilist British pilot could wear no mroe than -8D
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Paris
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by EGBKFLYER
To cut a long story short - I have a prescription which is outside initial class 1 limits but well inside the renewals. Couldn't get a class 1 til JAA came along . I went for my initial at LGW and the eyes man confirmed the above. He said (based on his examination) that he would pass me. The rest of the medical was fine, so I got a normal class 1 piece of paper.
In the 'limitations' box is 2VDL (needs to wear glasses) and another box, which notes that the class 1 was issued with a deviation. In plain English, this means they bent the rules slightly to give you the certificate! The cert is a normal class 1, with full class 1 rights.
When I renewed for the first time, since my eyes were then within the rules, no deviation required meant that the box disappeared. I now have a normal class 1, just like everyone else except for the 2VDL limit, which will always be there.
No extra cost, no messing about - simple as that.
. I went for my initial at LGW and the eyes man confirmed the above. He said (based on his examination) that he would pass me. The rest of the medical was fine, so I got a normal class 1 piece of paper.In the 'limitations' box is 2VDL (needs to wear glasses) and another box, which notes that the class 1 was issued with a deviation. In plain English, this means they bent the rules slightly to give you the certificate! The cert is a normal class 1, with full class 1 rights.
When I renewed for the first time, since my eyes were then within the rules, no deviation required meant that the box disappeared. I now have a normal class 1, just like everyone else except for the 2VDL limit, which will always be there.
No extra cost, no messing about - simple as that.
Hi there , to all of you !
EGBKFLYER . For my curiosity can you tell us what's your prescription.
I personally would like to try an initial class 1 in UK but i'm outside the initial limits for JAA. Left eye: -5.75 myopia ( +0.5 astigmatism component )
Right eye: -5.50 myopia ( +0.25 astigmatism component )
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Paris
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by EGBKFLYER
To cut a long story short - I have a prescription which is outside initial class 1 limits but well inside the renewals. Couldn't get a class 1 til JAA came along . I went for my initial at LGW and the eyes man confirmed the above. He said (based on his examination) that he would pass me. The rest of the medical was fine, so I got a normal class 1 piece of paper.
In the 'limitations' box is 2VDL (needs to wear glasses) and another box, which notes that the class 1 was issued with a deviation. In plain English, this means they bent the rules slightly to give you the certificate! The cert is a normal class 1, with full class 1 rights.
When I renewed for the first time, since my eyes were then within the rules, no deviation required meant that the box disappeared. I now have a normal class 1, just like everyone else except for the 2VDL limit, which will always be there.
No extra cost, no messing about - simple as that.
. I went for my initial at LGW and the eyes man confirmed the above. He said (based on his examination) that he would pass me. The rest of the medical was fine, so I got a normal class 1 piece of paper.In the 'limitations' box is 2VDL (needs to wear glasses) and another box, which notes that the class 1 was issued with a deviation. In plain English, this means they bent the rules slightly to give you the certificate! The cert is a normal class 1, with full class 1 rights.
When I renewed for the first time, since my eyes were then within the rules, no deviation required meant that the box disappeared. I now have a normal class 1, just like everyone else except for the 2VDL limit, which will always be there.
No extra cost, no messing about - simple as that.
Gizajob
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: uk
Age: 49
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My current prescription is -5.75/ -5.25 with around 1.5D astigmatism and all other parameters normal. I've had a stable prescription for about 8 years now. Stability is something you will be asked about and it's something to track. Before age 22, my eyes got worse every time I went to the optician (my parents are both pretty short-sighted) but things settled down after that. This is normal.
FMF - as you see you are about as blind as I am, so if you have nothing else wrong, I would expect you will be granted a Class 1 with a deviation.
K-130. They used to give me all the excuses about distortion at high lens powers, poor peripheral vision, losing glasses etc etc. While those arguments may have held water when we all flew Tiger Moths, modern lens (contacts too) technology has solved most of this and the rest is a load of b**ks anyway.
I would suggest to anyone that they contact the CAA medics. They are helpful (i.e. they want to give you a medical if they reasonably can) and are used to eyesight enquiries. They will advise on the best course of action - in my case they said 'come for an initial class 1. We'll do your eyes first and if you fail, you'll only pay for that bit'. Can't say fairer than that.
FMF - as you see you are about as blind as I am, so if you have nothing else wrong, I would expect you will be granted a Class 1 with a deviation.
K-130. They used to give me all the excuses about distortion at high lens powers, poor peripheral vision, losing glasses etc etc. While those arguments may have held water when we all flew Tiger Moths, modern lens (contacts too) technology has solved most of this and the rest is a load of b**ks anyway.
I would suggest to anyone that they contact the CAA medics. They are helpful (i.e. they want to give you a medical if they reasonably can) and are used to eyesight enquiries. They will advise on the best course of action - in my case they said 'come for an initial class 1. We'll do your eyes first and if you fail, you'll only pay for that bit'. Can't say fairer than that.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with EGB's post above re: the PPL.
I'm in the same situation, eyes at -5.25 and -5.75 bit otherwise healthy. I was going to do the integrated route and sent my prescriptions for the last 3 years off the CAA to check I could get a Class 1. As there was stability - and that's the key - they said yes I could with Deviation.
I'm now going down the PPL route first, and then probably off down the modular route after that. I spoke with CAA yesterday and they confirmed - I'll get a Class 2 now. Once I have my PPL I can go down and have the Class 1 medical. All being well with everything else, I'll get the Class 1 with deviation because by getting my PPL and flying round happily with no problem then it proves to them that eyesight is not an issue.
Seems a bit harsh that effectively we have to pay for a Class 2 then a Class 1 as opposed to just getting a Class 1 straight off, especially if we are just outside the limit. All money for old rope as we know, and we have to do it.
Main thing to remember is - IT CAN BE DONE. I was always put off by my eyesight for ages, thinking I couldn't be a pilot because of it. Its only when I bothered to check properly that I was sparked into life!
Good luck
Mark
I'm in the same situation, eyes at -5.25 and -5.75 bit otherwise healthy. I was going to do the integrated route and sent my prescriptions for the last 3 years off the CAA to check I could get a Class 1. As there was stability - and that's the key - they said yes I could with Deviation.
I'm now going down the PPL route first, and then probably off down the modular route after that. I spoke with CAA yesterday and they confirmed - I'll get a Class 2 now. Once I have my PPL I can go down and have the Class 1 medical. All being well with everything else, I'll get the Class 1 with deviation because by getting my PPL and flying round happily with no problem then it proves to them that eyesight is not an issue.
Seems a bit harsh that effectively we have to pay for a Class 2 then a Class 1 as opposed to just getting a Class 1 straight off, especially if we are just outside the limit. All money for old rope as we know, and we have to do it.
Main thing to remember is - IT CAN BE DONE. I was always put off by my eyesight for ages, thinking I couldn't be a pilot because of it. Its only when I bothered to check properly that I was sparked into life!
Good luck
Mark