Vision requirements - Good news?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Vision requirements - Good news?
I have been reading some of the posts concerning the visual requirements for becoming a proffesional pilot. For all the aspiring pilots with poor vision:
This is what I found at the homepage of the ICAO:
"...ICAO is in the process of reviewing the visual requirements and new regulations are expected to come into force in November 2001. The new requirements have no dioptre limits; instead, visual acuity shall be 6/6 with or without spectacles or contact lenses and an ophthalmic examination shall be normal..."
Isn't the ICAO the chief organization for worldwide aviation? So, if this is what they plan, the national authoroties should follow? Any thoughts?
<A HREF="http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/med_vis.htm" TARGET="_blank">http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/med_vis.htm</A>
This is what I found at the homepage of the ICAO:
"...ICAO is in the process of reviewing the visual requirements and new regulations are expected to come into force in November 2001. The new requirements have no dioptre limits; instead, visual acuity shall be 6/6 with or without spectacles or contact lenses and an ophthalmic examination shall be normal..."
Isn't the ICAO the chief organization for worldwide aviation? So, if this is what they plan, the national authoroties should follow? Any thoughts?
<A HREF="http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/med_vis.htm" TARGET="_blank">http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/med_vis.htm</A>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Don't get your hopes up just yet. 
Unfortunately it doesn't look likely that JAA will scrap the dioptre limits. They might relax it to -5/+5 from current -3/+3 but seeing as the CAA already allows -5/+3 it's not going to make much difference to UK wannabees. See news item 'the eyes have it ..' on <A HREF="http://www.aopa.co.uk" TARGET="_blank">www.aopa.co.uk</A>
Loz's posts on a previous thread <A HREF="http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum52/HTML/000279.html" TARGET="_blank">www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum52/HTML/000279.html</A> explains why JAA doesn't have to follow ICAO.
However, that ICAO link also says that states can set a more lenient limit 'on a waiver basis' - presumably what the CAA is doing at the moment. Anybody know if the CAA have plans to further relax the limits when JAA regs change and if not can they be persuaded?
- after all IMHO the current eyesight limits are fairly ridiculous..
The difference in how far you can see in focus (without glasses) if you are at -5D (allowed to have a CAA class1) and say at -10D is 10cm. Focal point(in metres) = 1/(dioptre prescription). That's not really much of a difference is it!? What are the grounds for having dioptre limits in the first place - if your visual acuity is 6/6 or better with correction, what's the problem?
Unfortunately it doesn't look likely that JAA will scrap the dioptre limits. They might relax it to -5/+5 from current -3/+3 but seeing as the CAA already allows -5/+3 it's not going to make much difference to UK wannabees. See news item 'the eyes have it ..' on <A HREF="http://www.aopa.co.uk" TARGET="_blank">www.aopa.co.uk</A>
Loz's posts on a previous thread <A HREF="http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum52/HTML/000279.html" TARGET="_blank">www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum52/HTML/000279.html</A> explains why JAA doesn't have to follow ICAO.
However, that ICAO link also says that states can set a more lenient limit 'on a waiver basis' - presumably what the CAA is doing at the moment. Anybody know if the CAA have plans to further relax the limits when JAA regs change and if not can they be persuaded?
- after all IMHO the current eyesight limits are fairly ridiculous..
The difference in how far you can see in focus (without glasses) if you are at -5D (allowed to have a CAA class1) and say at -10D is 10cm. Focal point(in metres) = 1/(dioptre prescription). That's not really much of a difference is it!? What are the grounds for having dioptre limits in the first place - if your visual acuity is 6/6 or better with correction, what's the problem?
Guest
Posts: n/a
As Gliderpilot says, the present refractive index limits are pretty silly. On a more serious note, they are also probably now illegal.
The recent disability discrimination legislation now makes it illegal to discriminate on any physical disability without good reason. (And I believe the test of a good reason is a tough one). For example, if you had an artificial arm but could demonstrate that you could fly an aircraft safely just as well as any other pilot, it would be illegal to prevent you from holding a licence to do so. The same (in my non-legal opinion) must surely hold for eyesight that requires correction with glasses. Providing the eyesight can be corrected to the normal standard (6/6) and there are no other difficulties it must be illegal to now rule otherwise in this country, irrespective of what JAA requirements are. To maintain these arbitary limits, the CAA would have to produce some substantial evidence that safety would be seriously compromised by allowing pilots with perfect (corrected) sight to hold Class 1 medicals.
The new Disability Rights Commission might just be interested in the current injustice.
I am not a lawyer, but I believe the law of the land applies just as much to the CAA as to anyone else.
The recent disability discrimination legislation now makes it illegal to discriminate on any physical disability without good reason. (And I believe the test of a good reason is a tough one). For example, if you had an artificial arm but could demonstrate that you could fly an aircraft safely just as well as any other pilot, it would be illegal to prevent you from holding a licence to do so. The same (in my non-legal opinion) must surely hold for eyesight that requires correction with glasses. Providing the eyesight can be corrected to the normal standard (6/6) and there are no other difficulties it must be illegal to now rule otherwise in this country, irrespective of what JAA requirements are. To maintain these arbitary limits, the CAA would have to produce some substantial evidence that safety would be seriously compromised by allowing pilots with perfect (corrected) sight to hold Class 1 medicals.
The new Disability Rights Commission might just be interested in the current injustice.
I am not a lawyer, but I believe the law of the land applies just as much to the CAA as to anyone else.
Guest
Posts: n/a
QNH1013,
Good arguements here on the eyesight requirements issue.
Facing with increasing shortage of Airline pilots worldwide every year, I simple can't reason out why the regulations are not changed or become more liberal to allow those aspiring to join the pilot professional a chance to do so. Even the military(Air Forces) have already loosen up their previous strict medical requirements, why can't Civil Aviation do the same???
And in any cases there could be outstanding pilots out there who wear lenses or glasses performing better than those who are having perfect vision.
Cheers.
Good arguements here on the eyesight requirements issue.
Facing with increasing shortage of Airline pilots worldwide every year, I simple can't reason out why the regulations are not changed or become more liberal to allow those aspiring to join the pilot professional a chance to do so. Even the military(Air Forces) have already loosen up their previous strict medical requirements, why can't Civil Aviation do the same???
And in any cases there could be outstanding pilots out there who wear lenses or glasses performing better than those who are having perfect vision.
Cheers.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bing:
The FAA has never had a refractive error limit on any of its medical certificates. Ever.
Back in the 1920's, the FAA's predecessor agency had set a distant visual acuity limit of 20/50 correctable to 20/20 for First- and Second-Class medicals. The Third-Class originally had a rather bizarre standard: the applicant could have 20/50 vision without glasses — and not necessarily even correctible to anything better! — and not be required to use corrective lenses, but if his DVA were worse than 20/50, then it had to be correctable to 20/30! The US standards imposed for 1st-/2d-Class certificates in those days actually represented a far stricter set of requirements than ICAO, since individuals with –3.00D refractive errors generally [though not always] have less than 20/50 uncorrected.
When the ICAO standards were imposed in 1946, the US Civil Aviation Agency simply ignored them and continued with its own stricter requirements. When the FAA came along to supercede the CAA in 1958, the same standards were kept; the only change that was made at that time was to retitle "CAR Part 3" as "FAR Part 67". The uncorrected DVA limit was lowered to 20/100 during the late 1960's. Waivers were routinely granted for those with DVA's of 20/200 or better, and it was not unheard of for applicants with 20/400 vision — or worse — to be approved. The uncorrected DVA limit was wisely dropped altogether in 1996.
WRT the reasoning behind the refractive error limit, this was borrowed directly from the military, who originally imposed limits at/before the turn of the 20th Century, not for medical reasons, but for logistical reasons! The idea was that if an army had to issue glasses to its troops, then a requirement that recruits not have spherical/cylindrical errors exceeding an arbitrarily imposed limit would reduce the myriad number of prescription lens blanks to a [using a term dear to the hated beancounters now!] "more manageable level". I.e.: since standard lenses are manufactured in graduations of 0.25 dioptres, a ±3.00 limit means less difficulty keeping all of the possible prescriptions in stock than, for example, ±5.00. As a matter of trivia, current US Army refraction limits for initial entry (all recruits, not just aviation personnel) are ±8.00.
So there you have it.... Don't blame the medical profession for starting this nonsense. It's really the beancounters' fault! <G>
The FAA has never had a refractive error limit on any of its medical certificates. Ever.
Back in the 1920's, the FAA's predecessor agency had set a distant visual acuity limit of 20/50 correctable to 20/20 for First- and Second-Class medicals. The Third-Class originally had a rather bizarre standard: the applicant could have 20/50 vision without glasses — and not necessarily even correctible to anything better! — and not be required to use corrective lenses, but if his DVA were worse than 20/50, then it had to be correctable to 20/30! The US standards imposed for 1st-/2d-Class certificates in those days actually represented a far stricter set of requirements than ICAO, since individuals with –3.00D refractive errors generally [though not always] have less than 20/50 uncorrected.
When the ICAO standards were imposed in 1946, the US Civil Aviation Agency simply ignored them and continued with its own stricter requirements. When the FAA came along to supercede the CAA in 1958, the same standards were kept; the only change that was made at that time was to retitle "CAR Part 3" as "FAR Part 67". The uncorrected DVA limit was lowered to 20/100 during the late 1960's. Waivers were routinely granted for those with DVA's of 20/200 or better, and it was not unheard of for applicants with 20/400 vision — or worse — to be approved. The uncorrected DVA limit was wisely dropped altogether in 1996.
WRT the reasoning behind the refractive error limit, this was borrowed directly from the military, who originally imposed limits at/before the turn of the 20th Century, not for medical reasons, but for logistical reasons! The idea was that if an army had to issue glasses to its troops, then a requirement that recruits not have spherical/cylindrical errors exceeding an arbitrarily imposed limit would reduce the myriad number of prescription lens blanks to a [using a term dear to the hated beancounters now!] "more manageable level". I.e.: since standard lenses are manufactured in graduations of 0.25 dioptres, a ±3.00 limit means less difficulty keeping all of the possible prescriptions in stock than, for example, ±5.00. As a matter of trivia, current US Army refraction limits for initial entry (all recruits, not just aviation personnel) are ±8.00.
So there you have it.... Don't blame the medical profession for starting this nonsense. It's really the beancounters' fault! <G>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Okay guys, let's cool it... :-)
I'd like to inform you that, according to a rumour, there should be a JAA conference this month, where they will decide whether they will follow the new ICAO standards or not. From what I've been told, some countries are reluctant to change the current standards, and there's no garantee so far that the -5D limit will be lifted. It's possible but not 100% sure, which is a good start anyway, don't you think ?
Now concerning the waivers, I believe they are easier to get once you've started a flying career, because that proves you've managed to overcome your "handicap" and operate an aircraft safely. I heard that once you have 500 hrs, you should not worry anymore, but here again I can't garantee it, and it's certainly nowhere in the FCL standard since the go/no go decision is at the medical examiner's discretion.
I'd like to inform you that, according to a rumour, there should be a JAA conference this month, where they will decide whether they will follow the new ICAO standards or not. From what I've been told, some countries are reluctant to change the current standards, and there's no garantee so far that the -5D limit will be lifted. It's possible but not 100% sure, which is a good start anyway, don't you think ?
Now concerning the waivers, I believe they are easier to get once you've started a flying career, because that proves you've managed to overcome your "handicap" and operate an aircraft safely. I heard that once you have 500 hrs, you should not worry anymore, but here again I can't garantee it, and it's certainly nowhere in the FCL standard since the go/no go decision is at the medical examiner's discretion.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I was considering Lasik surgery in the States to correct my vision - see web site <A HREF="http://www.la-lasik.com/" TARGET="_blank">http://www.la-lasik.com/</A>
Does anyone know if having this surgery would be acceptable for grant of Class I in the UK?
Does anyone know if having this surgery would be acceptable for grant of Class I in the UK?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi,
For hearing standards for a Class 1 (JAA), have a look at:
<A HREF="http://www.srg.caa.co.uk" TARGET="_blank">www.srg.caa.co.uk</A>
Then FCL, Medical, and documents. It gives the hearing req. for initial and renewel of a Class 1. Basically, you have to be able to hear a normally spoken voice in each ear, with your back to the examiner, at a distance of 6 feet.
Hope this helps
Barney
For hearing standards for a Class 1 (JAA), have a look at:
<A HREF="http://www.srg.caa.co.uk" TARGET="_blank">www.srg.caa.co.uk</A>
Then FCL, Medical, and documents. It gives the hearing req. for initial and renewel of a Class 1. Basically, you have to be able to hear a normally spoken voice in each ear, with your back to the examiner, at a distance of 6 feet.
Hope this helps
Barney
Guest
Posts: n/a
EyeBallPaul,
At my last medical in the UK (class one JAA), I asked my AME about laser surgery to correct my vision. His response was that it would not be welcomed by the CAA and that glasses were the better option. I didn,t pursue the matter further. I expect you will find a reference to it at <A HREF="http://www.jaa.nl." TARGET="_blank">www.jaa.nl.</A> You could phone the CAA, they will, as someone said previously, give you information without you having to disclose your identity.
Best of luck,
chopperman.
At my last medical in the UK (class one JAA), I asked my AME about laser surgery to correct my vision. His response was that it would not be welcomed by the CAA and that glasses were the better option. I didn,t pursue the matter further. I expect you will find a reference to it at <A HREF="http://www.jaa.nl." TARGET="_blank">www.jaa.nl.</A> You could phone the CAA, they will, as someone said previously, give you information without you having to disclose your identity.
Best of luck,
chopperman.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wingnaprayer
I have a lazy eye - no 3D and under JAR that precludes you from a Class 2 and a Class 1.
You can, however, get an FAA medical right up to Class 1 if you are able to obtain a Statement of Demonstrated Ability (SODA) from an AME - this means doing enough hours to convince an FAA CFI that you have sufficient depth perception to fly and, in particular, land. So, you can still fly with a bad eye.
Things may change in the UK if the ICAO regulations are accepted. I hear that the principle objections to the ICAO route come from, you've guessed it, France.
I have a lazy eye - no 3D and under JAR that precludes you from a Class 2 and a Class 1.
You can, however, get an FAA medical right up to Class 1 if you are able to obtain a Statement of Demonstrated Ability (SODA) from an AME - this means doing enough hours to convince an FAA CFI that you have sufficient depth perception to fly and, in particular, land. So, you can still fly with a bad eye.
Things may change in the UK if the ICAO regulations are accepted. I hear that the principle objections to the ICAO route come from, you've guessed it, France.
Guest
Posts: n/a
u right keendog;
i'm belgian and france is really strict and not really openned to change in regulations especially about vision matters . and so they have an important influence in the final decision of all jaa conferences.so it's a kind of brake in our fight to get better vision requirements. because i think that a majority of european members are ready to include new vision requirements in their own reg.
happy landings;
loz
i'm belgian and france is really strict and not really openned to change in regulations especially about vision matters . and so they have an important influence in the final decision of all jaa conferences.so it's a kind of brake in our fight to get better vision requirements. because i think that a majority of european members are ready to include new vision requirements in their own reg.
happy landings;
loz
Guest
Posts: n/a
Good news...got the Class 2...just about though...any deterioration in the next 2 years will mean that I wont get it the next time. Us folk with Amblyopia are a frustrated lot. I can see and react perfectly to everything but my eyes do not work together so depth perception is supposed to be non-existent...and maybe it is...but it never stopped me playing golf off an handicap of 10 and excelling at many team sports involving hand to eye and ball contact...doesn't seem fair.