jaa refractive error regulations...... load of bull
Guest
Posts: n/a
jaa refractive error regulations...... load of bull
I can't become a commerical airline pilot in Europe because of this stupid JAA rule on the refractive error which says that I can't fly because my refractive error is in excess of -5 dioptres even though my vision is corrected with contact lenses to 24/20 (6/5). My sight is good enough to fly in the USA but not in europe.
Why do the JAA have this rule? I asked them and pestered them and I eventally got this responce.
Myopia (short sight) ... "increases the risk to suffer from retinal ablation, to contract macular degeneration, glaucoma and/or cataract"
They are saying that, because I am short sited, I have "an increased risk" of developing conditions of the eye that would make me unfit to fly an aircraft in the future. There is no guarantee that I will develop these conditions!
People with HIV have an "increased risk" of developing health problems and if the JAA said to someone that they would not allow them to fly because they had HIV there would be a huge compensation case. It is exactly the same for me - I am short sited and they are not going to allow me to fly on the basis I have an "increased risk" of developing health problems. They have no right to do that.
"Wearing contact lenses contains the risk of developing a contact lens intolerance, the occurrence of inflammations, ulcers, corneal scars and other complications"
Again "contains the risk" - there is no guarantee that I would develop these conditions from wearing contact lenses.
Also, the above argument has nothing to do with my lens exceeding their limits. They will allow people to fly and wear contact lenses as long as those lenses don't exceed their strength limit of -3 dioptres.
"If glasses are lost during flight (e.g. in an emergency situation when putting on the oxygen mask), there is no possibility to read the instruments or to estimate the outside situation."
Well I wear contact lenses so this argument is invalid for me.
But if glasses were lost they could be picked up!
That is all!
I believe that it is perfectly safe for me to become an airline pilot - if you need proof, just look at all of the airline pilots in the USA who wear corrective lenses that exceed the -3 dioptre limit of the JAA.
There has never been an incident in the USA where a pilot couldn't function safely because he/she couldn't see properly.
The JAA is not enforcing this limit for safety reasons, as they try to argue, but simply to protect the airlines from employing someone who has an increased risk (but certainly NO guarantee) of developing eye problems in the future. This is discrimination and it is illegal.
do you agree with me? anyone else in the same situation?
Why do the JAA have this rule? I asked them and pestered them and I eventally got this responce.
Myopia (short sight) ... "increases the risk to suffer from retinal ablation, to contract macular degeneration, glaucoma and/or cataract"
They are saying that, because I am short sited, I have "an increased risk" of developing conditions of the eye that would make me unfit to fly an aircraft in the future. There is no guarantee that I will develop these conditions!
People with HIV have an "increased risk" of developing health problems and if the JAA said to someone that they would not allow them to fly because they had HIV there would be a huge compensation case. It is exactly the same for me - I am short sited and they are not going to allow me to fly on the basis I have an "increased risk" of developing health problems. They have no right to do that.
"Wearing contact lenses contains the risk of developing a contact lens intolerance, the occurrence of inflammations, ulcers, corneal scars and other complications"
Again "contains the risk" - there is no guarantee that I would develop these conditions from wearing contact lenses.
Also, the above argument has nothing to do with my lens exceeding their limits. They will allow people to fly and wear contact lenses as long as those lenses don't exceed their strength limit of -3 dioptres.
"If glasses are lost during flight (e.g. in an emergency situation when putting on the oxygen mask), there is no possibility to read the instruments or to estimate the outside situation."
Well I wear contact lenses so this argument is invalid for me.
But if glasses were lost they could be picked up!
That is all!
I believe that it is perfectly safe for me to become an airline pilot - if you need proof, just look at all of the airline pilots in the USA who wear corrective lenses that exceed the -3 dioptre limit of the JAA.
There has never been an incident in the USA where a pilot couldn't function safely because he/she couldn't see properly.
The JAA is not enforcing this limit for safety reasons, as they try to argue, but simply to protect the airlines from employing someone who has an increased risk (but certainly NO guarantee) of developing eye problems in the future. This is discrimination and it is illegal.
do you agree with me? anyone else in the same situation?
Guest
Posts: n/a
There has been a JAA conference earlier this month where they were supposed to decide whether the JAA will follow the new ICAO regulations or not (FYI: ICAO recently decided to drop the dioptre limits). Apparently, many countries in Europe feel okay to follow these ICAO guidelines, but not every country (like France, as usual).
I'm sure you'll find some further info on that by using words like "JAA, conference, dioptre" in the PPRuNe Search Engine.
So far nobody here has seen any official paper issued by the JAA where they would make their decision known to the entire human race, but something should pop up soon I guess... Well, I hope so !
I'm sure you'll find some further info on that by using words like "JAA, conference, dioptre" in the PPRuNe Search Engine.
So far nobody here has seen any official paper issued by the JAA where they would make their decision known to the entire human race, but something should pop up soon I guess... Well, I hope so !
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ste, Your argument is so logical and sound it is unbelievable that members of the JAA could still be spouting that out of date rubbish to you and not feel like total idiots.
I still cannot fathom how they actually lie about it. Why can't they just "ok we realise we got it wrong and it is your right to hold a class 1 medical so we're working on changing it". But for a medical practicioner to come out with technical jagon which he thinks will baffel somebody into believing he is right......well thats down right unethical and grounds for being stuck off as a practitioner in my opinion.
I hope someday a REAL doctor gets a job in the CAA/JAA medical department and makes logical decisions and is honest with the customers.....US. However, the day day that this happens the new doc will have to give a class 1 medical to the pigs flying in the sky!!!!
I still cannot fathom how they actually lie about it. Why can't they just "ok we realise we got it wrong and it is your right to hold a class 1 medical so we're working on changing it". But for a medical practicioner to come out with technical jagon which he thinks will baffel somebody into believing he is right......well thats down right unethical and grounds for being stuck off as a practitioner in my opinion.
I hope someday a REAL doctor gets a job in the CAA/JAA medical department and makes logical decisions and is honest with the customers.....US. However, the day day that this happens the new doc will have to give a class 1 medical to the pigs flying in the sky!!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi Flying_Steph & Bomber Harris
I know that the new ICAO visual regulations will reflect the FAA regulations on this subject. I think they come into effect November 2001.
Hope something comes from the JAA soon but what if they decide to keep their regulations? Do you think it could be proven that they were discriminating as I put in my first post and we could take legal action against them?
That might be the only way we can get them to change coz they dont want to admit they are wrong!
I know that the new ICAO visual regulations will reflect the FAA regulations on this subject. I think they come into effect November 2001.
Hope something comes from the JAA soon but what if they decide to keep their regulations? Do you think it could be proven that they were discriminating as I put in my first post and we could take legal action against them?
That might be the only way we can get them to change coz they dont want to admit they are wrong!Guest
Posts: n/a
I am not a lawyer, but I believe that the current restriction in the UK is now unlawful. See my 5.12.00 post under "Vision requirement-good news?" in the Medical and Health forum.
Good luck to anyone who wants to pursue this.
ps. Sorry I'm not skilled enough to put a direct link in.
Good luck to anyone who wants to pursue this.
ps. Sorry I'm not skilled enough to put a direct link in.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I was in EXACTLY the same position as you guys about 12 months ago. However, I refused to let the CAA beat me! You need to phone Dr. Ian Perry in London on 0171 730 8045. He is a JAA board member and knows everything that is happening with the eye-sight rule changes. He will also fight your case with the CAA. You must go and get a second opinion on your eyes to. I went to a Harley Street specialist and got a full report that was sent to the CAA. I also requested that I was referred to their own eye specialist for another consultation. It was this that did the trick.
You must stick with this one, do not give up under any circumsances.
Best of Luck!
You must stick with this one, do not give up under any circumsances.
Best of Luck!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Try this link: http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/1995050.htm
Take a good look at the exclusions as an employer may be able to argue that he does not contravene the act as you do not have a disability that does not allow you to carry out day to day activities.
SF
Take a good look at the exclusions as an employer may be able to argue that he does not contravene the act as you do not have a disability that does not allow you to carry out day to day activities.
SF
Guest
Posts: n/a
I fully understand the concerns raised at the beginning of this thread. I also am affected by this minus five diopter business but in terms of the fact that my pre-lasik prescription was of that order.
I have discussed this with a number of optitians and opthalmologists all of whom agree that pre-op prescription is about as relevant as what colour of tie I wore in the 70s.
I have also had preliminary discussions with a lawyer who reckons the regulations are somewhat weak. It will be interesting to see how all this develops.
I have discussed this with a number of optitians and opthalmologists all of whom agree that pre-op prescription is about as relevant as what colour of tie I wore in the 70s.
I have also had preliminary discussions with a lawyer who reckons the regulations are somewhat weak. It will be interesting to see how all this develops.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mr Fussy,
Have you got an address for Dr. Ian Perry, as I don't want to bombard him with intricate eyesight details on the phone while he's trying to eat his cornflakes!
Could you post it here, or e-mail me: [email protected]
Cheers
Have you got an address for Dr. Ian Perry, as I don't want to bombard him with intricate eyesight details on the phone while he's trying to eat his cornflakes!
Could you post it here, or e-mail me: [email protected]
Cheers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Not sure about the UK law, but the US supreme court has held, in a case involving Uniter Airlines, that a correctable vision disorder is not a disability since it is correctable. Thus in the US, airline may refuse to hire applicants with class 1 medicals because their uncorrected vision is poor.
In terms of the referenced UK statute:
>has a physical or mental impairment which
>has a substantial and long-term adverse
>effect on his ability to carry out normal
>day-to-day activities.
It might be arguable that since you can correct your vision, you do not qualify for the definition of disability.
-me
(not that I agree with the US court in this case---I don't)
In terms of the referenced UK statute:
>has a physical or mental impairment which
>has a substantial and long-term adverse
>effect on his ability to carry out normal
>day-to-day activities.
It might be arguable that since you can correct your vision, you do not qualify for the definition of disability.
-me
(not that I agree with the US court in this case---I don't)
