Air crew Medicals
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Kerikeri New Zealand
Age: 89
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air crew Medicals
What use are aircrew medicals?
An acquaintance of mine joined Air New Zealand(TEAL) back in 1965 being an ex British Navigator.
Shortly after joining he lost his medical ( Flight Navigator), he was grounded and remained on the pay roll until he retired as a ground instructor, which was some where between 55 and 70 years of age.
He died this week January 2015 aged 91.
91 yet he was classified as unfit to fly as a navigator/2nd officer etc.back in the late 1960's!
What does this tell the trained mind about the validaties of aircrew medicals.?
I am 79 on Saturday 25th, and since I held an aircrew medical, I have lost my licence each 5 years due to adverse heart conditions that did not meet the then criteria and indeed today's criteria.( I have never ever had any invasive surgery, including stents)
All Pilots/aircrew should do something about this hogwash.
Neuro surgeons/ cardiac experts, politicians and even trick cyclists have no medical to pass, but can carry on in their trade/profession until they have had enough.
Is there is something wrong with the "System" ?
An acquaintance of mine joined Air New Zealand(TEAL) back in 1965 being an ex British Navigator.
Shortly after joining he lost his medical ( Flight Navigator), he was grounded and remained on the pay roll until he retired as a ground instructor, which was some where between 55 and 70 years of age.
He died this week January 2015 aged 91.
91 yet he was classified as unfit to fly as a navigator/2nd officer etc.back in the late 1960's!
What does this tell the trained mind about the validaties of aircrew medicals.?
I am 79 on Saturday 25th, and since I held an aircrew medical, I have lost my licence each 5 years due to adverse heart conditions that did not meet the then criteria and indeed today's criteria.( I have never ever had any invasive surgery, including stents)
All Pilots/aircrew should do something about this hogwash.
Neuro surgeons/ cardiac experts, politicians and even trick cyclists have no medical to pass, but can carry on in their trade/profession until they have had enough.
Is there is something wrong with the "System" ?
Last edited by gulfairs; 21st Jan 2014 at 04:53.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: long Left base for 23R
Age: 78
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A medical certificate should assess little more than whether you have, and are likely to continue to have, the physical capabilities to do whatever you are licensed to do for the validity period of the certificate
The OP's reference to "hogwash" leaves me gasping with disbelief ! But my opinion matters not one jot, compared with the millions who make professional pilots' jobs economically viable - ie the world's passengers.
Let the OP go to any major international airport and carry out a representative survey of those about to embark on flights. Let's see what responses he gets from passengers to the suggestion that their pilots' vision had not been ascertained; that they were poorly controlled diabetics, who could go unconscious at any time ; or that they were in AF with poorly controlled hypertension, and therefore liable to have a stroke any time soon.
I suspect Ulster that the OP will respond that if people live another 30 years after being grounded then they aren't about to have a stroke nor a heart attack etc etc
Perhaps the point that may help is that apart from needing to prevent pilots flying because they are at risk of sudden incapacitation, we may also need to ground them for medical issues that will not curtail their life but will make them dangerous in the air. Examples that come to mind are
Field defects - if you can't see the left half of your visual field you may well put the wing of your aircraft into something
Drugs - if you need drugs that have a risk of sudden psychosis or other side effects
Stable diseases that limit your effectiveness such as Parkinson's - yes you can live for 30 years with it
Personally I don't give two hoots what the passengers think. They are as likely to be rational about health as they are about anything else. But the idea that doctors don't know what they are talking about, although sometimes correct, is just plain daft in this context
Perhaps the point that may help is that apart from needing to prevent pilots flying because they are at risk of sudden incapacitation, we may also need to ground them for medical issues that will not curtail their life but will make them dangerous in the air. Examples that come to mind are
Field defects - if you can't see the left half of your visual field you may well put the wing of your aircraft into something
Drugs - if you need drugs that have a risk of sudden psychosis or other side effects
Stable diseases that limit your effectiveness such as Parkinson's - yes you can live for 30 years with it
Personally I don't give two hoots what the passengers think. They are as likely to be rational about health as they are about anything else. But the idea that doctors don't know what they are talking about, although sometimes correct, is just plain daft in this context
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: long Left base for 23R
Age: 78
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radgirl - thanks for the support on the general principle, ie the attack on Av Med doctors' usefulness and contributions in general !
. . . . . but that may be just a little tautological ! Surely, if they are "dangerous in the air" then there is a significant risk that that will eventually "curtail their life" ( and perhaps also take 200 others along with them ) !
Which brings me back to what passengers think ! We may have to agree to differ ; for me it is still very much an aspect worthy of consideration !
we may also need to ground them for medical issues that will not curtail their life but will make them dangerous in the air
Which brings me back to what passengers think ! We may have to agree to differ ; for me it is still very much an aspect worthy of consideration !
