PPRuNe Forums - Liberalizing medical requirements

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Medical & Health (https://www.pprune.org/medical-health-62/)

- - Liberalizing medical requirements (https://www.pprune.org/medical-health/198207-liberalizing-medical-requirements.html)

Quote:

Is that true though?
I'm surprised that blood tests are not done for every exam. As I understand it, incidences of minor heart attacks and the early onset of cancer for example can be evidenced by enzymes in the blood?

Heart attacks can be diagnoses by taking blood samples but only if you do the test at the time of the incident or shortly after, not at a medical.

Some forms of cancer show their presence in a blood test. PSA (Prostate Specific Antigen) is the closest to being of use in a screening test.

Unfortunately with too many false positives (= a positive result where no disease is present leading to unneccesary investigations) and false negatives ( = a negative result where disease is present giving false reassurances) to be used as just a screening tool.

The adjustment of the medical requirements along the lines of Otterman's post has to be good news for anyone in aviation or aspirations in this direction.

Too many of the old rules enshrined in the books 'cause they have always been like that rather than based on sound medical evidence.

The latter is the reason why a lot of FAA regs are different to those in JAR land.

Quote:

I'm surprised that blood tests are not done for every exam. As I understand it, incidences of minor heart attacks and the early onset of cancer for example can be evidenced by enzymes in the blood?

Sorry to burst your bubble and p*5$ on your chips, but the technology aint that good yet !:cool:

You could have a closer look at your lifestyle though.

Sorry, but I don’t see my AME as my primary healthcare provider. I don’t think he sees that as his job. He has a set of regulations in front of him, which I have to meet. Thankfully I have up to now, and he signs me off for another six months. He has even told me that it is purely a checkup of the here and now, and the warranty lasts until I close the door to his office. I know of a few cases of guys who have passed their medical and within a very short space of time are being treated for some serious problems, which were present during their medicals, but not detected.

What I have noticed these past twenty years is that, first my national regulations were a lot stiffer than regulations in many other countries (notably the USA and Canada). When the switch to JAR FCL 3 occurred the new regulations maintained this gap. From personal experience I know of two colleagues who have lost their medical certificates here in Europe and managed to regain them quite easily in Canada and the USA.

One colleague lost his because of a leaky heart valve, which to the European AME was cause to ground him. The cardiologist he was sent too, told him that if he was a “normal” citizen he would not have been in his office for another 10 to 15 years, when he would expect the associated symptoms would necessitate it. He returned to Canada and is back in the air with the restriction of an ECG every six months, and a visit to his cardiologist a maximum of 14 days before his annual medical. He flies a B737 for a low cost carrier.

The other colleague lost her medical due to her score on an EEG. On her initial EEG she scored very close to the arbitrary established limit. This resulted in a repeat of her EEG at subsequent medicals. During her ATPL course she had a medical renewal in which she slightly exceeded this limit, and was grounded. Two months later she was back below the line and continued her training. When she joined my company she became a FO on our B737 fleet. One year after joining she had to do another EEG and once again exceeded the limit. This time she lost her ticket for a minimum of 10 years, a period in which she had to be free of any seizures. She moved to the US with her boyfriend (now husband), regained her medical, and is an FO with a major US carrier (this all occurred about 12 year’s back). By the way she never had or has had an epileptic attack.

Here are just two instances where we in Europe lost good people for no other reason than our very tight limits. I think the liberalization of the medical requirements is a good thing. In the USA or Canada planes aren’t falling out of the sky because of their lower medical standards.

If I were to loose my medical I would receive a disability pension from my company equating to around 65% of my paycheck for life. I would receive a lump sum from my loss of license insurance, and I would be exempt from certain income taxes that I now pay. All this is a huge loss to the company, the government, and also to me as an individual. If it is necessary, because of a medical condition, I am happy it is there for me. But as the previous cases have pointed out (and I could keep going), very often in Europe this loss to all parties is not necessary.

Not once in the history of multi-crewed aircraft operation has an aircraft been lost due to the medical problems of one of the pilots. And we all know of a few cases where a pilot died while in his seat or in the bunk area. But the basic premise of multi-crewing is redundancy. A one pilot cockpit layout could very easily be designed into the next generation of airliners, but won’t because of this redundancy. So to me it is good that the JAA has revisited the topic of medical requirements. I am as curious as anyone else as to what the exact details will be, but I feel it is good we are moving away from the very strict regulations that were causing unnecessary harm, and not providing any additional safety benefit over say the American regulations. At least that is my view of things.

Greetings O.

Update on Long Sightedness

Got a letter from the UK CAA. The existing limit of +5.00 dioptres of long sightedness will NOT be changed. The UK CAA wanted to do the same as the FAA and remove the limits but the other JAA stats would not agree to it.

Thats all I know as I was in communication with the medical area regarding my specific case - I'm +5.50 :(

I dont know anything about the short sightedness limits being changed.

I guess the rest of the changes will come out in time.

Best of luck everyone else

thats bad!!!!!! probably they didnt change the short sighted requirements either then :{

great news indeed guys - does this mean JAR medical requirements are aligning towards the FAA requirements?

Congratulations.

As for color-blindness, be aware that after a Boeing plane crashed into the trees at Tallahassee, Florida ('black-hole' effect), this reportedly was a problem for the flying-pilot. The airplane descended until the crew lost sight of the VASI or PAPI lights! Fatigue and all-night flying was a factor. They all survived!:D

so we'd expect a fatigue test to form part of the class 1 in a couple of years :ok:

Its stilll only a start. There remain areas where JAR-FCL-3 is completely opposite to medical advice. ie Whats best for you in terms of treatment will not allow you to get your medical back.

Thank you Otterman, it is a very good news.
I would really like they change color vision tests too, those presently used are so so bad.
This study published in Aviation, space, and environmental medicine should be read by JAR-FCL3 authors... :
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation

Soeren

A step in the right direction, I'm glad to see the CAA want to drop the refractive limits.....least theres willing!

I wonder how I stand now? Pre-LASIK I was >-8D :( I am currently -0.5D (20/40 uncorrected).

Whilst I am well within limits now, I wasn't "before", wonder if the CAA would be looking to scrap the "pre-operative" limits with refractive surgeries. I see no point in them, surgery can't "fall off" like a pair of -8D glasses can!

Only thing I can see being "bad" about having >-8D preop is an increased risk of retinal detachment....

Any thoughts? (Maybe time I spoke to the CAA?)

Phil you should def to the CAA, if you meet the renewal limits (even before op) then they will consider you for a Class 1 deviation medical, so the fact that you are now 0.5 means that you will probably be ok.

Quote:

A step in the right direction, I'm glad to see the CAA want to drop the refractive limits.....least theres willing!

The CAA wanted to drop the refractive limits for long sightedness too but the other JAA states did not, hence it remains at +5.00

Believe me, the UK CAA are very thought progressive wheras the Germans and French (I beleive, not 100%) are not...maybe EASA will change that, maybe not. But at least for the next 2 years it will remain.

Happy New Year