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" ?

Thank you for that, which is as succinct a summary of our role as AME's as I have seen in a very long time ! It's quite true that this is NOT the same as assessing or prolonging longevity.

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

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 ! :=

May be that you have a better class of passenger than me!!!