ppl limits
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Up there somewhere
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can still go upside down colourblind. And you get a clearence not a rating in the UK. WHy not do a search on the "marvellous" web of wonder which is the CAA website!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: LONDON
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"There must be somebody in the know, who can give a reason why it is impossible to obtain a night qualification, and hence an IR, as a result of colour blindness."
How about the PAPI lights? If you're seriously colourblind (as I am), you're not going to have a clue whether you're on the correct glidepath or not! (unless of course there's an ILS to hand)
How about the PAPI lights? If you're seriously colourblind (as I am), you're not going to have a clue whether you're on the correct glidepath or not! (unless of course there's an ILS to hand)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PAPIs are unnecessary. One can land perfectly well using just runway lighting. The runway needs to be lit anyway for night operations.
The other thing about PAPIs is that they tend to be set up for a 3 degree "glideslope" which is very shallow for light aircraft.
The other thing about PAPIs is that they tend to be set up for a 3 degree "glideslope" which is very shallow for light aircraft.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While it may seem harsh to those that fall foul of the medical requirements, there are genuine reasons for having those requirements and they are actually linked.
For example:
People claim that the hearing requirement for the IR is unnecessary. Chuck Yeager once said "I may be deaf but isn't that what volume knobs are for?" Thus I can sympathise with them when talking about single pilot operations. The medics however claim that the hearing test is not simply a measure of current ability - it allows for reductions before the next test.
As for the colour blindness issue:
IO540 is correct to state that a light at night on a collision course will be steady. That makes it difficult to see. More important then that the pilot seeing that light can differentiate it from the stars or ground lights that may also be seen. Furthermore there is a big difference between what the law requires us to do when we spot a green light converging on us to what we must do when a red light is converging on us.
It must also be remembered that being in IMC has nothing to do with being a) in cloud or b) in reduced visibility. It possible to be in IMC and see an aircraft 10nm away. The rules of see and avoid apply always. However, logic dictates that if you can not or did not see the other aircraft then one could not see or avoid it. There can be reasons other than IMC which make detection of the other aircraft difficult or even impossible - military no lights flights at night - operating at such a speed in the visibility/ airspace that gives insuficient time to etect and avoid other aircraft. The minimum vision requirements including colour perception for those that want to fly at night is only part of the system.
The IR gives pilots the privilege of being able to fly at night without having completed any night take-off or landings within the past 90 days. Thus it is simply logical that the applicant should have demonstrated the ability to fly at night i.e. PPLs need to hold a night qualification and CPLs don't because they had to complete night training to get the CPL.
I wonder how many people are told that they can not be an electrician because they are colour blind? What do they do? Do they try to get the wiring systems changed?
Regards,
DFC
For example:
People claim that the hearing requirement for the IR is unnecessary. Chuck Yeager once said "I may be deaf but isn't that what volume knobs are for?" Thus I can sympathise with them when talking about single pilot operations. The medics however claim that the hearing test is not simply a measure of current ability - it allows for reductions before the next test.
As for the colour blindness issue:
IO540 is correct to state that a light at night on a collision course will be steady. That makes it difficult to see. More important then that the pilot seeing that light can differentiate it from the stars or ground lights that may also be seen. Furthermore there is a big difference between what the law requires us to do when we spot a green light converging on us to what we must do when a red light is converging on us.
It must also be remembered that being in IMC has nothing to do with being a) in cloud or b) in reduced visibility. It possible to be in IMC and see an aircraft 10nm away. The rules of see and avoid apply always. However, logic dictates that if you can not or did not see the other aircraft then one could not see or avoid it. There can be reasons other than IMC which make detection of the other aircraft difficult or even impossible - military no lights flights at night - operating at such a speed in the visibility/ airspace that gives insuficient time to etect and avoid other aircraft. The minimum vision requirements including colour perception for those that want to fly at night is only part of the system.
The IR gives pilots the privilege of being able to fly at night without having completed any night take-off or landings within the past 90 days. Thus it is simply logical that the applicant should have demonstrated the ability to fly at night i.e. PPLs need to hold a night qualification and CPLs don't because they had to complete night training to get the CPL.
I wonder how many people are told that they can not be an electrician because they are colour blind? What do they do? Do they try to get the wiring systems changed?
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: TUOP
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would think most people are comfortable with the idea that appropriate colour vision is necessary in order to be PIC at night.
The question is why are those who are CVD precluded from obtaining a night qualification or IR?
There is absolutely no need to prevent anyone from obtaining these qualifications. A simple requirement on the medical certificate for a safety pilot to be on board at night would seem to resolve the safety issue.
It is another example of mindless proscription.
The question is why are those who are CVD precluded from obtaining a night qualification or IR?
There is absolutely no need to prevent anyone from obtaining these qualifications. A simple requirement on the medical certificate for a safety pilot to be on board at night would seem to resolve the safety issue.
It is another example of mindless proscription.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
You need to look at the detail of the JAA audiogram requirement.
The site at
http://www.jaa.nl/jars_npas/jarsec1.html
doesn't seem to work for the individual documents, so I am writing this from memory. The doc is JAR-FCL3.
The initial limits are -20db max loss at each of the several specified frequencies. So, you could have one perfect ear, and one which is -21db. No IR.
The renewal limits are -35db (IIRC) max loss. So, you could have one perfect ear, and one which is -36db. No IR.
It is quite common for deafness to be in just one ear, and it doesn't affect flying communications. They may as well have a spec on the size of one's toes, to operate the brake pedals.
Moreover, an ATP can get a renewal at
-34db R
-34db L
and at anywhere near that level he would be completely unable to have any kind of social conversation. That's comparable to the attenuation of very good expanding foam earplugs. A lot of headsets cannot take the power required to compensate.
It's obvious why the renewal limits were set so lax: many old jet pilots are very deaf indeed. They get away with it because when you are flying JFK-LHR every day, you know what will be said well ahead, and the workload is minimal anyway.
In any event, in something like this there should be a "demonstrated capability" route.
Just another example of the "let's find a way to keep this just for the elite" philosophy. It should be "let's let people fly unless they have a handicap which makes them unsafe".
Needless to say, all of the above cases meet ICAO commercial license requirements, and I dare say many 747 pilots flying into Heathrow would fail the JAA renewal audiogram, never mind the initial.
It's just a joke.
Hmmm, sure about the above? Any PPL with a NQ can do that. It's pretty hard to fly without a takeoff and a landing.
Stars can be coloured too, though it takes exceptional eyesight to see the colours clearly. Just as it takes exceptional eyesight to detect the colour of an aircraft light until it is pretty close. And a ground light which is say 30nm away will appear steady for a long time too. The need to see colours at night, for an IR, doesn't wash. And if it did, one could have an IR restricted to day only - what's wrong with that?
An electrician always works in VMC. A stupid example, anyway.
People claim that the hearing requirement for the IR is unnecessary. Chuck Yeager once said "I may be deaf but isn't that what volume knobs are for?" Thus I can sympathise with them when talking about single pilot operations. The medics however claim that the hearing test is not simply a measure of current ability - it allows for reductions before the next test.
The site at
http://www.jaa.nl/jars_npas/jarsec1.html
doesn't seem to work for the individual documents, so I am writing this from memory. The doc is JAR-FCL3.
The initial limits are -20db max loss at each of the several specified frequencies. So, you could have one perfect ear, and one which is -21db. No IR.
The renewal limits are -35db (IIRC) max loss. So, you could have one perfect ear, and one which is -36db. No IR.
It is quite common for deafness to be in just one ear, and it doesn't affect flying communications. They may as well have a spec on the size of one's toes, to operate the brake pedals.
Moreover, an ATP can get a renewal at
-34db R
-34db L
and at anywhere near that level he would be completely unable to have any kind of social conversation. That's comparable to the attenuation of very good expanding foam earplugs. A lot of headsets cannot take the power required to compensate.
It's obvious why the renewal limits were set so lax: many old jet pilots are very deaf indeed. They get away with it because when you are flying JFK-LHR every day, you know what will be said well ahead, and the workload is minimal anyway.
In any event, in something like this there should be a "demonstrated capability" route.
Just another example of the "let's find a way to keep this just for the elite" philosophy. It should be "let's let people fly unless they have a handicap which makes them unsafe".
Needless to say, all of the above cases meet ICAO commercial license requirements, and I dare say many 747 pilots flying into Heathrow would fail the JAA renewal audiogram, never mind the initial.
It's just a joke.
The IR gives pilots the privilege of being able to fly at night without having completed any night take-off or landings within the past 90 days.
That makes it difficult to see. More important then that the pilot seeing that light can differentiate it from the stars or ground lights that may also be seen.
I wonder how many people are told that they can not be an electrician because they are colour blind? What do they do? Do they try to get the wiring systems changed?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote
In any event, in something like this there should be a "demonstrated capability" route.
Quote
The renewal limits are -35db (IIRC) max loss. So, you could have one perfect ear, and one which is -36db. No IR.
This is what the CAA website says
It will be seen that there is a higher hearing threshold for the initial JAR Class 1 examination than for renewal or revalidation. Initial Class 1 applicants who fail to meet the initial hearing standards, but who reach the renewal/revalidation standards, should contact the UK CAA Medical Division to discuss their options.
There is usually some loss of hearing as a pilot’s career progresses (often due to noise induced hearing loss). If the audiogram figures reach a level 5 dB less than the renewal figures above, then an annual audiogram is required. However the hearing of experienced pilots at re-certification can be worse than the levels above, as JAR-FCL 3 Appendix 16 to Subparts B and C, paragraph 2 (b) states that: ‘If satisfactory hearing in a noise field corresponding to normal flight deck working conditions during all phases of flight can be demonstrated, recertification may be considered by the AMS (Aeromedical Section)’. This will usually take the form of a flight (real or simulated) with a training captain or instructor who reports that all tasks involving hearing were performed satisfactorily.
In any event, in something like this there should be a "demonstrated capability" route.
Quote
The renewal limits are -35db (IIRC) max loss. So, you could have one perfect ear, and one which is -36db. No IR.
This is what the CAA website says
It will be seen that there is a higher hearing threshold for the initial JAR Class 1 examination than for renewal or revalidation. Initial Class 1 applicants who fail to meet the initial hearing standards, but who reach the renewal/revalidation standards, should contact the UK CAA Medical Division to discuss their options.
There is usually some loss of hearing as a pilot’s career progresses (often due to noise induced hearing loss). If the audiogram figures reach a level 5 dB less than the renewal figures above, then an annual audiogram is required. However the hearing of experienced pilots at re-certification can be worse than the levels above, as JAR-FCL 3 Appendix 16 to Subparts B and C, paragraph 2 (b) states that: ‘If satisfactory hearing in a noise field corresponding to normal flight deck working conditions during all phases of flight can be demonstrated, recertification may be considered by the AMS (Aeromedical Section)’. This will usually take the form of a flight (real or simulated) with a training captain or instructor who reports that all tasks involving hearing were performed satisfactorily.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If satisfactory hearing in a noise field corresponding to normal flight deck working conditions during all phases of flight can be demonstrated, recertification may be considered by the AMS (Aeromedical Section)’. This will usually take the form of a flight (real or simulated) with a training captain or instructor who reports that all tasks involving hearing were performed satisfactorily.
The reality (which I happen to be familiar with) is that the CAA will not give you an IR if one ear is outside the renewal limits, even when it's obvious that the pilot would easily meet the requirements in my quoted section above.
This is CAA+JAA gold-plating. ICAO doesn't require this.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540,
You are correct it should have said "with passengers". However, the idea is that the CPL and the IR confer night flight privileges and thus it is only natural that night training and the medical requirements for night flight are met in those cases.
Yes, the CAA could issue someone who is deaf and colour blind with a PPL-IR limited to flight with a hearing current IR rated pilot by day in UK airspace only. How many would want that?
If exemptions are issued to cover every this and that then we would need an exemption authority reporting to the CAA. Unfortunately the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Having had a think about the IMC rating, I actually find it unusual that the IMC rating can be issued without a requirement for the applicant to hold a night qualification.
What are UK ATC supposed to do with a holding stack at sunset? Start asking all the holding aircraft if they can continue to hold after sunset+30?.........and the one at the top says - I've only got an IMC rating, I need to land!
Then all the IR holders say "I've got an IMC rating too let me lad first"
Regards,
DFC
You are correct it should have said "with passengers". However, the idea is that the CPL and the IR confer night flight privileges and thus it is only natural that night training and the medical requirements for night flight are met in those cases.
Yes, the CAA could issue someone who is deaf and colour blind with a PPL-IR limited to flight with a hearing current IR rated pilot by day in UK airspace only. How many would want that?
If exemptions are issued to cover every this and that then we would need an exemption authority reporting to the CAA. Unfortunately the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Having had a think about the IMC rating, I actually find it unusual that the IMC rating can be issued without a requirement for the applicant to hold a night qualification.
What are UK ATC supposed to do with a holding stack at sunset? Start asking all the holding aircraft if they can continue to hold after sunset+30?.........and the one at the top says - I've only got an IMC rating, I need to land!
Then all the IR holders say "I've got an IMC rating too let me lad first"
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come off it DFC. Read what somebody wrote, and don't behave like an idiot. Nobody suggests flying IFR if DEAF!!!!
The IMCR IFR privilegss are UK only and outside Class A, so being asked to hold in a "stack" is pretty damn unlikely.
There is also no problem flying and landing an aircraft at night even if completely colour-blind.
The IMCR IFR privilegss are UK only and outside Class A, so being asked to hold in a "stack" is pretty damn unlikely.
There is also no problem flying and landing an aircraft at night even if completely colour-blind.
Last edited by IO540; 1st Dec 2005 at 14:26.
