Future of IMC rating?
Upto The Buffers
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Leeds/Bradford
Age: 48
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is NOTHING to prevent you from doing a JAA IR even with a CP4 colour unsafe medical restriction. This has been done to death on the medical forums. I have an unrestricted class 1 FAA medical by the way...
You do the night rating, all dual. You do the CPL, you do the IR. Yet you still can't fly at night. Fly in zero viz, just not when it's dark. How pathetic. If it was such a big deal, all those FAA ATPL's wouldn't be able to fly 747's in and out of the UK on a daily basis now would they...
You do the night rating, all dual. You do the CPL, you do the IR. Yet you still can't fly at night. Fly in zero viz, just not when it's dark. How pathetic. If it was such a big deal, all those FAA ATPL's wouldn't be able to fly 747's in and out of the UK on a daily basis now would they...
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose,
I'm not going to argue with you over the diversions. I do find it very strange that a pilot with an IR would find it difficult to perform a diversion during their flight. I also find it very strange that they can't be trusted to not to get themselves into a position where they may need to divert, but have no options for the diversion.
Howver, you are correct that I know next to nothing about IFR flight, and if you that that is the case, then so be it.
But I must pull you up on one thing. You say to StevieB
As I understand it colour blindness affects one in every ten males. It would seem as if Stevies condition is far from unique, and must be quite common among the male dominated pilot population. Perhaps it's not part of your struggle to make the IR more accessable (which I do very much appreciate, and hope to be able to benefit from) but it does seem as if this will be an issue for quite a lot of pilots wanting to do the IR.
Whether it can be justified or not on safety grounds, I'm not qualified to say, but it would seem like it's going to be an issue for a lot of people. Stevie I suspect it just the tip of the iceburg.
Then there is the hearing issue too......
dp
I'm not going to argue with you over the diversions. I do find it very strange that a pilot with an IR would find it difficult to perform a diversion during their flight. I also find it very strange that they can't be trusted to not to get themselves into a position where they may need to divert, but have no options for the diversion.
Howver, you are correct that I know next to nothing about IFR flight, and if you that that is the case, then so be it.
But I must pull you up on one thing. You say to StevieB
And I am sorry that you have a what is fairly unique condition
Whether it can be justified or not on safety grounds, I'm not qualified to say, but it would seem like it's going to be an issue for a lot of people. Stevie I suspect it just the tip of the iceburg.
Then there is the hearing issue too......
dp
Upto The Buffers
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Leeds/Bradford
Age: 48
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, it can't be justified - not with the present testing regime.
http://www.city.ac.uk/avrc/members/j...lour_study.pdf
As pointed out, substantial numbers of people with PERFECT colour vision fail the bull**** tests JAA employ. The key word is RELEVANCE. The FAA employ RELEVANT means testing, and how many accidents involving FAA pilots who would have failed JAA tests are related to colour vision? NONE.
http://www.city.ac.uk/avrc/members/j...lour_study.pdf
As pointed out, substantial numbers of people with PERFECT colour vision fail the bull**** tests JAA employ. The key word is RELEVANCE. The FAA employ RELEVANT means testing, and how many accidents involving FAA pilots who would have failed JAA tests are related to colour vision? NONE.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apolgies for the thread drift.
Shunter, I spoke to the CAA a fortnight or so ago. They said I could do the CPL by taking the mandatory night flying section during the day. Fair enough.
However, their stance on the IR was that I couldn't do it because I couldn't get the night rating. I suggested what you just said, attaining the night qualification dual, but they said that they would not put a rating on my licence that I'm medically unable to exercise.
That at least was their scripted response. My request is now with their specialist FCL person, who's away on leave. Who know's, maybe I'll get an answer this month!
Dublin, you're correct and it is I believe 1 in 10 males. I know people who've got round the CAA, so there is a precedent of some sort for me.
Again, thanks for your input guys.
Shunter, I spoke to the CAA a fortnight or so ago. They said I could do the CPL by taking the mandatory night flying section during the day. Fair enough.
However, their stance on the IR was that I couldn't do it because I couldn't get the night rating. I suggested what you just said, attaining the night qualification dual, but they said that they would not put a rating on my licence that I'm medically unable to exercise.
That at least was their scripted response. My request is now with their specialist FCL person, who's away on leave. Who know's, maybe I'll get an answer this month!
Dublin, you're correct and it is I believe 1 in 10 males. I know people who've got round the CAA, so there is a precedent of some sort for me.
Again, thanks for your input guys.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow SteveiB you really do seem to have taken issue with me!!!! Sinking to insulting me just makes you the bellend as you subtly put it.
I am flattered that you have the time to talk to all of my IR Instructors. but please say Hi to them for me. I have never claimed to be a veteran at anything however in the last couple of years I have done one or two hours under IFR..............
Like I said just because you don't like what I say about the rules surrounding your condition does not make it any more likely they will get changed and abusing me won't make it any different. However if it makes you feel better or you get off on it, then who am I to deny you a bit of dirty pleasure...
The airlines have a major voice when it comes to the rule making and they do not want to see anyone they view as sub standard sharing the airspace. For the record I think it is wrong but is the way it is. So if you feel so strongly about it put all that hostility you are aiming at me to use and actually try and make some changes yourself. If nothing else it will give you an appreciation of what we are dealing with.
I am flattered that you have the time to talk to all of my IR Instructors. but please say Hi to them for me. I have never claimed to be a veteran at anything however in the last couple of years I have done one or two hours under IFR..............
Like I said just because you don't like what I say about the rules surrounding your condition does not make it any more likely they will get changed and abusing me won't make it any different. However if it makes you feel better or you get off on it, then who am I to deny you a bit of dirty pleasure...
The airlines have a major voice when it comes to the rule making and they do not want to see anyone they view as sub standard sharing the airspace. For the record I think it is wrong but is the way it is. So if you feel so strongly about it put all that hostility you are aiming at me to use and actually try and make some changes yourself. If nothing else it will give you an appreciation of what we are dealing with.
Upto The Buffers
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Leeds/Bradford
Age: 48
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stevie - I suggest you read the colour vision threads on the medical forum. It's perfectly acceptable to do a JAA CPL/IR with a CP4 medical restriction. Many people already have.
You do the night flying at night, just with the solo stuff as P1/S. So you've got the night rating, you just can't exercise it as PIC. Once you get the CPL/IR you are restricted to day only, and no public transport. I've spoken to a number of barristers who specialise in discrimination cases, and 2 of them even offered to take the case on a pro-bono basis!! That's how weak the JAA case is!
There are LOADS of people in the same boat, including a very experienced CFI I know. He's a JAA CPL/IR examiner, with thousands of hours. Whoever told you that is full of ****. If you want the fact, speak to Adrian Chorley at Gatwick, he knows the rules. It's a shame whoever you spoke to doesn't.
You do the night flying at night, just with the solo stuff as P1/S. So you've got the night rating, you just can't exercise it as PIC. Once you get the CPL/IR you are restricted to day only, and no public transport. I've spoken to a number of barristers who specialise in discrimination cases, and 2 of them even offered to take the case on a pro-bono basis!! That's how weak the JAA case is!
There are LOADS of people in the same boat, including a very experienced CFI I know. He's a JAA CPL/IR examiner, with thousands of hours. Whoever told you that is full of ****. If you want the fact, speak to Adrian Chorley at Gatwick, he knows the rules. It's a shame whoever you spoke to doesn't.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shunter - I've read them all. Before I commit a lot of money to training, clearly I need something rock solid from the CAA. Hopefully I'll get that soon.
Bose - nice comeback sweetcheeks. And it's not hostility, you have actually entertained me. I hope you allowed yourself a little chuckle when I was insulting you. No hard feelings eh big guy?
Keep up the good work.
Bose - nice comeback sweetcheeks. And it's not hostility, you have actually entertained me. I hope you allowed yourself a little chuckle when I was insulting you. No hard feelings eh big guy?
Keep up the good work.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If nothing else it will give you an appreciation of what we are dealing with.
Evidence, evidence, evidence.
I know very little about colour blindness, but if there is sufficient evidence it should not be an excluding condition present the evidence,
the airline representative may argue the IMC is a sub standard qualification - lets see the evidence to support or counter their argument. If it is poorly taught, embarrassingly it befalls the CAA to enforce standards - if they have failed to do so they are complicit.
DFC makes a sound point.
The biggest problem is that AOPA is ineffective. They do not represent the majority of pilots in the UK or in Europe and in consequence they are unable to "employ" representatives with the experience or quality to take on the establishment.
I appreciate it is a catch twenty in that if pilots don’t join AOPA the situation is not going to change. Equally if AOAP continue to do such a poor job of representing what they are about (see my earlier post) is it surprising so few pilots join?
Anyone interested should compare and contrast AOPA this side of the pond with their counter part in America. So far as I am aware AOPA US have not lost a single issue they have pursued. They are considered to be a powerful and effective lobbying body of whom the politicians take considerable heed.
On this issue, as but one example, if AOPA brought a legal challenge against EASA that they were acting illegally by not accrediting pilots with an FAA IR with instrument privileges then I suspect they would win.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji, You are wrong, but I think the only way you are going to ever understand is to volunteer. We always have space on the working group and in fact we need a volunteer to assist with the mentoring scheme. How about giving up some time and energy to become involved.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 2nm due S EGLK
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All, I did not intent to turn this thread into a colour blindness thread, but I'm glad that a frank and open debate has ensued.
I recently went to City University to have the colour vision testing done and to take part in their CAA sponsored study into the possibility of changing the colour vision requirements.
Interestingly, I was a total mess at all the "CAA/FAA/JAA approved tests", but when they gave me the practical tests, I was much much better. In fact, the head of department came to speak to me and asked me to describe some magazine covers selected at random from his book shelf. He then claimed that, given the clinical results, he was amazed how well I had done with the magazines and said I was "remarkably well adjusted" to coping with my condition. Apparently, I (and other CVDs) use other clues/cues to discern colours (such as intensity, common sense, etc.)
Anyway... the point was that they then administered a new test which I believe to be in some way linked with the possible proposal to change the CAA testing procedure. This test used just red and white lights (or maybe red and green... it's the white/green difference I struggle with), and I did perfectly well on it.
Plus, I've never jumped a traffic light in my life. (Well, not due to misinterpretting them, anyway!
)
I'm very interested to hear this discussion of doing CPL/IR courses that are restricted to day only. But having said that, I have no interest in flying in class A airspace or in Europe, so for me the IMC is perfect. It would be a shame to have it taken away and replaced with an IR (of any form) which is more onerous to acquire (than the IMC) but which offers me no personal benefit for the kind of flying I do. It would be even more annoying if that left me with no choices because of the draconian colour vision requirements.
Tell me this... how many nav lights am I expected to spot when I'm bimbling around inside a cloud? And how much of my cockpit to I completely fail to understand because of my colour vision?
I know very little about colour blindness, but if there is sufficient evidence it should not be an excluding condition present the evidence,
Interestingly, I was a total mess at all the "CAA/FAA/JAA approved tests", but when they gave me the practical tests, I was much much better. In fact, the head of department came to speak to me and asked me to describe some magazine covers selected at random from his book shelf. He then claimed that, given the clinical results, he was amazed how well I had done with the magazines and said I was "remarkably well adjusted" to coping with my condition. Apparently, I (and other CVDs) use other clues/cues to discern colours (such as intensity, common sense, etc.)
Anyway... the point was that they then administered a new test which I believe to be in some way linked with the possible proposal to change the CAA testing procedure. This test used just red and white lights (or maybe red and green... it's the white/green difference I struggle with), and I did perfectly well on it.
Plus, I've never jumped a traffic light in my life. (Well, not due to misinterpretting them, anyway!
)I'm very interested to hear this discussion of doing CPL/IR courses that are restricted to day only. But having said that, I have no interest in flying in class A airspace or in Europe, so for me the IMC is perfect. It would be a shame to have it taken away and replaced with an IR (of any form) which is more onerous to acquire (than the IMC) but which offers me no personal benefit for the kind of flying I do. It would be even more annoying if that left me with no choices because of the draconian colour vision requirements.
Tell me this... how many nav lights am I expected to spot when I'm bimbling around inside a cloud? And how much of my cockpit to I completely fail to understand because of my colour vision?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Gods Chosen Country
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IR Colour Vision
As in the previous posts I hope that sense prevails on CVD and night flying with an IR. I too have problems between white and green when doing a lantern test and hence have the daytime only restriction on my CAA PPL.
There is no restriction on my FAA PPL which includes a night rating and IR because in the testing it has not been found to be relevant. However I know from experience that, for me, it is difficult to spot an airfield at distance by the green flashing beacon, when it is located amongst thousands of other lights in or near a city.
The only reason I can see that affecting an instrument flight is if the pilot should choose, or maybe be forced by equipment failure, to change during the flight from IFR to VFR. Making a visual approach under IFR is only done when the airfield is in sight anyway.
I would not want to invest time and money in an IR with a daytime restriction either.
There is no restriction on my FAA PPL which includes a night rating and IR because in the testing it has not been found to be relevant. However I know from experience that, for me, it is difficult to spot an airfield at distance by the green flashing beacon, when it is located amongst thousands of other lights in or near a city.
The only reason I can see that affecting an instrument flight is if the pilot should choose, or maybe be forced by equipment failure, to change during the flight from IFR to VFR. Making a visual approach under IFR is only done when the airfield is in sight anyway.
I would not want to invest time and money in an IR with a daytime restriction either.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An IRI who can't update eta's enroute, and then has to divert to the alternate they have where unexpectidely (despite being in the air for 5 hours) the weather is below the required minima........and to top it all off, does not have any enroute alternates!
Perhaps BoseX, this highlights that any IMC/IR changes are also going to have to be part of a full review of how little experience or practical ability some people have when the CAA gives them the ability to teach applied instruments.
------
I have never laughed to much. Did you talk to them on April 1st.
Cant believe that you did not question them about the requirement to wear sunglasses to make it darker
------------
Shunter,
I did specifically not mention PAPI or VASI. Read the later comments regarding coping mechanisms and contrast. You do remember from which side the PAPIs start going from white to red don't you?
What I spoke about was red green and white lights in close proximity with little contrast and no way of easily deciding which is which based on position (like one does with traffic lights) with high workload, and poor visibility.
Any restricted IR would require agreement from the other JAA states - not likely and would also have a weather minima restriction similar to the IMC as well as day only. Being sub-ICAO it would probably be restricted to UK airspace only.
Now let me think.....instrument flying privileges with a requirement for 1800m visibility at take-off and landing, higher minima factors, limited to day only and the UK only........
Do you want to pay for a full IR course just so that you can fly IFR in class A airways during the day in the UK?
Regards,
DFC
Perhaps BoseX, this highlights that any IMC/IR changes are also going to have to be part of a full review of how little experience or practical ability some people have when the CAA gives them the ability to teach applied instruments.
------
Originally Posted by stevieb1
They said I could do the CPL by taking the mandatory night flying section during the day.
Cant believe that you did not question them about the requirement to wear sunglasses to make it darker
------------
Shunter,
I did specifically not mention PAPI or VASI. Read the later comments regarding coping mechanisms and contrast. You do remember from which side the PAPIs start going from white to red don't you?
What I spoke about was red green and white lights in close proximity with little contrast and no way of easily deciding which is which based on position (like one does with traffic lights) with high workload, and poor visibility.
Any restricted IR would require agreement from the other JAA states - not likely and would also have a weather minima restriction similar to the IMC as well as day only. Being sub-ICAO it would probably be restricted to UK airspace only.
Now let me think.....instrument flying privileges with a requirement for 1800m visibility at take-off and landing, higher minima factors, limited to day only and the UK only........
Do you want to pay for a full IR course just so that you can fly IFR in class A airways during the day in the UK?
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Heart of Darkness
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just happened to drift into the Private threads out of curiosity.. Was disappointed to note that the IMC rating was in danger of being scrapped...
I found the extra freedom that it allowed me together with the boost in confidence that came as I became more familiar with (gentle) IMC was invaluable... not everyone would feel justified in lashing out the funds necessary for the full IR.. especially those who are limited to non ice protected a/c... and in my case I know that those hours climbing to get 'on-top' and safely back down again were real value for money when the time came to do the IR ... even for those not planning to lose sight of the ground it can prove a very useful tool... I remember just how suprised I was on those early cross-channel trips on fine days to find that the sea haze had blended the blue sky and blue sea together so effectively that my AH/VSI and Alt had suddenly become my dearest friends.. Obviously one can practise these skills with an instructor without any requirement to sit an exam but the proceedure regularises the training and the standards. It's a fine balance between confidence and overconfidence... I always felt that the IMC rating was a well placed stepping stone.
I found the extra freedom that it allowed me together with the boost in confidence that came as I became more familiar with (gentle) IMC was invaluable... not everyone would feel justified in lashing out the funds necessary for the full IR.. especially those who are limited to non ice protected a/c... and in my case I know that those hours climbing to get 'on-top' and safely back down again were real value for money when the time came to do the IR ... even for those not planning to lose sight of the ground it can prove a very useful tool... I remember just how suprised I was on those early cross-channel trips on fine days to find that the sea haze had blended the blue sky and blue sea together so effectively that my AH/VSI and Alt had suddenly become my dearest friends.. Obviously one can practise these skills with an instructor without any requirement to sit an exam but the proceedure regularises the training and the standards. It's a fine balance between confidence and overconfidence... I always felt that the IMC rating was a well placed stepping stone.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC, Of course you are right, I stand corrected in the light of your infinite wisdom. As is proven time and time again on here you are never wrong.............. 
Now that I have the benefit of your wisdom I shall at once observe your guidance. How frequent do you think my enroute alternates should be, every 10 miles to be on the safe side or something more frequent? Shall I have a ferry tank fitted just to make sure I have appropriate reserves.
In fact if you don't mind a little bit of online IR training would clearly benefit me. I realise that being an active IR flyer yourself I will benefit from a mountain of wisdom.
Now that I have the benefit of your wisdom I shall at once observe your guidance. How frequent do you think my enroute alternates should be, every 10 miles to be on the safe side or something more frequent? Shall I have a ferry tank fitted just to make sure I have appropriate reserves.
In fact if you don't mind a little bit of online IR training would clearly benefit me. I realise that being an active IR flyer yourself I will benefit from a mountain of wisdom.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BoseX,
You are in Europe, flying with a 30Kt headwind component on an IFR flight with appropriate reserves and destination aternate fuel.
Do you really believe that with 2 or 3 hours to go to the destination, you can not find an enroute alternate where the weather is suitable.
With all that endurance on board why would you need any more.
Please take some time to think about what you are saying and imagine what you would say to a student who said the same!
Regards,
DFC
You are in Europe, flying with a 30Kt headwind component on an IFR flight with appropriate reserves and destination aternate fuel.
Do you really believe that with 2 or 3 hours to go to the destination, you can not find an enroute alternate where the weather is suitable.
With all that endurance on board why would you need any more.
Please take some time to think about what you are saying and imagine what you would say to a student who said the same!
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am on holes so won't comment much - just a few things.
The colour vision requirement is an old thing, passed down from generation to generation of grey haired aviation regulators, without anybody really questioning it. Then Pape came along and more or less demolished it. It's largely bogus.
The hearing (audiogram) requirement for the JAA IR is even more bogus. It isn't an ICAO requirement (no FAA ATP has got one, for example) and while the locals here like to pretend their hands were tied by ICAO, this is a disgraceful misrepresentation. ICAO merely recommends that an IR holder meets the same hearing requirements as a commercial pilot, but does not state what those should be. The morally and intellectually superior Europeans gold plated the ATP hearing requirements with the audiogram and then then pretended that ICAO forced them to do the same for the IR. This one is completely bogus.
The stupidity of these requirements is underlined by the fact that on renewal medicals, JAA offers a demonstrated capability route. This is of course necessary to prevent thousands of old and highly experienced ATPs losing their jobs - something which would be politically unacceptable. Many of these are too deaf to hold a social conversation (without a hearing aid) but are fine when flying.
Anybody allowing standard X on a renewal but requiring standard Y on initial is standing on totally bogus ground. Airline pilos are all flying on renewals
These requirements DO stop many private pilots acquiring the IR - because most pilots with the funds to fly IFR/airways are not 21 year old unemployed ATPL candidates. Most are older professional/business people and as one gets older one's hearing doesn't get better. It's easy to fail the audiogram yet have a perfect hearing while flying.
It's also easy to fail the CV test yet see all the colours required in flying. Lots of ATP candidates have been doing their initial medicals in places like Hungary...
Bose-x would be right if he said that ramming reduced medical requirements down the throats of the present regulators is politically very hard. But to say it is right to leave them as they are is just maintaining the present elitist approach, designed to separate men from sheep for no particular purpose.
The colour vision requirement is an old thing, passed down from generation to generation of grey haired aviation regulators, without anybody really questioning it. Then Pape came along and more or less demolished it. It's largely bogus.
The hearing (audiogram) requirement for the JAA IR is even more bogus. It isn't an ICAO requirement (no FAA ATP has got one, for example) and while the locals here like to pretend their hands were tied by ICAO, this is a disgraceful misrepresentation. ICAO merely recommends that an IR holder meets the same hearing requirements as a commercial pilot, but does not state what those should be. The morally and intellectually superior Europeans gold plated the ATP hearing requirements with the audiogram and then then pretended that ICAO forced them to do the same for the IR. This one is completely bogus.
The stupidity of these requirements is underlined by the fact that on renewal medicals, JAA offers a demonstrated capability route. This is of course necessary to prevent thousands of old and highly experienced ATPs losing their jobs - something which would be politically unacceptable. Many of these are too deaf to hold a social conversation (without a hearing aid) but are fine when flying.
Anybody allowing standard X on a renewal but requiring standard Y on initial is standing on totally bogus ground. Airline pilos are all flying on renewals
These requirements DO stop many private pilots acquiring the IR - because most pilots with the funds to fly IFR/airways are not 21 year old unemployed ATPL candidates. Most are older professional/business people and as one gets older one's hearing doesn't get better. It's easy to fail the audiogram yet have a perfect hearing while flying.
It's also easy to fail the CV test yet see all the colours required in flying. Lots of ATP candidates have been doing their initial medicals in places like Hungary...
Bose-x would be right if he said that ramming reduced medical requirements down the throats of the present regulators is politically very hard. But to say it is right to leave them as they are is just maintaining the present elitist approach, designed to separate men from sheep for no particular purpose.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540,
Re hearing requirements you describe as bogus;
ICAO Annex 1;
2.6 Instrument rating — Aeroplane
2.6.1.5.1 Applicants who hold a private pilot licence shall
have established their hearing acuity on the basis of compliance
with the hearing requirements for the issue of a Class 1
Medical Assessment.
6.2.5.2 Applicants for Class 1 Medical Assessments shall
be tested by pure-tone audiometry at first issue of the
Assessment, not less than once every five years up to the age
of 40 years, and thereafter not less than once every two years.
6.3.4 Hearing requirements
6.3.4.1 The applicant, when tested on a pure-tone
audiometer, shall not have a hearing loss, in either ear
separately, of more than 35 dB at any of the frequencies 500,
1 000 or 2 000 Hz, or more than 50 dB at 3 000 Hz.
Seems quite clear to me.
If you insist that just because the USA permits pilots to fly when they do not meet the ICAO requirements everyone should do so then please search further afield and you will find a country where there is no licensing requirements at all and then you can insist that EASA use that as a model.
Regards,
DFC
Re hearing requirements you describe as bogus;
ICAO Annex 1;
2.6 Instrument rating — Aeroplane
2.6.1.5.1 Applicants who hold a private pilot licence shall
have established their hearing acuity on the basis of compliance
with the hearing requirements for the issue of a Class 1
Medical Assessment.
6.2.5.2 Applicants for Class 1 Medical Assessments shall
be tested by pure-tone audiometry at first issue of the
Assessment, not less than once every five years up to the age
of 40 years, and thereafter not less than once every two years.
6.3.4 Hearing requirements
6.3.4.1 The applicant, when tested on a pure-tone
audiometer, shall not have a hearing loss, in either ear
separately, of more than 35 dB at any of the frequencies 500,
1 000 or 2 000 Hz, or more than 50 dB at 3 000 Hz.
Seems quite clear to me.
If you insist that just because the USA permits pilots to fly when they do not meet the ICAO requirements everyone should do so then please search further afield and you will find a country where there is no licensing requirements at all and then you can insist that EASA use that as a model.
Regards,
DFC