PPRuNe Forums - Future of IMC rating?

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

- Private Flying (https://www.pprune.org/private-flying-63/)

- - Future of IMC rating? (https://www.pprune.org/private-flying/290106-future-imc-rating.html)

It does not say anywhere that a PPL must obtain a Class 1 medical to get an IR.

What ICAO does say, as I clearly quoted on my previous post is that unless a PPL holds a class 1 medical they have to comply with the class 1 hearing requirements.

Please re-read my previous post which is quite clear in this respect.

Regards,

DFC

Are you sure that it is ICAO stating that ? FAA is an ICAO licence and has no hearing test that I know of... at least I've never undergone one for my FAA ATPL... although I do undergo one for my UK License every 2 years it's not with the same medico.

I too am unable to locate an ICAO requirement for a Class I hearing test but have found a JAA reference.

The ICAO reference DFC quoted can be found IN THIS DOCUMENT, but note that it is a 2006 edition and that Instrument Rating section is 2.7 and not 2.6 as per DFC quote.

I find the audiogram a baffling experience. I sit there like a complete plonker pressing the button at the slightest rustle of the headset - hear a few almost completely inaudible tones and still manage to pass.
This is useful but not definitive.

I am miles away and unable to check out the references right now, but I simply cannot believe that the FAA Class 1, which I have myself, and which I know does not include an audiogram, is sub ICAO, that the USA has filed a difference with ICAO (as it must in such a case), and therefore all US air carriers flying the world over are doing it on non ICAO compliant licenses :ugh:

There has to be more to this.

The audiogram is indeed JAA, and it is under JAA that the "demonstrated ability" option is available (which makes a mockery of having the requirement in the first place ;) ), but the audiogram was also required for the pre-JAA CAA IR.

About a year ago, the CAA published a change (I have the URL but not with me) relaxing the initial requirements to the renewal levels. I never did check whether this was in JAA too but I guess it must be. Or maybe other JAA member states never did have the more onerous initial limits.

Any medical requirement that exists for initial but does not exist on renewal is patently bogus and one has to question the thought processes of the people that drew up the requirements.

There is a general problem with medical requirements, in that the medical department of the UK CAA, and I believe similarly with other CAAs, is quite powerful and is probably the biggest stumbling block to any changes to make the requirements more appropriate to private flight.

2.6.1.5.1 Hearing requirements are identical for Class 1 and Class 3 Certificates. However, they are not in
compliance with the ICAO Standards for Class 1 hearing requirements.

The above is the difference filed by the US regarding the requirement for Class 1 hearing.

There is also a difference filed that US ATPL holders do not meet ICAO medical standards.

If the above is true, and is current (I can't find the URL for it, and IIRC never did find online the bit of ICAO listing the differences filed by various nations) then it means that ICAO did something which the world's biggest (by far) aviation user, the USA, regarded as pointless, ignored it, and the rest of the world has had to accept that.

It doesn't really affect anybody at present but it's bad news for any improvement in Europe, because anybody wishing to get anally retentive about this can just say they have to stick to ICAO. This is going to hold back progress in important areas, and will restrict any European IR just like the present one.

Perhaps DFC would care to amaze us with correct facts for a change and actually post the URL or whole document rather than snippets that are meaningless.

Not saying he is wrong but I am unable to find anything that relates to this as a filed difference.

BoseX,

ICAO Annex 1 and the supplement is quite a big document to post here when a simple quote will do.

Why not read the post from rustle and follow the link to the document.

On the same webspace you will find the supplement which details the differences.

Regards,

DFC

I found the document, I was trying to find reference to the filed differences for FAA pilots.

Rustle's link is to Annex 1, the same site (Danish CAA which helpfully has all the ICAO docs) also has the Supplement to Annex 1, which is where all the states' differences are filed. The US differences start on page 99. Australia also has a lot of differences.

DFC's quotes are accurate but shouldn't be interpreted as anything sensational. An international aviation lawyer should explain this properly but AFAIK:

An ICAO contracting state can comply with ICAO by either incorporating Annex 1 Standards in its national legislation or by filing differences with ICAO. The filing of differences makes it compliant, under the principle that the difference is published and available for other states to see, and judge, if they wish, whether to restrict the priviliges of another state's licensees on the basis of differences filed.

Many licenses and medicals are compliant on the basis of differences - see the document. This is mainly a technicality. One meaningful impact I think this has had in recent years was that the FAA were forced to issue a SIC Type Rating because Europe threatend to stop 2 crew aircraft flying without both pilots holding a TR.

Either way, it doesn't matter for the question IO540 raises on PPL/IR audio requirements. It is an ICAO standard that these meet Class 1 Medical level; however, ICAO compliance with Class 1 Audio does not require the Audiometry test - a practical hearing test suffices for initial and renewal Class 1 medicals, see Rustle's link page 6-7.

BTW a license complying with ICAO on the basis of filed differences is not "sub-ICAO". A "sub-ICAO" license would be one that did not comply on either basis and would have a statement about it not being ICAO compliant printed on it.