new regulations on tattoos
 

Hi all.
Has anybody heard anything about a a new regulation not allowing tattoed people to obtain an ATPL?
At least this is what a friend was told when he went to get a class 2 medical.
The doctor denied to let him go through the tests.

Sounds like a wind-up to me. Besides, a Class 2 medical is for private pilots.

Ask on the Medical forum; more likely to get a straight answer than on a training forum.

Cheers

Whirls

Well sounds like the Doc. didt like a Hell Angels biker to be a pilot :ok:
I have 2 Tattoos and allso have a medical class 1 and iam going on the ATPL in 11. Jan
But my Tattoos can be cover up by a short sleeve shirt,

I have this dream of getting a tattoo on my neck, so I guess it will be a dream:{:{

Unless they strip you during the medical and search absolutely everywhere and every bit of skin, how on earth is anyone going to find out? The mind boggles!!!

No tattoos! You 've been done.
Hook , Line and Inker.

CR

Huh. We're nearing end of April. 01/04 is gone. Did you seriously believe that?

I suggest your friend (if he actually was being wrong but sincerely believing so) finds new doctor. Or even better, do the Class 1 first thing if he's after CPL/ATPL in the end. He should know by now if he's ever been to PPRuNe..

True, some airlines may have negative stance towards tattoos visible when wearing uniform. Search for tattoo thread that's been live recently.

If not all of them.
Old miss Molly will not feel safe if the pilot have ink all over.

but if you can hide them its privat, and your own business



Thinking about geting a B17 on my :mad: a little one Iknow :ok:

Shouldn't be allowed in my book.

Anyone who disrespects their own body enough to have permanent graffitti embedded in their skin should not be allowed to fly a jet liner. If they are prepared to mutilate (and yes it is mutilation) their own body, will they respect their passengers body's any more?

Don't hit me with the "it's artwork" and "people have been doing it for centuries" rubbish, we live in a modern civilised society of which self mutilation plays no part, the best a person who indulges in this sort of behaviour can be described as is ferral!

Correct, smith, I couldn't agree more.

The same applies to those who wear facial scrap iron. Whether flight or cabin crew.

At a time when airlines can be more selective than ever, those with piercings or tattoos are highly unlikely to be selected. And a good thing too!

come on!
 

Any ex fleet air arm pilots out there who would like to comment on this thread!Some ones calling you ferral and other names!Does this thread only apply to pilots or people in all walks of life?

Smith ???
ther you are right and thats why ther are room for all who have the possibility to be a pilot,
tattoo or no tattoo
but as i said before that it is not ok if you cant cover them.

dont Judge people on the outside, you can realy burn you self on that

Frederik and Mary's Trip to Australia: Feb. 27-Mar. 11 2005 - Page 2 - The Royal Forums

here is a link on a guy who have some tattoos and he is allso a pilot and he also happen to be the crownprince of Denmark:D

I started this thread to ask if there are any regulations on tattos and not to start a debate if its is right or not.
As some of you have mentioned that people with tattoos should not be allowed to fly jets because they have no respect for their own bodies then we women should not be allowed to fly aircraft because we pierce our ears and that also can be considered as having no respect for our bodies.
I mean we are causing pain and scars to our own bodies for no apparent reason.
What about smoking then?
People that smoke have no respect for their bodies or others so again they should not be allowed to fly according to this kind of mentality and thinking.
Have you ever thought that a person that has a tattoo might had that done 20 years ago when he was a young guy/girl?
Then you say we live in a modern society.
I agree.
I am very sorry to say that your thinking is not so modern.........:ugh:

Getting permanent grafitti inked into your skin is not civilised, it is tribal!!!

I believe we are drifting from the subject a bit as it is becoming a debate BUT:
In some civillisations getting permanent ink is considered civilised.
Who are we to judge others and what is considered civillised?
In some European countries they hunt foxes for fun or eat little birds and it is considered to be civillised while in other countries is considered barbarian.
The way we look has nothing to do with the way we act in everyday life and every person has the human right to express as they like.
That is a fact.
As Annita said,usually people get tattoos when they are quite young.
I am sure that we all did far more worse things when you where young than getting a tattoo.
Apparently there is no law stopping people to get tattoos and becoming pilots.:ok:
Now, if a company denies to take on people due to the fact that they have tattoos, then that is an internal company issue.

I do not think a company would do this as policy as it could be considered discriminatory by an industrial tribunial, however an individual interviewer may or may not take a dim view of an inked person which could jeopardise his/her's success as a candidate.

I would personally be more worried about dogmatic attitudes than concealed tattoos.

Not an excuse!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe in outer Mongolia, third world countries and tribes in the Amazon jungle!!! I am sure they are very civil people however maybe I should exchange the word civilised with westernised.

There are plenty of daft rules and regulations in the world of commercial aviation, but a tattoo ban is not one of them.

However, any sort of overt tattoo won't do much for you career prospects, and the reason is very, very simple. Hang around an airport for a while and see what all the pilots look like. With very few exceptions we will be smartly and conservatively dressed, because that's the image that airlines want us to project - and it's what joe public expect to see. Knuckles with 'love' and 'hate' etched into them or a spiders web on your shaved skull are unlikely to get you extra marks at a job interview.

I suspect that, if the original comment be on the level, the medico was alluding to the possibility of viral blood infections acquired via the tattoo process. HIV, etc, is a concern in aircrew medicals .. at least in Oz.

The link between tattoos and mutilation is a poor one. We move on, acceptable standards do the same. Many a pilot, airline and military alike are to be seen sporting "ink" these days.
Full sleeves of "tribal ink" would, at most if not all airlines be outlawed for public display but subtle proud adornments are commonplace and in todays society bare absolutely zero correlation between a person's ability (moral or practical) to Pilot an aircraft.
The rebellious days of mutilatative Goth Tats for shock and horror purposes are very much confined to the minority these days. However, for more mature members of society, todays tattoos may still be synonymous with those of yesterday, and very different side of Britain.

Regards
CR

As i said, i started the thread to find out if any new rules have been established for tattoos and not if its right for a pilot to have one or not but it seems that some of you are making this into a debate.
Yes i agree that it is not very nice to see pilots with tattoos but there are no rules against it so we should live with it and thanks to the ones that gave a reply about the question i asked.
For the rest of you that want to continue this debate feel free to continue........

Annita, your original question has been answered.

Let me summarise:- anyone who told you that you couldn't get a class 2 medical if you had a tattoo was winding you up. However, if you want definite confirmation, check on the medical forum.

Since those points have already been made and there is no point in repeating them (shouldn't be any point in repeating them!), then the rest of the thread may as well degenerate into a free-for-all on the rights and wrongs of tattoos. If you are not happy with the debate, then you are free to delete the whole thread. Go to your first post, click edit and delete.

Cheers

Whirls

The original post was in the context of a medical. Perhaps the misunderstanding arose from the doc asking about tattoos and scars, the details of which are recorded for a purpose which you hope will never arise!

Personally I find smith's attitude infinitely more offensive than any tattoo. Whether you like them or not, if they're hidden by a standard uniform it's noone's business but your own. Someone with love/hate on their knuckles and a spider on their face are perhaps a little different, but as with so many things in life they've made their choice and have to live with it.

A little respect for people with different preferences to your own goes a long way. Intolerant, judgemental pricks like you make me sick.

Nicely Put, I get too scared of e-bullying to verse things quite so concisely.

:ok:
Regards
CR

Just so.
 

Hitler was civilised because he always shaved and wore a suit. Ghandi was not because he often looked a bit scruffy and wouldn't change out of his pyjamas.

Some of the most well natured people you'll ever meet will look like people you'd cross the street to avoid, and I've personally met very well presented people who'd much rather stick a broken bottle in your neck than pass the time of day with you.

In fact we've probably never lived in a world where you can judge a person by the shine on their shoes and the firmness of their handshake (see first two lines).

I do concede that first impressions last, but surely it behoves the "civilised" individual to look beyond the first impression to the person underneath. That'll be why we no longer gas the Jewish and treat black people like slaves, yes?

Happy Days.

JR

I am presuming that all the people supporting my views have virgin skins and those offended/aghast by my views have indeed been inked right?

How're you going to cope when someone says no? 'Cos I'm getting the impression your world view has about two shades to it.

JR

Smith, I oppose your views and yet I have no tattoos, no piercings (not even my ears) but I do wear a little lippy if I'm going out :} My skin, as you say, is virginal.

I cannot understand why you should be so "anti" something that actually has very litttle effect on you. Were you traumatised by a tattooed man when you were a child? :) Maybe a little look inwards might reveal the source of your dogmatism.

Cheers

Whirls

For my money, personally I don't really like Tats. Not my thing....I think they're often done with a flouncy statement of "I'M an individual!" - whilst totally failing to recognise every other tattooed "individual" out there. However, that aside, I think the issue as far as employment is murky. The aformentioned knuckledragger who has decided to ink every square mm of available skin and is busy trying to stick a water butt through their earlobe is going to struggle to obtain any kind of high level employment, because, let's face it - it doesn't really say "stable, professional" does it?

However, most people have one or two tats, easily covered up. If it's covered, I fail to understand why it's an issue for this, or any other, career....

Nice one Whirls! You fail to disappoint as usual!!!:ok:

I am speechless at this post. I have no words.

But without doubt I can not fathom why ANY male would want a tattoo. It is monumentally ridiculous.

Tattoos ONLY look good on the lower back of slender females (waist 24 and no more) where the sting of a scorpion or the Wing of a butterfly can be seen just above the Thong Line.

The Tramp Stamp eh? I wonder why? :hmm:

Maybe The Laydeez might find the equivalent "dermatological enhancement" attractive on a male's torso? C'mon, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander???

Cheers

Whirls

No. Just no.

ok lets cut to the chase, and I know all of you will

agree with me on this

tattoo on male = criminal

tatoo on female = $L@G

finally we can all agree on something, 'nuff said!!!

OK.

This is a fact - NO ARGUMENT.

A little scorpion or Butterfly on the lower back of a sender female is extremely attractive and the babes that I have seen are nothing like *&@Gs. Little bit rough round the edges but that's all.

When I was at university, I used to do part time gardening for a milf down the road. Trimming her hedges that sort of thing. She had a tattoo and looked very elegant with it.

I'm really getting tired of all these stereotyping on pprune.

you are a trool.....:yuk:

So muppet, why can't a gentleman look attractive with a tattoo?

Cheers

Whirls