Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Changes to the Self Declaration Medical system - 25 August 2016

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Changes to the Self Declaration Medical system - 25 August 2016

    I take your point Bob, but as I think I made in an earlier post I believe the wording in the current ANO would be acceptable.
    i.e

    (6) For the purposes of this article, “disqualifying medical condition” means any physical or mental condition or illness, or any history of such a condition or illness, including—

    The crucial words being "any history of....." a single occurrence" such a broken leg (even if at the time a licence holder) would not constitute "a history"... although I guess 2 breaks might?
    I wonder on just what basis the CAA in their infinite "wisdom" decided to change the "3 little words" in what I assume is the basic legal document, to "Or HAVE HAD".
    A somewhat different set of circumstances to my feeble mind, which in it's strict interpretation could lead a number of people to a potential fine of £5000.

    I guess as no further info has been forthcoming, except that the last visit by Geoff, was not fruitful, we are stuck with it

    Comment


    • Changes to the Self Declaration Medical system - 25 August 2016

      Hi Mike. Returned PDFform numbered and dated. So I am now covered.

      Comment


      • Changes to the Self Declaration Medical system - 25 August 2016

        Wally and William,

        Not that it's any consolation, but I do agree that we have
        been royally shafted by the CAA. However, my point was that the wording is
        so vague that it's open to interpretation, and any brief worth his salt would rip it
        to pieces if it ever got into a courtroom. If the intent was to put us on a
        level with the medical requirements of driving a car, then according to the
        wording, any car driver would instantly be declared unfit to drive if they
        dislocated a finger when they were five.

        Personally I interpreted it all to mean that I declared that I reasonably believe I meet the medical requirements for a Group 1 Ordinary Driving Licence issued by the DVLA, and I'm not subject to the disqualifying medical conditions.

        If you believe that you are not subject to the disqualifying medical conditions then you can sign the form. As to the contentious bit about 'or have had', I don't think that bit is enforceable in law. There's no time limit placed on the limitation, so a lawyer would be able to tell the court that you can't disqualify someone now for a condition that may have existed in the past, but which is now either cured, or controlled to the satisfaction of the DVLA with medication. There is a system in place for allowing past convictions to be discounted after a set period, usually 10 years, and I see no reason why the medical system should be any different. If you can drive safely, either through the use of medication, or because the disqualifying condition no longer applies, then the CAA should accept that, as they have themselves said in the form that you are fit to fly if you're fit enough to drive.

        Wally, I think you are absolutely right about the wording of the ANO, and I wish the CAA had stuck to it, and although I totally agree that the wording of the form is unnecessarily harsh, it is nevertheless not going to help matters if we beat ourselves up over it. The CAA are clearly in the wrong, and I would hope that the many barristers and solicitors who fly microlights and GA will find ways to interpret the wording in a more user friendly way, whatever the CAA have written.

        Best regards,

        Bob Hood
        XL's forever! Well, one of them anyway. It's all I can afford, not to mention the Raven and the Mini-Max. Oh, and I almost forgot the Spectrum as well :-)

        Comment


        • Changes to the Self Declaration Medical system - 25 August 2016

          Robert Whitton wrote: Apparently the standards have not changed, just the way they are enforced, or so the CAA says.....
          Well, that's appallingly cynical of the CAA. In my case (Geoff is well aware of the details, as we've corresponded), the change in "enforcement" is going to change from costing me about £35 every few years for a GP signature, to likely closer to £1035 every single year in treadmill tests and consultant reports, plus God knows how much time off work for the tests, in order to (hopefully, but not guaranteed) get a LAPL Medical. There is not a prayer of me being able to justify that on the hours I do, so I'll be out.

          The further irony is that my main future interest, as I'm limited to Group 1, was likely to be SSDR..... a class which the CAA, in deregulating airworthiness, has effectively accepted has negligible risk of causing third-party harm.

          I struggle to find the words.... We have indeed been shafted, on the pretence of an "improvement".....

          Comment


          • Changes to the Self Declaration Medical system - 25 August 2016

            I am still working on this but this might help some:

            The medical declaration form does not mention broken legs or routine operations etc. so they won't stop you making the declaration.
            The ANO lists conditions but then very clearly says "that might impair the safe operation of normal flight controls or render the licence holder unfit at any time to perform any function for which the licence is granted." and so doesn't seek to prevent me from flying although I had my appendix removed in the mid '70s and have had various treatments for other illness throughout my life as I expect most people have. A broken leg in 1963 is also not a barrier to me flying as it does not impair the safe operation of .... etc.
            The disqualifying medical conditions listed on the declaration form are those that the CAA have decided need further review. Some are very obvious, although I would have thought that a GP familiar with the individual would be a better judge of a person's fitness to operate an aircraft. Others are less obvious and open, in my opinion, to argument. For example a conviction for drink driving cannot possibly be an indication of alcohol abuse. Yes it is considered dangerous and anti social but I cannot see how anyone can justify an automatic link to alcohol dependency. As Colin from Strathaven pointed out to me the DD limit in Scotland is much lower than in the rest of the UK and so the basis for prosecution is not the same and so should not be used as a defining limit. A headache is a neurological condition and if taken literally anyone who has had a headache and taken aspirin is required to see an AME. We need to understand the true limits and meaning of these conditions.
            A problem that we are faced with now is that the CAA published the comment response document to the consultation over a year ago and in that document listed these conditions. Not all the conditions were not consulted upon. There was one question relating to further requirements for medical investigation. The text read "Do you believe that private pilots who have a history of significant psychiatric condition (i.e. that requires medication) should be assessed by their GP rather than use a self-certification system?" No mention of other conditions or AME's. Of course most people responding said yes. I think the answer would have been quite different if the question had referred to headaches and AMEs.

            Comment


            • Changes to the Self Declaration Medical system - 25 August 2016

              Thanks Geoff for the insight and the fact that you are "still in to bat" on this.

              Comment


              • Changes to the Self Declaration Medical system - 25 August 2016

                Still in to bat. Hopefully more Joe Root than Jimmy Anderson

                Comment


                • Changes to the Self Declaration Medical system - 25 August 2016

                  I was talking to a friend down the airfield last night. He is in a situation where he can happily drive a lorry of several tonnes under a DVLA group 1 license but will probably now have to sell his single seat microlight because he can't sign the medical. Even assuming he is a risk to himself or others (which is a big assumption), which is he more dangerous in - a 3 tonne truck on the road at 70mph or a 300KG microlight flying at 45mph? If he's fit enough for the DVLA he should be able to sign this form - simple as that and no exceptions.

                  I appreciate that we're going over old ground but our sport is already in decline with an ageing membership. The feeling down the airfield currently is that if these rules stick then our club probably won't survive (and I suspect we are not alone). The general consensus among those I have spoken to is that they won't bother with the AME route and all the cost, uncertainty and time that would entail. They'll just pack it all in, taking their experience and enthusiasm with them.

                  Comment


                  • Changes to the Self Declaration Medical system - 25 August 2016

                    I fear you are right Tim and many of us who are not quite as keen as we were when we started will just say 'oh well - I will stick to something safer like motorcycling'
                    However for SSDR people what risks are they running by signing the form knowing that they do comply with the original intention and the spirit of the ANO (but not CAAs interpretation)? Firstly they could be sued by the CAA for falsely filling in a form, but my bet is that CAA would not take anyone to court whom DVLA had said was fit to drive. However the only time this would presumably come to light is if said SSDR pilot had an accident at which point he may be dead (would seem unlikely CAA would prosecute), or seriously injured (would be bad PR) or .... and this is the rub ... he could be OK and could have killed someone else. At that point he would be deemed to have committed a crime, flown without a license and been therefore uninsured so the CAA may put him in jail and the victim's estate could take his house and lifesavings ...... but surely life is a balance of risks. It's nice to be covered by insurance for all eventualities but not always possible.
                    Mike

                    Comment


                    • Changes to the Self Declaration Medical system - 25 August 2016

                      Mike,
                      I hate to say this but I think that your post is irresponsible if it suggests that a pilot might balance the chances of getting caught flying without a medical and therefore insurance against the potential losses that may be incurred. Very few of us have the millions of pounds that might be awarded to the third party victim of the accident and that is why pilots are required to have third party insurance; to protect third parties in the event that they are injured or killed. The answer is to find a sensible solution to the problems created by the new medical, not to become a liability to third parties because it doesn't suit us.
                      Geoff

                      Comment


                      • Changes to the Self Declaration Medical system - 25 August 2016

                        All this lunacy at the same time the caa has granted one pilot of a paramotor trike an exemption to fly without a licence due to an ankle injury. He can fly an ssdr trike with no licence and no medical.

                        Comment


                        • Changes to the Self Declaration Medical system - 25 August 2016

                          Geoff Weighell wrote: Mike,
                          I hate to say this but I think that your post is irresponsible if it suggests that a pilot might balance the chances of getting caught flying without a medical and therefore insurance against the potential losses that may be incurred. Very few of us have the millions of pounds that might be awarded to the third party victim of the accident and that is why pilots are required to have third party insurance; to protect third parties in the event that they are injured or killed. The answer is to find a sensible solution to the problems created by the new medical, not to become a liability to third parties because it doesn't suit us.
                          Geoff
                          Very right, very true, and very proper Geoff. I would expect no less from BMAA.
                          Mike

                          Comment


                          • Changes to the Self Declaration Medical system - 25 August 2016

                            John (Kendall). That's two of us at least that are astounded by a particular CAA decision.

                            Comment


                            • Changes to the Self Declaration Medical system - 25 August 2016

                              Geoff Weighell wrote: John (Kendall). That's two of us at least that are astounded by a particular CAA decision.
                              The discussion has been ongoing for the last 6 months or more.

                              http://forums.bmaa.org/default.aspx?f=14&m=147213

                              Another association is involved with a move to deregulate...

                              I don't want to take this topic off its real reason for being here, so please can we make any further comments in that thread.

                              Comment


                              • Changes to the Self Declaration Medical system - 25 August 2016

                                Sorry for thread drift Steve. Thought it was relevant to highlight the inconsistencies of caa policy.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X