[PaulB]

Tangentially related to this discussion

There are some parts of the medical which, if an issue is found, mean you can have still have the certificate issued - as long as the medical has not expired. Where the medical has expired the same finding means no certificate can be issued.

That’s interesting. What is the logic behind being able to either issue or refuse a certificate for exactly the same condition, dependent just upon the date it is observed?

in this thread viewtopic.php?f=1&t=106283

Is this story about someone refused a class 1 because he has HIV

According to the CAA, which is responsible for aviation safety regulations in the UK, certain medical conditions prevent would-be pilots obtaining the necessary certificate. These include being HIV positive, organ transplantation or having type 1 diabetes.
Pilots who already hold a commercial licence but later develop one of the conditions would still be able to operate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-42325414

Seems a bit odd in 2017......

[Flyin'Dutch']

Seems a bit odd in 2017......

What seems odd in 2017?

To have outdated regulations?

Plenty of that around and not alone in aviation/medical regulations.

The good thing is that both the CAA and EASA think that this should be changed.

Decent BBC article on the issue.

The regulation stems from the times, not a million years ago, that HIV was a terminal condition which apart from the direct effects on the patient's immune system had negative effects on people's neurological and cognitive health.

[PaulB]

The regulation stems from the times, not a million years ago, that HIV was a terminal condition which apart from the direct effects on the patient's immune system had negative effects on people's neurological and cognitive health.

Absolutely.... it seems more 1983 than 2017.

[riverrock]

One of the issues with HIV medication is that the side effects can directly influence piloting activities. This depends on both the cocktail of drugs and the individual. A set of drugs that an individual is on may have few side effects for years, then suddenly effects can kick in (joys of dealing with the immune system). Fatigue, sickness, diarrhoea and headaches are common for some people / drug combinations. Individuals need tested at least every 6 months to make sure that the cocktail they are on is managing the virus, with drug switching maybe required if not (and a whole new set of side effects). They all have to be taken at precise regular intervals (missing just one will have an effect) with timezone hopping and shift work posing problems.

I don't like arguments (in the article) using words such as "discriminatory". There needs to be a cold hearted assessment as to whether:
a) it is possible for any individual to be safe to fly with Class 1 privileges with HIV
b) any limitations required to mitigate any risks
c) what assessment there can be to confirm safety
d) any special guidance or support needed to the pilot in managing their condition with regards piloting

[matthew_w100]

I quite agree; happily that is exactly what the CAA said it was going to do. It's only discriminatory if they *don't*.

I was intrigued that the only reason cited that an unrestricted medical was required was for the solo parts of training. But yer man's already got a PPL, so presumably he's been solo. What more solo flying is required further up the totem-pole?

And I guess he did the PPL on a Class 2? It's ok to be HIV positive for that? In which case the CAA must have already done a full risk assessment, because it wasn't ok when I started training in the early 80's.

[defcribed]

Surely the 'two-crew' requirement for airline flying is based, at least in part, on redundancy? I.e. each pilot needs to be fully capable of doing everything in the event that the other is in some way incapacitated during the flight - hence one is part of a multi-pilot crew on the basis of one's solo proficiency.

I never like the term 'co-pilot' in generalist media reporting on aviation issues. Both members of the cockpit crew are pilots as far as licensing and regulation are concerned, although one of them must be designated as the commander of the aircraft. The whole captain/first officer thing is just an issue of job titles, which any airline could presumably vary if they so wished. The literal meaning in English of 'co-pilot' is nothing more than 'one's fellow pilot' but generalist media reporting sometimes seems to make the term sound a bit like 'not-quite-a-pilot'.

[OpenCirrus619]

When I questioned why the standards, in a number of areas, for renewal were lower than for issue I was given the following answer.

Taking eyesight as an example ...
When you renew the AME/CAA has a record of the standard you reached last time and can assess the progression, or otherwise, of the your eyesight issues.
On initial issue the AME/CAA have no idea if your vision limitation have gradually crept in over the past 30 years, or happened suddenly in the last 3 months. The former will mean they can take a view on whether your eyesight will still be within limits in 12 months time, the latter means they have no idea.

I'm guessing that, for HIV, if the AME/CAA have records of how well treatment is tolerated / the illness is progressing then, again, they can make an assessment on how likely it is you can safely take your place in the cockpit, until the next renewal. If this historical data is not present then (again a guess) there is no basis to make the assessment.

OC619

[flybymike]

To quote a financial adviser.

Past performance is not a guide to future performance.

[Europaul383]

Surely the 'two-crew' requirement for airline flying is based, at least in part, on redundancy? I.e. each pilot needs to be fully capable of doing everything in the event that the other is in some way incapacitated during the flight - hence one is part of a multi-pilot crew on the basis of one's solo proficiency....

Far from it in CAT operations, I'm afraid.

There are minimum requirements for Command, one of which is a Command course (ORO.FC.205) which includes inter alia an OPC operating as commander, command responsibilities training, 10 sectors line training as commander under supervision etc etc.

We require a minimum 2,000 hrs TT, 500 turbine etc.

We also impose FO restrictions - crosswind limits, LVTOs, steep approaches, contaminated runway ops etc.

The co-pilot can, of course, be another captain, then they just have to decide between them who is commander; which may be factored by who has training and recency for a Cat C AD, for example.

Oh, and "there shall not be more than one inexperienced flight crew member in any flight crew." (ORO.FC.200) this means 100 flight hours and 10 sectors within 120 days (or 150 & 20, no time limit).

HTH

[ChrisRowland]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34453146

[defcribed]

Surely the 'two-crew' requirement for airline flying is based, at least in part, on redundancy? I.e. each pilot needs to be fully capable of doing everything in the event that the other is in some way incapacitated during the flight - hence one is part of a multi-pilot crew on the basis of one's solo proficiency....

Far from it in CAT operations, I'm afraid.

There are minimum requirements for Command, one of which is a Command course (ORO.FC.205) which includes inter alia an OPC operating as commander, command responsibilities training, 10 sectors line training as commander under supervision etc etc.

We require a minimum 2,000 hrs TT, 500 turbine etc.

We also impose FO restrictions - crosswind limits, LVTOs, steep approaches, contaminated runway ops etc.

The co-pilot can, of course, be another captain, then they just have to decide between them who is commander; which may be factored by who has training and recency for a Cat C AD, for example.

Oh, and "there shall not be more than one inexperienced flight crew member in any flight crew." (ORO.FC.200) this means 100 flight hours and 10 sectors within 120 days (or 150 & 20, no time limit).

HTH

Aye, I get that - but those are (comparatively) relatively recent requirements are about which pilots may operate in which capacity rather than them being pilots. What I'm getting at is the fundamental principle, which has existed for a long time, of having two pilots qualified to fly the aeroplane in the cockpit. I believe the requirement for two (instead of one) is essentially a matter a redundancy.

[flybymike]

And there’s frequently a lot of redundancy in the airline world.....

[Europaul383]

Surely the 'two-crew' requirement for airline flying is based, at least in part, on redundancy? I.e. each pilot needs to be fully capable of doing everything in the event that the other is in some way incapacitated during the flight - hence one is part of a multi-pilot crew on the basis of one's solo proficiency....

Far from it in CAT operations, I'm afraid.

<Bunch of Command requirements, Command course etc>

Aye, I get that - but those are (comparatively) relatively recent requirements are about which pilots may operate in which capacity rather than them being pilots. What I'm getting at is the fundamental principle, which has existed for a long time, of having two pilots qualified to fly the aeroplane in the cockpit. I believe the requirement for two (instead of one) is essentially a matter a redundancy.

Again, not so recent, sorry. Specific requirements for command have always been a thing, at least since EU-OPS (2008) and JAR (2000) before it (and probably ANO before that, but will have to dig out historical copies to confirm). All EASA did was to put these "rules" under a legal framework, rather than just an agreement.

I think the point is yes, they can both fly, but only the commander can do certain things - if he is incapacitated, the co-pilot must follow the incapacitation procedures (and divert, if not qualified for the destination).

Commander and co-pilot are roles; Captain and FO are ranks. A captain can fill either role, if qualified* to operate in either pilot seat, (i.e. the co-pilot could be wearing either 4 or 3 bars), but an FO is not (normally) nominated as commander.

HTH

* additional training and checking shall include at least the following:
(1) an engine failure during take-off;
(2) a one-engine-inoperative approach and go-around; and
(3) a one-engine-inoperative landing.

[defcribed]

Sorry, when I talk about relatively recently I mean the last 30-40 years. What I mean is that in the earliest days of commercial aviation, I believe the reason for multiple pilots was essentially redundancy.

And to use your information to further the point - if the Captain (I'd call it a job title, not a rank - it has no meaning outside the company) is qualified to do everything then what is the co-pilot/first office there for, if not redundancy?

[Europaul383]

Sorry, when I talk about relatively recently I mean the last 30-40 years. What I mean is that in the earliest days of commercial aviation, I believe the reason for multiple pilots was essentially redundancy.

And to use your information to further the point - if the Captain (I'd call it a job title, not a rank - it has no meaning outside the company) is qualified to do everything then what is the co-pilot/first office there for, if not redundancy?

Two engines are there for redundancy; but if one fails then limits apply.

I agree the general idea is redundancy (and agreed also about rank - (very) old habits and all that ...although military ranks have no meaning outside the, er, military, but are still called ranks).

The commander is legally qualified to do everything and the co-pilot is qualified to do most things but, crucially, not some things (see list above).

If the commander passes out on approach to a Cat C AD, the co-pilot must divert; if an engine is also on fire, they might well land - then the operative phrase in the enquiry report will be "action necessary for the safe outcome of the flight".

I think we both know what the other means, but I'm just trying to clarify that a co-pilot cannot do all things, just (nearly) most.