 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General AviationLearningIFRHomebuiltSoaringUltralightRotary-wingCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics BoatsCarsMotorcyclesMore Topics ... |
Aviation Forum / Country Specific / UK Group / August 2004Class 1 Medical question
Off to get my initial Class 1 on 13th September at the CAA in Gatwick - the paperwork says I shouldn't drive as they *might* use eye-drops as part of the eye test which cause blurred vision that lasts for up to 12 hours. They then go on to give you driving and parking directions, but I don't have the benefit of a chauffeur that day, so.... Does anyone know, what is the likelyhood that they would use eye-drops on someone who has no eye problems and doesn't wear glasses etc, and at their last eye test 6 months ago had no cause for any corrective lenses or other causes for concern? I'll go by train anyway, "just in case", but it's a bit of an inconvenience! Does anyone have any other "tips" for the Class 1 medical, by the way - things to be aware of other than the things they tell you to be aware of? D. > Off to get my initial Class 1 on 13th September at the CAA in Gatwick - > the > paperwork says I shouldn't drive as they *might* use eye-drops as part of > the eye test which cause blurred vision that lasts for up to 12 hours. Hmmm. I wonder if this is the same eye test I had when I got my Class 2. My eyesight is close to the five-dioptre borderline (less than five dioptres and you're OK; between five and eight and the CAA can grant you a medical certificate at their discretion after consultation with an appropriate senior eye consultant). My AME quite sensibly suggested that because I was so close to the borderline, I should see the eye specialist anyway to make sure that I wasn't going to get grounded at my next eye exam if I hit the five dioptre limit - so I did (and got a clean bill of health). Anyhow, you know when you go for an eye exam and they puff air at your eyeballs to check the pressures? A more accurate alternative to this is to press a glass prism up against the eyeball; to do this requires an anaesthetic on the eyeball, and this is probably the eye drops you're referring to. It's a yellow dye with anaesthetic properties - though even though there's no pain, the experience of someone shoving a prism in your eye is still a bit weird. In my case, I had no ill effects at all, save for the initial stinging that he told me to expect when the drops first went in. I drove home half an hour afterwards with no problems (I'd driven there because nobody told me about the eye drops and stuff). Of course, this was only a five-mile trip across town - if you're talking about a longish journey, I'd go by train instead. > Does anyone have any other "tips" for the Class 1 medical, by the way - > things to be aware of other than the things they tell you to be aware of? Be prepared to be treated like a piece of worthless crap. In my one experience of medical examinations (actually a Holmes Wright lantern test to check my colour vision) at the CAA offices, I was wheeled in and out as fast as they could manage, and the miserable bastard of a doctor didn't seem to give a stuff when I failed. He didn't even complete the test (although the instructions say that as soon as you make one mistake, you've failed, I'd paid for an entire test and in my opinion he should have continued through the various other parts of the test so I could get an impression of how bad my colour vision was). Perhaps I was unlucky, but I certainly wasn't impressed. D. >Be prepared to be treated like a piece of worthless crap. In my one >experience of medical examinations (actually a Holmes Wright lantern test to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >my colour vision was). Perhaps I was unlucky, but I certainly wasn't >impressed. That sounds very bad. Is the lantern test always done when one has a medical at Gatwick? AMEs normally do the Isihara plates. It should be easier then the Isihara plates, but as with any task where recognition of very small objects at a distance is involved, it is easier when one isn't tired, the ambient light is good, and one has not been focussing at something close shortly beforehand e.g. I wouldn't do any reading before doing the eye test and would try to look at distant objects as much as possible. It is easy to fail the Isihara plates even when one can see the entire range of colours fine, and although the lantern test is easier, the lights are tiny, about 5mm dia about 5m away. None of these tests are representative of any real-world aviation requirement, IMHO, especially for Class 1 which more or less implies instrument flight. The Class 1 audiogram can be more revealing, and an awful lot of ageing airline pilots would technically fail it if they did it now. Peter. -- Return address is invalid to help stop junk mail. E-mail replies to peter4400@peter2000XY.co.uk but remove the X and the Y. Please do NOT copy usenet posts to email - it is NOT necessary. > Is the lantern test always done when one has a medical at Gatwick? > AMEs normally do the Isihara plates. The Ishihara plates test is the primary colour vision test. If you pass that OK, that's all that's required. If you fail it, the lantern test is "plan B", and if you pass that then you're still OK; if not, you have (like me) a "flights by day only" stipulation on your medical certificate. Although the documentation I've read on the CAA Web site doesn't mention the lantern test for class 2 medicals, only class 1, my AME's documentation states that it applies to class 2 candidates as well. > It should be easier then the Isihara plates, but as with any task > where recognition of very small objects at a distance is involved, it > is easier when one isn't tired, the ambient light is good, and one has > not been focussing at something close shortly beforehand e.g. I > wouldn't do any reading before doing the eye test and would try to > look at distant objects as much as possible. What annoyed me is that the test was stopped after I got a key combination wrong in fluorescent light (the room had no windows so there wasn't even partial natural light). I had no chance to try either in natural light or in the dark - which, let's face it, are more realistic environments for aviation. > It is easy to fail the Isihara plates even when one can see the entire > range of colours fine, and although the lantern test is easier, the > lights are tiny, about 5mm dia about 5m away. Yup. Precisely my situation - I have no problem recognising colour in real life, only in seeing spotty charts and tiny, dim lamps from a distance. The only thing I'm precluded from doing because I failed the lantern test is flying at night (I have an IMC rating after arguing successfully with the CAA that [a] it's a UK-only rating so they can make exceptions; and [b] when you're in IMC, there's no real need for colour vision anyway). Yet when I went out on a night flight with an instructor friend, I had no problem at all distinguishing real lights at distances where he could only just see them too. Interestingly, my AME knew nothing about the change of rules regarding colour vision and the IMC rating when I had my recent medical. He was more than a little hacked off, when I showed him the letter from the CAA confirming that I was permitted to gain an IMC rating, to have found out the change in the rules from me instead of from the CAA. > None of these tests are representative of any real-world aviation > requirement, IMHO, especially for Class 1 which more or less implies > instrument flight. Couldn't agree more. D. > Hmmm. I wonder if this is the same eye test I had when I got my Class 2. My > eyesight is close to the five-dioptre borderline (less than five dioptres [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > sure that I wasn't going to get grounded at my next eye exam if I hit the > five dioptre limit - so I did (and got a clean bill of health). Are you long-sighted or short-sighted? If short-sighted, that doesn't sound right for a Class 2 (at least, I hope not). The medical info on the CAA website merely says that the refractive error must not exceed +5 or -8 dioptres, with no conditions stated within that band. My eyesight is outside those limits (-8.5 or -9.5, for contact lenses or glasses respectively). I've been told that if my prescription remains stable for 3 years, I can (at an AME's discretion) be granted a Class 2. I've just had a glasses test, and things are looking good. My contact lens test is due next month (different optician, for complicated reasons), and if that remains unchanged it will be all systems go... I'll be able to commence the additional 15hrs unnecessary training to convert my NPPL to a JAR-PPL. At least, I'm hoping so, but you've put doubts in my mind. Time to make further enquiries with authoritative sources, I think. -- Paul > Are you long-sighted or short-sighted? If short-sighted, that doesn't > sound [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > with no > conditions stated within that band. You're absolutely right, and in fact I mentioned this to my AME at my medical last month because what the Web site says differed from what he had told me previously. The Web site states that you're okay up to 8. The AME's official documentation from the CAA, on the other hand, states that you're okay up to 5, but that if you're between 5 and 8 then it's at the CAA's discretion. There appears to be a significant amount of inconsistency between the downloadable stuff on the Web and what the CAA sends to its AMEs when it comes to vision capability. > My eyesight is outside those limits (-8.5 or -9.5, for contact lenses or > glasses [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > additional > 15hrs unnecessary training to convert my NPPL to a JAR-PPL. I'm -4.75 in my worse eye, slightly better (but not much) in my other. I've got progressively worse over the years, but over recent years the change has slowed down and in fact my last two prescriptions have been identical. I mentioned this to the AME and he said that severe myopia (which is what thee and me have) does tend to stop changing after a while, so that once you reach a certain correction factor (which differs between individuals) it tends to pretty much stay there without altering. Apparently one thing you get with severe myopia is that even with correction, you can't read all the lines on the optical chart, even with correction - he expressed surprise that I could rattle off the bottom line without any problems. > At least, I'm hoping so, but you've put doubts in my mind. Time to make > further > enquiries with authoritative sources, I think. Yeah, I'd go to the horse's mouth - an AME or the CAA. I find my AME more friendly than the CAA though :-) D. > I'm -4.75 in my worse eye, slightly better (but not much) in my other. I've > got progressively worse over the years, but over recent years the change has [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > lines on the optical chart, even with correction - he expressed surprise > that I could rattle off the bottom line without any problems. I wonder why he was surprised. I can do that too, and my eyes are nearly twice as bad as yours. I can understand that there may be a limit to the correction (a depressing thought for me), but you're nowhere near it. My prescription changed by 0.25 dioptres a few months before I took up flying, after years without change. I've been hoping for it to remain the same for these last couple of years so I could upgrade my licence, but you're dashing my hopes :( Still, I'd better find out the definitive answer. > Yeah, I'd go to the horse's mouth - an AME or the CAA. I find my AME more > friendly than the CAA though :-) The AME I spoke to was very helpful too, which was good of him because as a result of his advice I wasn't able to use him. Went to my GP for an NPPL declaration instead (he's also an AME, but an expensive one). -- Paul >> Off to get my initial Class 1 on 13th September at the CAA in Gatwick - >> the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >anaesthetic on the eyeball, and this is probably the eye drops you're >referring to. Maybe not. Those drops don't affect your vision, but there's another kind they give when they want to dilate the pupil, to make sure your focusing is getting no help from the eye stopping down. After those, (a) you're dazzled by anything approaching normal light levels and (b) if you do need correction, you can't focus. You wouldn't want to drive after having that kind. > It's a yellow dye with anaesthetic properties - though even >though there's no pain, the experience of someone shoving a prism in your [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the eye drops and stuff). Of course, this was only a five-mile trip across >town - if you're talking about a longish journey, I'd go by train instead.  SignatureRichard Herring <mailto:richard@clupeid.demon.co.uk> > Does anyone know, what is the likelyhood that they would use eye-drops Minimal, I would have thought. When I had my original Class 1 (admittedly more than ten years ago) I fully expected not to pass the eyesight bit due to an earlier eye problem, and had made arrangements to see their eye specialist first. He spent 45 minutes giving me a complete work over, and never resorted to atropine. However, the first time I went to an eye clinic (some years before that) there was no warning, and I drove... Trying to drive home unable to focus on anything nearer than about 5 metres was an interestingly weird experience. Bob Walton (eMail to my first name is more likely to reach me) 24 Aug 2004 09:04 UTC, Bob Walton typed: >> Does anyone know, what is the likelyhood that they would use eye-drops > > Minimal, I would have thought. I've got a feeling it depends on how close you are to the negative limit and how your field of view looks. If you're marginal they may want to dilate and have a look around. > However, the first time I went to an eye clinic (some years before that) > there was no warning, and I drove... Trying to drive home unable to focus > on anything nearer than about 5 metres was an interestingly weird > experience. My first eye exam by an ophthalmologist took me to Manchester Royal Eye Hospital where they routinely dilate everyone it would seem. It was announced that following a particularly busy day they had run out of Minims eye drops, and that a longer lasting alternative would be used. My pupils remained fixed, as did the focus, for a week! It's strange having to wear sunglasses to watch TV :-) SignatureI had to hit him, he was beginning to make sense. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.