Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Proposed new instructor medical requirements.


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Scotty

Scotty

    Ally Milne's Dad

  • Members
  • 463 posts
  • Home DZ:World Wide
  • Jumps:10000

Posted 18 July 2017 - 04:40 PM

My Letter to the chairman STC, I would ask that all instructors write and lobby your CI to vote against this proposal.  This is really important!

 

 

 

I wish to express my disappointment in the proposal to require all instructors to have a medical certificate with one of the conditions being signed by a CAA aviation medical practitioner.  It is appreciated this this is a necessary requirement for tandem instructors but to the best of my knowledge there has been no situation where this requirement would have had any effect in the last 50 years.

 

This proposal will add considerable expense and create many logistic problems (I have to travel 80 miles to attend a CAA aviation qualified practitioner every year) and there will be many experienced instructors who will now no longer continue to offer their valuable instructional services to our students.  It is clear that this requirement will have a detrimental effect on many of our skydiving centres.

 

We will be in a situation where a consultant who deals with any given medical situation will not be able to sign an instructor as ‘fit to parachute’ whereas the CAA aviation medical practitioner will have to send for reports and may have to pursue further medical records but will still not be in as knowledgable a position as the doctor or consultant who deals directly with the instructor.  This will inevitability result in unnecessary medical failures and protracted appeals.  Why would a BPA member who is a doctor have to be an instructor to sign the medical? Surely if they were an experienced skydiver they would have sufficient knowledge to add to their experience in skydiving for signing these medicals?

 

No one would argue that instructors require to be certified medically fit for purpose but it should be sufficient for any doctor or if necessary a consultant treating a condition to be authorised to sign the medical form. 

 

This is a major change in the medical requirements for instructors but I have seen no consultation or seeking of the wider instructors community opinion outside the working group, no evidence is sited to support these changes and I have to say this has been badly handled.  We seem to be solving a problem that does not exist and the association has already had its fingers burned with major financial loss to the membership in regard to the perviously proposed age limits of pilots.

 

I strongly urge STC to reject this proposal in its current form and to insist that the requirement for aviation medical specialists be removed.  We should also allow any BPA member who is a qualified doctor to sign without the requirement to be an instructor, C licence qualification should be more than sufficient for the level of experience required.

 

 

Your Faithfully

 

Scotty Milne

Instructor/Examiner


  • 3

#2 Lloyd Quenby

Lloyd Quenby

    UKS Verified Instructor

  • Verified Instructors
  • 451 posts
  • Home DZ:Chatteris
  • Jumps:11000

Posted 18 July 2017 - 05:17 PM

We seem to be solving a problem that does not exist

 

Isnt that what the BPA do?


  • 2

#3 Colin

Colin

    UKS Verified Instructor

  • Members
  • 3,113 posts

Posted 18 July 2017 - 05:26 PM

Well said Scotty and I urge everyone to lobby their CCI and the Chair of STC as this proposal will have far reaching consequences that I doubt have been considered by the working group members. It's hard enough to get Instructors now and, unless they are working full-time in the sport, most won't bother.


  • 3

#4 p.d

p.d
  • Members
  • 157 posts
  • Home DZ:Langar
  • Jumps:3000

Posted 19 July 2017 - 09:07 AM

It seems odd that the BPA appear to be giving up control of their Instructors? The BPA don't (as far as I know) employee any CAA AME's, so the proposals would mean that the BPA is entirely dependant on an outside organisation to sign off all its instructors. We could just cut out the middle man and let the CAA run the rest of skydiving as well.


  • 0

#5 Scotty

Scotty

    Ally Milne's Dad

  • Members
  • 463 posts
  • Home DZ:World Wide
  • Jumps:10000

Posted 20 July 2017 - 07:40 AM

3



Voss Mindfulness DA David L Howerski Bsc. (Hons) Psych​
The Gables MSc. (PRM) , PGDip .(Health Psych)
Eaton Bishop PGDip, (TMind), MBPsS.
Hereford
HR2 9QW
​​​​​​
Date: 19 July 2017
STC Agenda 27th July –Item 5- Age Requirement Working Group –Instructor Medicals- BPA Form 116A (i) & 115X (ii)
Dear STC Members
Item 5 on tonight’s agenda is a very important area, and I would like to draw your attention to the following observations.
Basis
The reason for the proposed 116A (i) is given as the intention to have “jumpers medical requirements being based on their own medical condition and not their age” and “all instructors are medically fit enough to carry out all of their duties.”

116A (i) as proposed simply does not do this. Instead it focusses on using aviation medical personnel to disregard and exclude the vital and essential role of medical consultants who manage, pre –existing conditions or newly acquired conditions.

I make the following observations about 116 A and 115 X (II)
Consultants
Instructors who have a pre-existing condition, or older Instructors who acquire a medical condition, will normally find themselves under the care of both their GP and a Consultant. The Consultant will have trained and specialised in that medical area. He or She will possess extensive knowledge of up to date treatments, procedures and medication for the condition concerned. The consultant will be engaged in continuous professional development. He or she will more importantly be aware of medication side effects and have the skill and experience to manage critical significant clinical events should they occur. He or she will have extensive knowledge of the Instructor’s medical fitness and stage of disease progression. Form 116 A as written excludes the consultant from the decision making process, and replaces them with someone with less knowledge about the instructor’s own medical condition. This is not a logical use of resources, and does not comply with the stated aim.

Ex-Military Instructors
Form 115X (ii) raise the possibility of Solo Parachute Instructors having to undergo Audiograms. To my knowledge ear defenders are not normally part of issued battlefield equipment. Most ex-soldiers with operational experience normally incur a degree of hearing loss. Many ex-military personnel may have difficulty passing such a test. There is no requirement for civilian parachute instructors to wear aviation headsets and carry out extended conversations with air traffic control. So this test may not be relevant. If 115X (ii) as written is endorsed, the BPA may lose the services of ex-military instructors with hearing loss.

Examining Medical Personnel
Form 116A(i) indicates that a medical practitioner who is also a BPA Instructor would be a suitable personnel to validate such certificates. There is no valid basis for the inclusion of BPA Instructor Status in the proposed medical evaluator’s qualifications. It is simply out of place.



Data Protection- Personal Security
The proposal as it stands would require full disclosure of skydiver’s personal medical records to largely unknown commercial third parties. I would ask, would this be necessary, if the people who hold the records were allowed to use them, to make the decision in the first place. The movement of data incurs both a personal security risk and a financial cost.

Medical Certificate Validity
115x (ii) proposes a significant change in validity, in terms of time, for those aged 65 or over. The status quo was 3 years or a shorter period of validity if the examining doctor felt it was appropriate. The proposal indicates annual medicals for all those over 65, as valid for only 12 months, or a shorter period of validity if the examining doctor feels it appropriate.
Is there a clear evidence base for this major change in validity times? Is it justified medically?
Financial Implications- Older Jumpers
Skydivers who are pensioners normally experience a reduced level of income as they enter retirement. Expensive aviation medicals with additional medical tests combined with an annual examination requirement, will present a significant additional financial burden to those who still want to instruct and participate in the sport they love.
Summary
A large amount of work will have preceded the document on the table tonight. Considering the above observations, it would be prudent to refer the document back to the working group, so that they can address the issues of concern. It is possible that some older skydivers may take the view that 116A (1) & 115x (ii) as they currently stand, simply represent “back door ageism” and discrimination. This raises the possibility of a legal challenge if STC and council were to approve the existing documents.

Yours Respectfully
David Howerski BPA 6508 BPA Examiner.
Voss Mindfulness DA dave.howerski@gmail.com +44 (0)7926086334
  • 1

#6 Scotty

Scotty

    Ally Milne's Dad

  • Members
  • 463 posts
  • Home DZ:World Wide
  • Jumps:10000

Posted 20 July 2017 - 07:40 AM

3



Voss Mindfulness DA David L Howerski Bsc. (Hons) Psych​
The Gables MSc. (PRM) , PGDip .(Health Psych)
Eaton Bishop PGDip, (TMind), MBPsS.
Hereford
HR2 9QW
​​​​​​
Date: 19 July 2017
STC Agenda 27th July –Item 5- Age Requirement Working Group –Instructor Medicals- BPA Form 116A (i) & 115X (ii)
Dear STC Members
Item 5 on tonight’s agenda is a very important area, and I would like to draw your attention to the following observations.
Basis
The reason for the proposed 116A (i) is given as the intention to have “jumpers medical requirements being based on their own medical condition and not their age” and “all instructors are medically fit enough to carry out all of their duties.”

116A (i) as proposed simply does not do this. Instead it focusses on using aviation medical personnel to disregard and exclude the vital and essential role of medical consultants who manage, pre –existing conditions or newly acquired conditions.

I make the following observations about 116 A and 115 X (II)
Consultants
Instructors who have a pre-existing condition, or older Instructors who acquire a medical condition, will normally find themselves under the care of both their GP and a Consultant. The Consultant will have trained and specialised in that medical area. He or She will possess extensive knowledge of up to date treatments, procedures and medication for the condition concerned. The consultant will be engaged in continuous professional development. He or she will more importantly be aware of medication side effects and have the skill and experience to manage critical significant clinical events should they occur. He or she will have extensive knowledge of the Instructor’s medical fitness and stage of disease progression. Form 116 A as written excludes the consultant from the decision making process, and replaces them with someone with less knowledge about the instructor’s own medical condition. This is not a logical use of resources, and does not comply with the stated aim.

Ex-Military Instructors
Form 115X (ii) raise the possibility of Solo Parachute Instructors having to undergo Audiograms. To my knowledge ear defenders are not normally part of issued battlefield equipment. Most ex-soldiers with operational experience normally incur a degree of hearing loss. Many ex-military personnel may have difficulty passing such a test. There is no requirement for civilian parachute instructors to wear aviation headsets and carry out extended conversations with air traffic control. So this test may not be relevant. If 115X (ii) as written is endorsed, the BPA may lose the services of ex-military instructors with hearing loss.

Examining Medical Personnel
Form 116A(i) indicates that a medical practitioner who is also a BPA Instructor would be a suitable personnel to validate such certificates. There is no valid basis for the inclusion of BPA Instructor Status in the proposed medical evaluator’s qualifications. It is simply out of place.



Data Protection- Personal Security
The proposal as it stands would require full disclosure of skydiver’s personal medical records to largely unknown commercial third parties. I would ask, would this be necessary, if the people who hold the records were allowed to use them, to make the decision in the first place. The movement of data incurs both a personal security risk and a financial cost.

Medical Certificate Validity
115x (ii) proposes a significant change in validity, in terms of time, for those aged 65 or over. The status quo was 3 years or a shorter period of validity if the examining doctor felt it was appropriate. The proposal indicates annual medicals for all those over 65, as valid for only 12 months, or a shorter period of validity if the examining doctor feels it appropriate.
Is there a clear evidence base for this major change in validity times? Is it justified medically?
Financial Implications- Older Jumpers
Skydivers who are pensioners normally experience a reduced level of income as they enter retirement. Expensive aviation medicals with additional medical tests combined with an annual examination requirement, will present a significant additional financial burden to those who still want to instruct and participate in the sport they love.
Summary
A large amount of work will have preceded the document on the table tonight. Considering the above observations, it would be prudent to refer the document back to the working group, so that they can address the issues of concern. It is possible that some older skydivers may take the view that 116A (1) & 115x (ii) as they currently stand, simply represent “back door ageism” and discrimination. This raises the possibility of a legal challenge if STC and council were to approve the existing documents.

Yours Respectfully
David Howerski BPA 6508 BPA Examiner.
Voss Mindfulness DA dave.howerski@gmail.com +44 (0)7926086334
  • 0

#7 BlueSkyBri

BlueSkyBri
  • Administrators
  • 2,110 posts
  • Home DZ:Bit of a nomad. Freelance AFFI and FS Load Organiser, based primarily at Langar.
  • Jumps:>2k

Posted 20 July 2017 - 11:00 AM

Scotty - maybe you could post the entire proposal please so that people aren't in the dark?

 

 

 

For everyone:

This will be a Safety and Training Committee decision. STC is made up of all the Chief Instructors. One vote each. The next STC is on the 27th July.  If you have read the proposals in full and have an opinion about this, then you should be speaking with your CI. 


  • 0

#8 Colin

Colin

    UKS Verified Instructor

  • Members
  • 3,113 posts

Posted 20 July 2017 - 11:57 AM

It came out as a pdf and I can't figure out how to post it


  • 0

#9 BlueSkyBri

BlueSkyBri
  • Administrators
  • 2,110 posts
  • Home DZ:Bit of a nomad. Freelance AFFI and FS Load Organiser, based primarily at Langar.
  • Jumps:>2k

Posted 21 July 2017 - 01:13 PM

It came out as a pdf and I can't figure out how to post it

 

From a desktop/laptop (ie non mobile.

 

 

Click "more reply options"

- "Choose file" at the bottom. 

- "Then "attach file"

 

:-)

 

 

Seems there is an amended proposal about too.


  • 0

#10 Anne

Anne
  • Members
  • 186 posts
  • Jumps:11

Posted 21 July 2017 - 01:18 PM

Click on More Reply Options button and you get an option to attach a file


  • 1

#11 BlueSkyBri

BlueSkyBri
  • Administrators
  • 2,110 posts
  • Home DZ:Bit of a nomad. Freelance AFFI and FS Load Organiser, based primarily at Langar.
  • Jumps:>2k

Posted 21 July 2017 - 05:21 PM

Hi Colin,

Thanks for posting the proposal. Sorry dude, we've had to hide your post, hopefully temporarily. A forum lurker has pointed out that the attachments include personal data which we may not be allowed to legally host.

 

We'll investigate and if Jack and I won't get sued... we'll unhide the post. Or you could post a sanitised version? 


  • 0

#12 Colin

Colin

    UKS Verified Instructor

  • Members
  • 3,113 posts

Posted 21 July 2017 - 10:12 PM

Hi Colin,

Thanks for posting the proposal. Sorry dude, we've had to hide your post, hopefully temporarily. A forum lurker has pointed out that the attachments include personal data which we may not be allowed to legally host.

 

We'll investigate and if Jack and I won't get sued... we'll unhide the post. Or you could post a sanitised version? 

 

PM me with which bits to lose and I'll have a go. I'm at work at the moment without the originals handy.


  • 0

#13 Coxy

Coxy

    UKS Verified Instructor

  • Verified Instructors
  • 87 posts

Posted 08 August 2017 - 07:25 PM

I gather this has been passed.

Respectfully,
I think it's closing the door before a horse is even owned, let alone bolting.

I have a suggestion though, it's one that won't benefit me in any way as I have a TI medical.

There are a lot of instructors and potential instructors who may very well be discouraged from their roles due to the cost of said medicals. Some CSIs may only work now and then when they get the time and the earnings are not always very high, in short, they do it for the love.

Having seen what the BPA recently paid for its office upgrade surely it has the financial ability so pay for, AT LEAST, the first medical of prospective CSIs or AFFBIs.

The BPA is of us and should be for us and as such should start supporting us more. Especially those skydivers interested in becoming instructors as they are the future of the sport.

Any feedback on this is welcome.
  • 1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users