Why are people failing their medical with mainline?

Flapless Jack · Post by **Flapless Jack** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:46 pm

Maybe someone could shed some light on the medical for me (mainline). I seem to hear of a lot of people failing the medical. What exactly are they failling? Is it mostly the liver enzymes? Also, if so do you get a retest? and how do they contact you if you do fail?

Cheers

Jack

Inverted2 · Post by **Inverted2** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 12:14 am

Kinda odd on the application they ask if you are a person with a disability, which gives you points apparently if you are, then they discriminate against you if you don't measure up to their medical standards!

hithere · Post by **hithere** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:05 am

I'm surprised that they are actually telling guys that they failed the medical because it is definately grounds for the applicant to claim discrimination based on supposed disability. Any judge would rule that if you can hold a CAT 1 medical for any other job, it should be sufficient for AC. Am I correct in saying there have been guys in the past who actually took AC to court after being rejected as a result of a medical?

babybus · Post by **babybus** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 5:47 am

Yes they have been taken to court and lost.
You won't know for sure what failed you because they won't tell you for that exact reason.That being said I was told by the AC doctor that if you can pass a TC class I medical you won't have any problems.

Jaques Strappe · Post by **Jaques Strappe** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 6:06 am

hithere wrote:I'm surprised that they are actually telling guys that they failed the medical because it is definately grounds for the applicant to claim discrimination based on supposed disability. Any judge would rule that if you can hold a CAT 1 medical for any other job, it should be sufficient for AC. Am I correct in saying there have been guys in the past who actually took AC to court after being rejected as a result of a medical?

That is not really the case. The CAT 1 medical as described by Transport Canada ensures that a person can basically walk, talk, hear, see and not fall over. It does not look at blood work, lung capacity, etc... It is a minimum standard.

Much like an instrument rating with Transport Canada meets the "basic requirement", so does the CAT 1. An airline can have its' standards for a PPC higher than Transports because Transport sets the minimum standard only. Same goes for the medical.

If you are going to spend millions of dollars over the course of a candidates career in training, you should have the right to have your medical acceptance standards higher than the set minimum.

If you were going to play the disability card, then every person who flunked at Seneca ( yet passed a Transport Flight Test ) could claim that they were washed out due to a "learning disabilty" and therefore should be graduated with the rest of the class. After all, they met the "minimum standard"

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:34 am

If you really want to find out why you failed, file a statement of complaint with superior court and wait for AC to file a defence. The reason would probably be stated on the defence. However, if your case doesn't have merit, don't be suprised if it gets dismissed and AC comes after you for legal costs.

... · Post by **...** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 10:35 am

Bede wrote:If you really want to find out why you failed, file a statement of complaint with superior court and wait for AC to file a defence. The reason would probably be stated on the defence. However, if your case doesn't have merit, don't be suprised if it gets dismissed and AC comes after you for legal costs.

If the medical reason may be life threatening down the road like Parkinson's Disease or diabetes or HIV +, as a courtesy to the candidate and being human about this person's health, can't the AC doctor contact the candidate's family doctor and professionally pass along the information??

Inverted2 · Post by **Inverted2** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 10:47 am

From the ppl Ive talked to, the doctors tell you what the health issue is. The hiring ppl sure make an effort not to tell you anything though!

pika · Post by **pika** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 10:50 am

If you are going to spend millions of dollars over the course of a candidates career in training,

Seems a little high with in-house sims/classrooms/instructors/programs...

Stinky · Post by **Stinky** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:37 am

If you are going to spend millions of dollars over the course of a candidates career in training, you should have the right to have your medical acceptance standards higher than the set minimum.

I was told by a union guy that if we know anyone who wasn't hired because of a failed medical to tell them to fight it, it's not legal.

Your above argument is BS. If that's the case then Air Canada could also use the argument that they won't hire people with kids because they statisticly call in sick more often which costs the company money. Women also call in sick more. (because of kids presumably)
Married men probably aren't a good bet either because they'll likely get divorced and call in sick due to the ensuing stress, maybe even die of a heart attack.

What's the perfect answer? It's obvious, hire a bunch of nerdy bookworm seneca grads, they are young, unlikely to get laid, thus no kids or marriage and too scared to call in sick.
I guess Jazz is smarter than we think.

Jaques Strappe · Post by **Jaques Strappe** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:58 am

With a post like that, I would imagine that you should qualify under the "learning disability" program.

As I stated, Transport Canada only sets minimum standards to be followed. If a carrier wants to have higher standards, they have the right to do so, for now.

In Canada however, it won't be long before it will be illegal to fail anyone for anything. It is already like that in the education system and judging by the spelling on this board, I see it is quite effective.

Stinky · Post by **Stinky** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 12:54 pm

With a post like that, I would imagine that you should qualify under the "learning disability" program.

You took that a bit too seriously.

We need to fight things like this because it's only a matter of time before companies do genetic testing and refuse to hire or insure people because of potential future medical problems.

I don't believe Air Canada has a right to refuse someone because of a medical problem if that problem doesn't currently affect flight safety.

... · Post by **...** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 2:28 pm

Stinky wrote:
I don't believe Air Canada has a right to refuse someone because of a medical problem if that problem doesn't currently affect flight safety.

hmmm, having been exposed to unions (and how they work) @ Jazz or Air Canada is concerned, once you hire someone and the go through their probation period, you're stuck with them unless the company offers a 'get lost' package and it is accepted.

I think AC has every right to hire/don't hire whom they wish for whatever the reason. If I owned a hardware store, I'd want the best people I can find working for me. It's a harsh example but I think you get the point.

Heck Cathay Pacific's hiring process is kinda like a test lab for guinea pigs. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. They put you in a room with other people/candidates to see how well you interact with others and if you're married, how well your spouse does in a social environment and they (Cathay Pacific people) watch you and judge you with a score card?

AC's hiring practices are somewhat tame IMHO.

Jaques Strappe · Post by **Jaques Strappe** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 5:57 pm

Hey Stinky

Perhaps my retort was a bit harsh. My apologies. I have to agree with IABD. Compared with many other Airlines, Air Canada is pretty sedate when it comes to hiring requirements. The Cathay example is both an accurate and excellent comparison.

I hear what you are saying but I doubt that genetic testing is coming anytime soon. By the same token, I see the pendulum swinging the other way. I truly believe in and support better salaries and working conditions for pilots but pilots need to stop whining and rise to the challenges. Way too often I am seeing guys blow a ride that by todays standard was a cake walk compared to a few years ago, only to blame everything and everyone else. I also see a definite "attitude of entitlement" on this board.

Air Canada has had there own medical policy for as long as I can remember, why are we so bent on challenging it now?

The Raven · Post by **The Raven** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 6:32 pm

Air Canada also tests for prohibited drugs in your system. This has probably eliminated a few applicants.

Inverted2 · Post by **Inverted2** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 9:49 pm

Stinky wrote:
With a post like that, I would imagine that you should qualify under the "learning disability" program.

I don't believe Air Canada has a right to refuse someone because of a medical problem if that problem doesn't currently affect flight safety.

Exactly, Imagine if they decided they didnt want to hire an office worker in a wheelchair!

They have a point if you are really ill and might not have a medical in a few years but come on, if you hold a cat 1 medical but your BP is a bit high or whatever, give me a break. Not everyone is perfect, and hey, a lot of us wouldn't make it through the Cathay medical but this is Canada!

Jeremy Kent · Post by **Jeremy Kent** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:29 pm

I agree with Jacques and IABD... and for what it's worth, a friend of mine with a medical condition that caught the doctor's attention interviewed in recent history. Unfortunately it cost him a few course dates, but they finally put him in the sim with a senior flight instructor who gave him the thumbs-up after satisfying himself that that my friend could do the job. Doesn't get much more fair than that.

Chuck U Farley · Post by **Chuck U Farley** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 6:29 am

AC is not the only ones who have a strick medical policy, try the military.
Are you saying that they should be sued for discrimination because someone doesn't have perfect vision?

Donald · Post by **Donald** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:21 am

An airline can have its' standards for a PPC higher than Transports because Transport sets the minimum standard only.

I'm curious about this statement. Are you saying that on a PPC if AC decides, they could change the tolerances to something more stringent than TC? Like 1/4 deflection on an ILS or 5 knots airspeed, etc etc. Or are you referring more towards the "soft" non-technical skills like CRM, PDM, etc? I'm just wondering what would happen if a failure were to appeal, how it would be treated.

Sorry for going off-topic...

Jaques Strappe · Post by **Jaques Strappe** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:43 am

Donald

Good point. The only point I am making is that yes indeed, Transport Canada sets a minimum standard only. An example of this would be the fact that to qualify for an instrument rating by Transport Standards, you need only demonstrate to CAT 1 minimums. Air Canada will have you demonstrate to CAT II and CAT III minimums. Poor CRM skills will also fail you even if the aircraft was flown within its' limits and to Transport Standards.

Why would an airline have sim evals even though all the candidates have instrument ratings? Using the same medical argument, should this practice also be illegal?

I doubt there is a person on this board who doesn't know of someone who has met all the Transport Standards and has been issued a licence but would never get on an airplane with that person at the controls. Should airlines be obligated to take these individuals? After all, they have met the Transport Standard. ( and a few have slipped through the cracks )

That is basically the point I am making with regard to the CAT 1 medical being simply, a Transport Standard only.

Donald · Post by **Donald** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 10:37 am

Good response....

I hadn't considered the CAT II/III.

This seems like a good analogy for the medical screening:

Why would an airline have sim evals even though all the candidates have instrument ratings?

I'm sure there are a few very capable people that have received a PFO after the Jazz sim eval, yet you don't hear the cries of discrimination about that.

Thanks JS.

. . · Post by **. .** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 12:37 pm

the Cat II/III is just to qualify to operate cat II/III ils approaches. It's no different than GPS approach certification. If you don't train it you can't use it, it has nothing to do with air canada raising the training standard.

Stinky · Post by **Stinky** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 5:37 pm

Good point Endless, I was planning on posting the exact same thing.
(so in that case it's a brilliant point)

It's true that some proffessions should have more stringent medical standards and of course flying should be one.
I wouldn't want a fat unhealthy firefighter waddling to his truck while my house is burning down. Same with police, etc. I don't think the general public wants unhealthy pilots.

My concern is when the medical standards are determined because of profitability issues as opposed to operational or safety issues.
When the rich execs are setting standards to get more work out of the employee group for less cost it becomes a problem.

Having the government set the standards, or an unbiased third party would be the fair answer.
It's not unreasonable to set a higher standard for an airline pilot across the board, but don't let a company do so on their own. In the U.S. there are 2 levels of medical, one for commercial the other for an ATP.

auxtransfer · Post by **auxtransfer** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 5:58 pm

Anybody failing for shite hearing?

. . · Post by **. .** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 6:09 pm

aux, you been flying around in a hawker 748 for too long?

Why are people failing their medical with mainline?

Why are people failing their medical with mainline?

Mainline Medical