If it’s good enough for the FAA
02-20-2024, 03:50 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Position: in a Big Box that moves back,forth, up, down and makes cool sounds
Posts: 352
What are you attempting to suggest? HR practices for adminstrative positions should influence medical standards? Affirmative-action hiring practices in government administrative hiring should be assumed by commercial operators? In what capacity?
The FAA also has a standing requirement for inspectors: a maximum of two aircraft accidents in the last two years for which the applicant was the cause.
Should airlines adopt this policy too?
The FAA also has a standing requirement for inspectors: a maximum of two aircraft accidents in the last two years for which the applicant was the cause.
Should airlines adopt this policy too?
02-20-2024, 06:17 PM
#13
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,291
02-23-2024, 09:03 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 4,025
Yes, they hire people with disabilities that can function in their respective positions, like administrative officers, aviation safety technicians (office personnel) and the like. I've known several of these people, some whom had reasonable accomodations. They did an excellent job.
I think the OP seems to be implying that these are positions like field inspectors and ATC controllers, where you have actual physical requirements. They are not. The general public tends to think that the FAA is only "ATC controllers" and at least airlines recognize a few more positions, but there are so many other facets, Airports division, navaids, regulatory support, flight technology and procedures, etc. There are a lot of positions that can be filled with persons with disabilities.
I think the OP seems to be implying that these are positions like field inspectors and ATC controllers, where you have actual physical requirements. They are not. The general public tends to think that the FAA is only "ATC controllers" and at least airlines recognize a few more positions, but there are so many other facets, Airports division, navaids, regulatory support, flight technology and procedures, etc. There are a lot of positions that can be filled with persons with disabilities.
02-24-2024, 03:59 AM
#15
Furloughed Again?!
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: Boeing 737
Posts: 4,804
Yes, they hire people with disabilities that can function in their respective positions, like administrative officers, aviation safety technicians (office personnel) and the like. I've known several of these people, some whom had reasonable accomodations. They did an excellent job.
I think the OP seems to be implying that these are positions like field inspectors and ATC controllers, where you have actual physical requirements. They are not. The general public tends to think that the FAA is only "ATC controllers" and at least airlines recognize a few more positions, but there are so many other facets, Airports division, navaids, regulatory support, flight technology and procedures, etc. There are a lot of positions that can be filled with persons with disabilities.
I think the OP seems to be implying that these are positions like field inspectors and ATC controllers, where you have actual physical requirements. They are not. The general public tends to think that the FAA is only "ATC controllers" and at least airlines recognize a few more positions, but there are so many other facets, Airports division, navaids, regulatory support, flight technology and procedures, etc. There are a lot of positions that can be filled with persons with disabilities.
02-24-2024, 11:35 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 747 Captain (Ret,)
Posts: 808
Around 25 years ago United Airlines was sued by two legally blind twin sisters because they were discriminated against because they did not meet the vision standards. They claimed that this was illegal under the Americans with Disabilities Act in that they could see well enough with glasses. I'm not entirely sure what UAL's standard without glasses was at the time, but I believe that it may have been 20/400.
03-05-2024, 03:05 PM
#17
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,205
Around 25 years ago United Airlines was sued by two legally blind twin sisters because they were discriminated against because they did not meet the vision standards. They claimed that this was illegal under the Americans with Disabilities Act in that they could see well enough with glasses. I'm not entirely sure what UAL's standard without glasses was at the time, but I believe that it may have been 20/400.
Once the FAA dropped the uncorrected requirement (all you need now is 20/20 corrected) the question arose as to whether an employer could mandate health requirements in addition to those objectively required to do the job (FAA 1C or 2C medical in our case). The legal precedent quickly evolved to "No" even for airlines which had long enjoyed a free pass from the legal system. The old astronaut physicals obviously had far more to do with minimizing future LTD liability than with job requirements or safety.
If an operator is worried that you'll be blind if drop your glasses and step on them, they're free to mandate that you carry a spare set (most do).
03-13-2024, 02:41 PM
#18
FO
Joined APC: Apr 2015
Position: B777
Posts: 187
The FAA required at least 20/100 UNCORRECTED prior to about 1995.
Once the FAA dropped the uncorrected requirement (all you need now is 20/20 corrected) the question arose as to whether an employer could mandate health requirements in addition to those objectively required to do the job (FAA 1C or 2C medical in our case). The legal precedent quickly evolved to "No" even for airlines which had long enjoyed a free pass from the legal system. The old astronaut physicals obviously had far more to do with minimizing future LTD liability than with job requirements or safety.
If an operator is worried that you'll be blind if drop your glasses and step on them, they're free to mandate that you carry a spare set (most do).
Once the FAA dropped the uncorrected requirement (all you need now is 20/20 corrected) the question arose as to whether an employer could mandate health requirements in addition to those objectively required to do the job (FAA 1C or 2C medical in our case). The legal precedent quickly evolved to "No" even for airlines which had long enjoyed a free pass from the legal system. The old astronaut physicals obviously had far more to do with minimizing future LTD liability than with job requirements or safety.
If an operator is worried that you'll be blind if drop your glasses and step on them, they're free to mandate that you carry a spare set (most do).
Was that 20/100 uncorrected prior to 1995 for airline pilots only or for all pilots? My own vision was 20/200. I'd always recieved a "Statement of demonstrated Ability" medical certificate with a blue stamp with the name: Audie W. Davis direct from Oklahoma City.
HD
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
