for the enclosed ..... class medical ~ certificate is not valid for any class after...
Approximately one month prior to the expiration date, to avoid a lapse in your certification,
please ask your physician to forward a follow-up status to include current status
and....... studies. ‘You are cautioned to abide by FAR, Section 61.53, relating to physical
deficiency. Because of your history of....., operation of aircraft is prohibited if: At any time
new symptoms or adverse changes occur, or for.......hours after use of medication, or if you
experience side effects from medication, or anytime medication is required.” (One or more
items will be checked.)
	Needless to say, a six months certification is better than none, especially when you love to
fly and don't want to have your wings clipped. A few words of advice: If you think you may
have a medical problem, discuss it with your family physician before you visit your AME:
Having your ÂME and family physician in one and the same person may be your undoing.
Personal medical records are automatically open to FAA examination. That’s the law.

	Remember that once you sign the FAA medical application form, the AME is obligated to
forward that serial-numbered form to Oklahoma City, where you pass the exam or not, whether
you like it or not. There is no retreat once you start into the ÂME’s waiting room. An appeal is
always possible, but costly.
	On a more cheerful note, remember that medical requirements have been relaxed over
recent years, allowing airmen to continue flying with various medical problems not previously
acceptable.

	Here there are some points to clarify, first of all this article has been written by Jack
Leggatt and printed on November 1982 in Plane & Pilot magazine, 23 years ago. Since then a
lot more progress has been done on science and technologies. And I would like to point out that
nobody----l repeat nobody, mentions overseas the 1% or 2% rule including England.

	In fact any overseas licensed pilot with a third class medical must be grounded to fly in
New Zealand until they pass the 2% rule with a proper NZ medical. If the CAA does not do that,
it is a clear discrimination against New Zealand pilots. New Zealand is the only country in the
world to apply the so-called one or two percent rule. Again aviation is an International matter.
	Before the election our prime Minister promised to withdraw the driving test for 80 years old
driver? this is a typical cynical political strategy which gives the impression that our Prime
Minister cares about older people, it is not so, because our Prime Minister knows very well that
New Zealand is the only country in the world to 'impose' a driving test to drivers of 80 year old
and knows that New Zealand does not meet the 1991 Human Rights principles for older people
today.

	The 1% rule has its roots in the USA federal government’s Framingham Heart Disease
Epidemiology Study which since 1948 has followed a representative sample of 5,209 adult
residents in Framingham, Massachusetts. One of the key objectives of the Framingham Study
was to establish and quantify both the relative and absolute risk factors for coronary heart
disease, heart attack, and Stroke in the general population. This study, and especially its “2000”
Heart and Stroke Statistical Update” are described in detail on the American Heart Association
web site (www.americanheart.org). What becomes clear immediately, however, is that
significant differences arise over time and whenever the Framingham general results are
compared to specific states, countries, or racial groups.
	Finally, despite the claim that it is a “boundary between acceptable and unacceptable level
of risk”, CAA use of the 1 %12% Rule has not been consistent nor has the 1%-2% boundary
been consistently used as an inflexible Go-NoGo boundary.
	To use today, in 21St century a nearly 60 years old rule that nobody uses anymore
(including the American) I will not hesitate to say it is a typical bureaucracy stupidity. This
stupidity should be withdraw immediately and the CAA’s use of the 1%-2% rule can be
challenged in the international courts against Human Rights legislation. We need also a political
debate.