—1—
The final conclusion of this so called 1%-2% guidance is that the CAA will never admit
they made a mistake to use today a nearly 60 years old rule that nobody use anymore except
New Zealand, and a complete ignorance of the progress of Aviation medicine for the last 60
years, and a complete disregard of the Experts on this matter.

	When I wrote to Dr. Anthony D.B. Evan I.C.A.O Chief Aviation Medical Section,
Montreal, Canada, he cleatly mentioned in his reply: (The so-called 1 per cent (or 2 per cent)
rule is not included in I.C.A.O Standard and Recommended Practices and I can advice that it is
not.

	Also to use this rule in twenty first century according to the International rules
and laws it is completely illegal.

	The conclusion of the Medical Review Committee of 21 September 2000 is clear about
this matter. What did the CAA do since 2000, absolutely nothing, except to increase the 1% rule
to 2%, but that change nothing it is still Internationally illegal. My point is if I am living in
overseas with my medical condition I have more of 50% chance to have my medical back for a
third class medical which does not exist for PPL pilot in this Country. Because overseas they
listen the Experts (my cardiologist), GP, etc.. before looking you age group. The recreational
licence solve nothing, you cannot hire an aircraft overseas with a recreational licence.

	The Medical review committee (21St September 2000) concluded..~.

1- The Director CAA, and especially his PMO, has been giving insufficient weight to advice
and recommendations from AMAs, DMEs and from the Aviation Medical Society, and that the
legal Consultative process required by the Civil Aviation Act has not been fulfilled.

2- CAA improperly introduced the 1% Rule, (now 2%) Flight-fit software, and special medical
assessment through the Aviation Circular 67, the CAA Medical Manual, and other ad hoc
processes and policy statements as the primary means of determining procedures and
standard for the assessment and issue or reissue of Medical Certificates, instead of the
procedures and standards laid out in the CAA Rule Part 67.

3- Judge Harding~s decision (CAA vs Presland) and New Zealand Human Rights legislation
raise serious questions as to the legality of the above ad hoc processes, especially as they
impinge directly upon the rights of pilot or air traffic controller to retain license and certification
unless medically disqualified.

4- The above ad hoc processes (and especially the now 2% Rule and flight-fit software) lack
transparency, and seriously and adversely affect the “trust relationships” between doctors and
their pilot/air traffic controller patients. This trust relationship is vital to effective conduct of DME
examinations and to the AMA medical assessment and certification process. Any breakdown
in this trust relationship could take years to rectify, and will have an adverse impact on air
safety.

5- The 2% Rule and its 2% Boundary are not soundly based. The statistical foundation for
them are weak if not flawed, and in many instances are unscientific, it is intuitively very difficult,
if not impossible to place reliance on a risk-factor screening system, that is based on an
American broad general population study, transferred to our distinctly different New Zealand
pilot and ATC group, and related in some way to complex aircraft component failure analysis.
The evidence that the 1%-2% Rule is widely used internationally or that it will ever be adopted
by I.C.A.O is unconvincing.

6- CAA has moved the 1% now 2% Rule to the very “heart” of the medical assessment
system. There is overwhelming evidence to indicate that it does not belong there. The 1%-2%
Rule (despite CAA’s contention that it can predict a wide range of incapacitation by the