-2-

pilot-at-the-controls) is in fact a broad cardlo vascular risk predictor for the population. It is not
an accurate screening predictor for an individual. Given the extreme rarity of aircraft accidents
worldwide due such CVD incapacitation, it is hard to rationalise the CAA view and the
emphasis it has on the 1 %-2% Rule~ CAA’s focus should be on aviation safety and there even
the briefest review of accident statistics will show that the main source of accidents and
fatalities is judgmental error (human Factors), and not cardlo vascular incapacitation.
Accordingly, the 1%-2% Rule and its “Flight-Fit” software should be IMMEDIATELY
WITHDRAWN in its present form by the CAA.

7- CAA, through the improper use of the 1%-2% Rule, has already taken numerous actions
that AMAs would not agree with ethically nor on medical grounds. Accordingly, all of those
pilots and air traffic controllers who have had their medical certificates removed or suspended
by CAA over the past 2 years should be advised by CAA to re-apply for re-examination under
the pre-existing DME/AMA system. If they are found fit-to-fly, then their medical categories
should be restored.

8- The economic impact of CAAs actions above is costly and highly disturbing not only to
pilots and air traffic controllers, but also to entire NZ aviation community, and thus the country.
If this cost and disruption could possibly result in any increase in flight safety, then it could be
tolerated. However, it is clear that no significant risk to flight safety exist from the threat of
sudden CVD incapacitation of the pilot-at-the-controls. CAA's 1%-2% Rule therefore, will have
no offsetting effect in this area

	Here there is some fact to clarify, since this conclusions from the medical review
committee of the 21 September 2000 nothing has been done and completely ignored from the
CAA. Following some pressure from the Aviation communities and the experts and the Aviation
Medical Society of New Zealand the CAA increased the 1% Rule to 2% rule, which is a joke
because that does not solve any problem and it is still completely illegal.

	So, when the CAA pretends there is some flexibility it is an other joke, how can be a
flexibility when the experts are ignored and a complete disregard of the progress of aviation
medicine today twenty first century, (Read part 2 of my research). With a mentality like this no
pilot over 60 have any hope to have a PPL medical with a medical condition and the so called
2% Rule and no third class medical in this country. The older pilot in USA is over 90, what I do
not know if he has some medical condition?.

	Also I do not think the CAA realize how today they look ridiculous from overseas view
when the overseas aviation community read this on web site.... In 50 years time if the CAA has
still the so called 2% guidance, the New Zealand CAA will look 100 years behind the rest of the
worid. What a stupidity.

	James E Lobet