IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v129y2022icp188-203.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A critical analysis of the UK Civil Aviation Authority’s medical appeals process: Assessing the need for an independent medical ombudsman

Author

Listed:
  • Penning, J.
  • Warnock-Smith, D.

Abstract

The aim of this research was to determine how an independent medical ombudsman set up to arbitrate UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) medical appeals would impact on the levels of perceived clarity, transparency, fairness, and logic of the overall CAA medical appeals process. 24 in-depth interviews carried out in 2021 with a mix of stakeholders including Pilots, Air Traffic Controllers (ATC), Cabin Crew, Aeromedical Examiners (AMEs) and Safety Specialists gathered qualitative evidence on the current CAA medical appeals process compared with published evidence on medical appeals processes overseen by other major aviation regulators, namely the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA - US), and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA - Australia). Stakeholders were then asked to give their views on the possible impact of creating an independent medical ombudsman to arbitrate the CAA medical appeals process. The results revealed compelling evidence that the current CAA process is not as clear, fair, or transparent as it could be with only 21% stating yes to all three elements, lower than views on the currently published CASA and FAA processes, with 83% and 75% supporting them as they are respectively. The easy-to-follow approach of CASA, and its many independent options along with the ability for individuals to make a Statement of Demonstrated Ability (SODA) as part of the FAA process were standout features of the international comparators. The idea of an independent medical ombudsman received high levels of support from respondents (91% in favour) due to its perceived impact on introducing more independence and transparency into the current UK CAA process. The findings of this study support the case for an independent arbitrator of the CAAs medical appeals process, which would align well with the organisation's critical work around Just Culture.

Suggested Citation

  • Penning, J. & Warnock-Smith, D., 2022. "A critical analysis of the UK Civil Aviation Authority’s medical appeals process: Assessing the need for an independent medical ombudsman," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 188-203.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:129:y:2022:i:c:p:188-203
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.09.023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X22002736
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.09.023?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:129:y:2022:i:c:p:188-203. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30473/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.