Mumbai: A trained commercial pilot in the US. Now he plans to present a new request challenging the rider in his license only for his state of HIV.
“If the petitioner has a complaint of subsequent developments and the new certification … corresponds to the petitioner to defy the same thing that is allowed in the law,” Judges Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna said.
The pilot presented the petition last year through his father. In July 2021, a medical test considered it apt to serve as a pilot in command. He had cleared the DGCA exams to become a civil commercial pilot. In October 2021, he was informed of HIV’s diagnosis and issued a medical certificate ‘not temporary to fly’. In December 2021, DGCA informed him that he was “permanently not suitable for flying” as a pilot in command. In the appeal, in May 2022, DGCA considered it “suitable for flying as (co -pilot) only.” From then on, he went to the United States.
The response of December 18, DGCA said that the petitioner is in antiretroviral therapy (art), including medications that have several adverse effects. He cited the Civil Aviation Medicine Manual of the International Civil Aviation Organization on the risk of disease progression after starting art. “Taking into account the repercussions of the progress of the disease, the unpredictable side effects of the ART and the frequent monitoring limitations, an aeromedical arrangement is made that declares it appropriate to fly as a pilot in command with qualified experienced pilot,” he said.
DGCA’s lawyer Piyush Shah said the petitioner requested the medical certificate and “with respect to that we have allowed him as a pilot in command” together with a more experienced pilot. The pilot’s defenders, Bhoomika Vyas and Sangram Chinappa, said that if a pilot with more flight hours to be next, no one would hire it. “This would be unemployed,” Vyas said, adding: “People placed in a similar way, who have no HIV” do not face such a rider in their license.
For the consultation of the judges, Vyas said that his client has now returned from the United States. The judges said that the petitioner’s complaint that the DGCA was not considering it due to his status as a HIV+ person “in our opinion, would be repaired.” For any other complaint, you must present a new petition “bond a case.”