CAA Medical Licence

[a***@core55.co.uk]

Hi,

In January I started to take flying lessons with the view to gain my
PPL within one year. It was all going very well up until June when I
fractured my jaw playing football, it was only a minor fracture but I
felt compelled to report this to the CAA. With immediate effect they
suspended my medical licence pending further reports from a doctor once
I had fully recovered.

Three months on from the injury I have still not managed to get my
medical licence reinstated even though I have been perfectly fit and
well to fly for the majority of this time. The CAA insist that my
hospital send them copies of all their finding from the point when I
was admitted to hospital.

My gripe I suppose is not with the CAA but with the NHS who have been
totally incompetent in dealing with my situation. They first said that
it would take them 40 days to send the CAA some photocopies of my
medical records at a cost of £30. They then said they had lost my
records and only now have they found them and are planning to get every
other admin person in the hospital to authorise the release!! It makes
me wonder what I am paying all my NI contributions to the government
for?? I must have made about 30 calls to the hospital only to be passed
from one bureaucrat to the next.


I know this is slightly of subject but I hope no one else has to go
through all the crap I went through to get my medical licence back! All
this time I have missed lots of good weather days and I am doubtful I
can complete the course before the year is out now.

[Gus Cabre]

Write directly to the consultant explaining what you want and why. Careful
though because he might decide to write a "private" report and charge more
than the £30.

The other option is to see your AME. First, ask your GP to give you copies
of correspondence from the hospital (the surgery might charge you for this)
and take it to your AME. The AME can examine you and write to the CAA saying
that after seeing the correspondence and examining you that you he considers
you fit to fly.

The last option is to threaten the hospital with some legal action if they
don't sort it out ASAP.

Good luck. I have been so happy since I left the NHS in 1999!! :-))


Gus
Coltishall
<***@core55.co.uk> wrote in message news:***@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Hi,

In January I started to take flying lessons with the view to gain my
PPL within one year. It was all going very well up until June when I
fractured my jaw playing football, it was only a minor fracture but I
felt compelled to report this to the CAA. With immediate effect they
suspended my medical licence pending further reports from a doctor once
I had fully recovered.

Three months on from the injury I have still not managed to get my
medical licence reinstated even though I have been perfectly fit and
well to fly for the majority of this time. The CAA insist that my
hospital send them copies of all their finding from the point when I
was admitted to hospital.

My gripe I suppose is not with the CAA but with the NHS who have been
totally incompetent in dealing with my situation. They first said that
it would take them 40 days to send the CAA some photocopies of my
medical records at a cost of £30. They then said they had lost my
records and only now have they found them and are planning to get every
other admin person in the hospital to authorise the release!! It makes
me wonder what I am paying all my NI contributions to the government
for?? I must have made about 30 calls to the hospital only to be passed
from one bureaucrat to the next.


I know this is slightly of subject but I hope no one else has to go
through all the crap I went through to get my medical licence back! All
this time I have missed lots of good weather days and I am doubtful I
can complete the course before the year is out now.

[Andy R]

<***@core55.co.uk> wrote in message news:***@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Hi,

In January I started to take flying lessons with the view to gain my
PPL within one year. It was all going very well up until June when I
fractured my jaw playing football, it was only a minor fracture but I
felt compelled to report this to the CAA.

Why?



With immediate effect they
suspended my medical licence pending further reports from a doctor once
I had fully recovered.

These people are civil servants whose only interest is in protecting their
pensions. None of them would be prepared to stick their heads over the
parapet and use common sense when they can offload it to somebody else, in
this case the hospital.

Here endeth the lesson, don't tell them anything unless totally unavoidable.

Rgds

Andy R

[a***@core55.co.uk]

Post by Andy R
These people are civil servants whose only interest is in protecting their
pensions. None of them would be prepared to stick their heads over the
parapet and use common sense when they can offload it to somebody else, in
this case the hospital.
Here endeth the lesson, don't tell them anything unless totally unavoidable.

Yes, I will think twice next time! I was never really incapable of
flying throughout my injury. The first week I was on pain killers and
anti-biotics and I have enough common sense to know that it is better
to wait until I am off the medication before continuing with the
lessons and that is what I should have done!

[Gus Cabre]

Wrong! You must report something (long enough) that is stopping you from
flying. If you don't and any accident were to happen (not of your fault
and/or nothing to do with the injury) you will have the legal section of the
CAA after you and your insurance possibly invalidated

Trust me, I am a military AME and have dealt many times with the CAA medical
section. They want to help as much as they can. But the rely on a specialist
letting them know you have made a recovery. Either write to the consultant
directly asking him to write a statement saying that your fracture was XYZ
and that you have now made a full recovery with no sequelae or, ask your GP
to send a copy of your discharge summary to your AME. He/she (the AME) can
then write to the CAA on your behalf. Many AMEs would not charge for this as
they would like you to return to them. I have written to the CAA on behalf
of patients of mine stating the correspondence of the specialists, for the
CAA to restore the flying licence.

It's a shame I can't do civilians. Otherwise, I would gladly do it for you.


Gus
Coltishall

Post by a***@core55.co.uk

Post by Andy R
These people are civil servants whose only interest is in protecting their
pensions. None of them would be prepared to stick their heads over the
parapet and use common sense when they can offload it to somebody else, in
this case the hospital.
Here endeth the lesson, don't tell them anything unless totally unavoidable.

Yes, I will think twice next time! I was never really incapable of
flying throughout my injury. The first week I was on pain killers and
anti-biotics and I have enough common sense to know that it is better
to wait until I am off the medication before continuing with the
lessons and that is what I should have done!

[Andy G]

All sounds rather complicated and doesn't sound like I stand a cat in hells
chance of getting the CAA PPL medical then.

I broke my back in 2 places (2 Spinal Fractures) 4 years ago! in an accident
(not my fault as the compensation attests) and although I am not under the
hospital nor have been for more then 2 years, I am now fit, healthy and ok.

I also had related PTSD after the accident which was treated, so guess I
ought to quit now? before I spend any more of my hard earned cash at the
flying club which I love! I am 7 lessons into my PPL training.

Cheers

Any thoughts????

Andy

Post by Gus Cabre
Wrong! You must report something (long enough) that is stopping you from
flying. If you don't and any accident were to happen (not of your fault
and/or nothing to do with the injury) you will have the legal section of
the CAA after you and your insurance possibly invalidated
Trust me, I am a military AME and have dealt many times with the CAA
medical section. They want to help as much as they can. But the rely on a
specialist letting them know you have made a recovery. Either write to the
consultant directly asking him to write a statement saying that your
fracture was XYZ and that you have now made a full recovery with no
sequelae or, ask your GP to send a copy of your discharge summary to your
AME. He/she (the AME) can then write to the CAA on your behalf. Many AMEs
would not charge for this as they would like you to return to them. I have
written to the CAA on behalf of patients of mine stating the
correspondence of the specialists, for the CAA to restore the flying
licence.
It's a shame I can't do civilians. Otherwise, I would gladly do it for you.
Gus
Coltishall

Post by a***@core55.co.uk

Post by Andy R
These people are civil servants whose only interest is in protecting their
pensions. None of them would be prepared to stick their heads over the
parapet and use common sense when they can offload it to somebody else, in
this case the hospital.
Here endeth the lesson, don't tell them anything unless totally unavoidable.

Yes, I will think twice next time! I was never really incapable of
flying throughout my injury. The first week I was on pain killers and
anti-biotics and I have enough common sense to know that it is better
to wait until I am off the medication before continuing with the
lessons and that is what I should have done!

[Andy R]

Post by Andy G
All sounds rather complicated and doesn't sound like I stand a cat in
hells chance of getting the CAA PPL medical then.
I broke my back in 2 places (2 Spinal Fractures) 4 years ago! in an
accident (not my fault as the compensation attests) and although I am not
under the hospital nor have been for more then 2 years, I am now fit,
healthy and ok.
I also had related PTSD after the accident which was treated, so guess I
ought to quit now? before I spend any more of my hard earned cash at the
flying club which I love! I am 7 lessons into my PPL training.
Cheers
Any thoughts????

I simply suggest you take the medical and see what happens before spending
any more money.

Rgds

Andy R

[David Cartwright]

Post by Andy R
I simply suggest you take the medical and see what happens before spending
any more money.

Definitely. When I had my first medical, my eyesight was borderline, and the
AME was concerned that in a year or two I'd have crossed the boundary and
would have had to beg for a dispensation from the CAA. He suggested I see a
consultant, and put me in touch with the top eye surgeon for my region. The
latter did an examination, proclaimed that he was perfectly happy with the
condition of my eyes, that they're not deteriorating significantly, and the
CAA now has a letter from him on file saying so. This means that if I do go
slightly the wrong side of the correction limit in the next few years, the
CAA won't stop me flying. At the time, it also meant that if he'd gasped in
horror, I'd have been able to give up learning to fly and thus saved a
shedload of cash.

One thing I will mention, though: just because the CAA acts oddly in medical
cases doesn't mean your AME won't give you a medical certificate. The AME
has the benefit of having you there, in his room, demonstrating your
abilities, while the CAA has to rely on information from third parties. Thus
the latter can tend to be a bit overkillish. If the AME's happy that you're
up to it, that's all that matters.

D.

[Tim Ward]

Post by David Cartwright
Definitely. When I had my first medical, my eyesight was borderline, and
the AME was concerned that in a year or two I'd have crossed the boundary
and would have had to beg for a dispensation from the CAA.

My AME didn't "beg for a dispensation", he just wrote me a certificate and
put the "non-JAA compliant" stamp on it.

[david]

Take the medical but be prepared to fight for it. If you have had lessons
then clearly you can operate the plane so far. Be prpared to prove that your
past injuries do not impair your ability to fly.

Failing that, go for an NPPL...the medical is MUCH less onerous and the
retrictions on your flying are, to most PPLs, negligable. If you fancied
an ATPL then thats diffferent but if you want to fly about for fun it would
do you.

David

[Andy G]

Cheers people

appreciate your help

Andy
--

Post by david
Take the medical but be prepared to fight for it. If you have had lessons
then clearly you can operate the plane so far. Be prpared to prove that
your past injuries do not impair your ability to fly.
Failing that, go for an NPPL...the medical is MUCH less onerous and the
retrictions on your flying are, to most PPLs, negligable. If you fancied
an ATPL then thats diffferent but if you want to fly about for fun it
would do you.
David

[Chris]

<***@core55.co.uk> wrote in message news:***@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Hi,

In January I started to take flying lessons with the view to gain my
PPL within one year. It was all going very well up until June when I
fractured my jaw playing football, it was only a minor fracture but I
felt compelled to report this to the CAA. With immediate effect they
suspended my medical licence pending further reports from a doctor once
I had fully recovered.

I had to have an operation on my shoulder just over 2 months ago. I told the
CAA about the operation before hand and they sent me a unfit to fly letter
but also spelled out what was needed to fly again.

It was simple a report from the surgeon on what they did, how it went and
how I was doing. I gave the surgeon a copy of the letter. After 6 weeks and
feeling really good, I called the surgeon and asked him for the "report"
which he did by return.

This I took to the AME who knew the surgeon by reputation, made me do a
couple of extreme exercises and pronounced me fit. He promptly rang Gatwick,
had my flying status restored and off I went to the airfield to fly again.

10 years or so ago I was involved in a bad RTA and self declared myself
unfit. 4 months later when I was ready to fly again it was done by the AME
and a call to Gatwick.

Get the surgeon to do a report and offer to pay a fee. He will likely do it
and not charge as mine did not. If he does it is £40, so what if it gets you
flying again you will be spending a lot more than that anyway.

Never feel compelled to lie either. My experiences with the CAA medical
people has always been good. I really believe the want to help people to
fly.

[Greg]

Post by Chris
Never feel compelled to lie either. My experiences with the CAA medical
people has always been good. I really believe the want to help people to
fly.

If that's true then what is all this thread about then?. You can fly on an
NPPL with nothing more that a note from your doctor saying you meet a
commercial vehicle standard, I can drive a 7.5 tonne lorry or a minibus
without any medical at all and at an even lower medical standard, yet to fly
a C152 without the NPPL restrictions you have to jump through all these
hoops to keep the CAA happy.

There really is no consistence here at all as I can do vastly more damage
with the lorry or minibus if say I have a heart attack at the wheel, and you
aren't banned from driving just because you have a hairline fracture of the
jaw!, the CAA are just a law unto themselves.
Greg

[Chris]

Post by Greg

Post by Chris
Never feel compelled to lie either. My experiences with the CAA medical
people has always been good. I really believe the want to help people to
fly.

If that's true then what is all this thread about then?. You can fly on an
NPPL with nothing more that a note from your doctor saying you meet a
commercial vehicle standard, I can drive a 7.5 tonne lorry or a minibus
without any medical at all and at an even lower medical standard, yet to fly
a C152 without the NPPL restrictions you have to jump through all these
hoops to keep the CAA happy.
There really is no consistence here at all as I can do vastly more damage
with the lorry or minibus if say I have a heart attack at the wheel, and you
aren't banned from driving just because you have a hairline fracture of the
jaw!, the CAA are just a law unto themselves.
Greg

That's bollocks, the NPPL is a UK only licence and the concession on the
medical is from the CAA.

The PPL is European and therefore the standard is subject to Euro wide
balance.

I have a class 1 medical. My eyesight is too bad to get a class 1 on initial
issue but meets the requirements for revalidation.

The CAA have given me a deviation from the initial requirements and once
though the revalidation the deviation will be lifted.

Not all the European equivalents of the CAA do that but or CAA do so I stand
by what I wrote both that the CAA do care and try to get people in the air
and what you wrote was bollocks.

[Tim Ward]

Post by Chris
the CAA do care and try to get people in the air

That seems to be a common experience, yes.

[Greg]

Post by Chris
That's bollocks, the NPPL is a UK only licence and the concession on the
medical is from the CAA.

In what way does the risk change because the aircraft is registered in say
France instead of the UK, or because I cross an imaginary line on a map?. If
the risk doesn't change then the medical requirements shouldn't change, but
they do change change drastically so the whole system is clearly
inconsistent which is the main point I was making.

If the CAA accepts that the NPPL medical requirements are adequate then why
have far more demanding requirements for the JAA PPL?, why ground someone
for a hairline fracture that doesn't invalidate them from driving and hence
flying on a NPPL?.

Unless of course the rules as far as a JAA PPL are concerned are being
totally dictated from Europe, with no leeway whatsoever for national bodies
to interpret them, in which case what's the point in the CAA's existance
with it's huge financial drain on GA?. If the CAA has the authority then it
should apply consistent rules regardless of the license's duristiction, i.e.
if the driving medical is good enough within the UK on a UK registered
aircraft then it's good enough flying the same aircraft across Europe, but
if it doesn't have the authority then it should be scrapped and the burden
lifted from GA.

The argument for the JAA PPL was that there needs to be a unified licensing
requirement across Europe without complicated national variations, a common
theme within Europe, so how can the NPPL even exist if the CAA has no
authority?. This is chaos with the CAA saying it's hands are tied when that
suits it. Recent articles about aircraft certification back up this view,
apparently Europe tried to reduce the burden which would have seen the CAA
lose out financially so it just went around the rules and slapped on a new
tax that's going to make things worse that they were before.
Greg

[Peter]

Post by Greg

Post by Chris
That's bollocks, the NPPL is a UK only licence and the concession on the
medical is from the CAA.

In what way does the risk change because the aircraft is registered in say
France instead of the UK, or because I cross an imaginary line on a map?. If
the risk doesn't change then the medical requirements shouldn't change, but
they do change change drastically so the whole system is clearly
inconsistent which is the main point I was making.

The CAA has its own self perpetuating machinery for making regs.

Then there is JAA which has an even bigger self perpetuating machine
for making regs, with the added problem that to get agreement on
anything in the committee system you have to accomodate the most fussy
delegate. Often, reportedly, this is somebody from Germany who like
making rules more than most.

Then there is ICAO which about 200 states have signed up to back in c.
1944 but most of them have filed differences (there is no way to get
200 countries to sign anything otherwise); the CAA has protected UK GA
from some of the ICAO requirements (e.g. transponders) but some of
this is now coming to an end.

Post by Greg
Unless of course the rules as far as a JAA PPL are concerned are being
totally dictated from Europe, with no leeway whatsoever for national bodies
to interpret them, in which case what's the point in the CAA's existance
with it's huge financial drain on GA?.

History, and job creation.

Post by Greg
If the CAA has the authority then it
should apply consistent rules regardless of the license's duristiction, i.e.
if the driving medical is good enough within the UK on a UK registered
aircraft then it's good enough flying the same aircraft across Europe, but
if it doesn't have the authority then it should be scrapped and the burden
lifted from GA.

Job creation.

Post by Greg
The argument for the JAA PPL was that there needs to be a unified licensing
requirement across Europe without complicated national variations, a common
theme within Europe, so how can the NPPL even exist if the CAA has no
authority?.

It's valid in the UK only, that's how.

Post by Greg
This is chaos with the CAA saying it's hands are tied when that
suits it. Recent articles about aircraft certification back up this view,
apparently Europe tried to reduce the burden which would have seen the CAA
lose out financially so it just went around the rules and slapped on a new
tax that's going to make things worse that they were before.

Job creation.

It looks like EASA is soon going to sort out the recreational side of
GA, which is basically all the VFR stuff. That's a bit of good news.
EASA does not, apparently, have the committee system. It's run mostly
by the French, which is probably a good thing because France is
"pro-flying" and at the same time the French stick one finger up to
any rules which they don't like.

[N***@easily.co.uk]

Post by Greg
If the CAA has the authority then it
should apply consistent rules regardless of the license's duristiction, i.e.
if the driving medical is good enough within the UK on a UK registered
aircraft then it's good enough flying the same aircraft across Europe, but
if it doesn't have the authority then it should be scrapped and the burden
lifted from GA.

My last FAA PPL medical (Jan 04) cost ~$80 = £50, compared to my UK
PPL (July) which cost me £222 including ECG & reading which I do not
consider good value for money or safety, especially when I see the USA
are extendiing their medicals even further. At present the FAA
medicals are two years and no ECG.

As for safety I can fly a UK registered aircraft in the UK with my FAA
medical and certificate. The only thing I gain with the UK PPL is the
ability to fly in IMC.

The following is an copy of a newsletter article:

FAA ADMINISTRATOR PROMISES IMPROVEMENTS FOR MEDICALS
FAA Administrator Marion Blakey promised pilots longer-running
medicals and a new FAA funding system that won't "stifle the GA
community," during her annual speech at Oshkosh Wednesday. Blakey said
the agency has started rulemaking to extend the duration of third
class medicals for pilots under age 40 from three to five years. (AOPA
first petitioned for extended duration in 1979 and had met with the
federal air surgeon early last year to encourage the FAA again for
longer duration medical certificates.) First class medicals would be
extended to one year, but third class medicals for older pilots would
still have to be renewed every two years. Second class medicals would
continue to be valid for one year. "It is estimated that these two
changes will reduce annual applications by 75,000 and therefore
provide better, quicker service to others," Blakey said. And noting
that medicals are a "hot button" issue for pilots, she proudly
announced that the average wait for a special issuance medical had
decreased from several months to 16 days.
See AOPA Online
( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060727blakey.html ).

[Greg]

Post by N***@easily.co.uk
My last FAA PPL medical (Jan 04) cost ~$80 = £50, compared to my UK
PPL (July) which cost me £222 including ECG & reading which I do not
consider good value for money or safety, especially when I see the USA
are extendiing their medicals even further. At present the FAA
medicals are two years and no ECG.
As for safety I can fly a UK registered aircraft in the UK with my FAA
medical and certificate. The only thing I gain with the UK PPL is the
ability to fly in IMC.

Yes indeed, the FAA seems to have a lot better approach to almost everything
related to GA than the CAA. And the CAA's answer?, as I understand it they
are trying to ban FAA registered aircraft from being based here on 'safety'
grounds, more like profit grounds.
Greg

[Greg]

Post by Peter
The CAA has its own self perpetuating machinery for making regs.

My point exactly.

Post by Peter
Then there is JAA which has an even bigger self perpetuating machine
for making regs

Inevitably.

Post by Peter
Often, reportedly, this is somebody from Germany who like making rules

more than most.

Well I am shocked 8-)

Post by Peter

in which case what's the point in the CAA's existence
with it's huge financial drain on GA?.

History, and job creation.

Which is why it should be scrapped, it's not the benevolent safety body that
it would like us to believe but a QUANGO that makes rules for the sake of
it's survival, not the benefit of aviation.

Post by Peter
It's valid in the UK only, that's how.

The interesting point is that in other areas the national QUANGO has been
castrated by Europe to achieve the European goal of a level playing field.
BABT was a well known example, it used to have a national monopoly over
telecoms equipment approval and acted very much like the CAA in many
respects, about 10 years ago I was professionally caught in it's battle with
Europe but in the end it had it's legal status abolished in favour of a
standardised self certification procedure.

Post by Peter
It looks like EASA is soon going to sort out the recreational side of
GA, which is basically all the VFR stuff. That's a bit of good news.
EASA does not, apparently, have the committee system. It's run mostly
by the French, which is probably a good thing because France is
"pro-flying" and at the same time the French stick one finger up to
any rules which they don't like.

Fingers crossed that EASA effectively wipes the CAA out, and the faster the
better because at the present rate of decline GA is dead in 5-10 years due
to their policies.
Greg

[Peter]

Post by Greg
Fingers crossed that EASA effectively wipes the CAA out, and the faster the
better because at the present rate of decline GA is dead in 5-10 years due
to their policies.

No, UK GA will probably die but it will be little to do with the CAA.

It will happen because the whole scene is firmly stuck in the goode
olde days of WW2, but modern people just don't relate to that scene
anymore. They used to up to about the 1970s, but not now. Today, only
the keen do a PPL and only the total diehards keep flying afterwards.
The only way out of the rut is to buy a nice plane (or a share in one)
but that doesn't come cheap, and the decrepit GA scene no longer
attracts anybody with more than 2p to rub together. There is much
better "scenery" in the gym for which you pay 700 quid a year, etc.

The cost of CAA regulation is insignificant in the bigger picture.

The CAA could do a lot though to improve matters. It could revamp the
PPL syllabus to include modern procedures, e.g. GPS. Currently, almost
anybody who lives a reasonable modern life and walks into a flying
school, and is presented with the circular slide rule, etc, will just
cringe. There are big problems with doing such changes though, but it
could take a leaf out of the FAA book, by demanding that the pilot
having a checkride demonstrates mastery of all equipment installed in
the particular aircraft.

[Chris]

Post by Peter

Post by Greg
Fingers crossed that EASA effectively wipes the CAA out, and the faster the
better because at the present rate of decline GA is dead in 5-10 years due
to their policies.

No, UK GA will probably die but it will be little to do with the CAA.
It will happen because the whole scene is firmly stuck in the goode
olde days of WW2, but modern people just don't relate to that scene
anymore. They used to up to about the 1970s, but not now. Today, only
the keen do a PPL and only the total diehards keep flying afterwards.
The only way out of the rut is to buy a nice plane (or a share in one)
but that doesn't come cheap, and the decrepit GA scene no longer
attracts anybody with more than 2p to rub together. There is much
better "scenery" in the gym for which you pay 700 quid a year, etc.
The cost of CAA regulation is insignificant in the bigger picture.
The CAA could do a lot though to improve matters. It could revamp the
PPL syllabus to include modern procedures, e.g. GPS. Currently, almost
anybody who lives a reasonable modern life and walks into a flying
school, and is presented with the circular slide rule, etc, will just
cringe. There are big problems with doing such changes though, but it
could take a leaf out of the FAA book, by demanding that the pilot
having a checkride demonstrates mastery of all equipment installed in
the particular aircraft.

There is this stupid notion that the FAA route is an easy less regulated
route. That's stupid and if you listen to the Americans they bitch on all
the time about their system.

The US do things differently, and whilst the grass might be greener over
there, the standards are just as tough if not tougher.

As to medicals, , I have had both a FAA class three and a JAR class two done
last year and the price was not much different.

JAR is becoming more flexible. Net year sees the introduction of class 1
going to an annual medical which suits me now that I was due an annual on my
class 2.

I have had a number of medical issues including a broken vertebrae (6th)
three cracked ribs head and facial injuries as a result of a RTA and I was
up and flying 3 months later. In all there have been four occasions where I
'fessed up and got grounded by the CAA in the last 16 years but never for
good and now where I can a professional licence. I remember when I got my
first medical the AME saying all I could ever be was a private pilot.

A lot has happened in 19 years, my tip is to establish good links with the
medical staff at Gatwick, be proactive, trust them and they will trust you.
Ask them what they need from you and get it. If you want to fly that much
you will do it.
If you want to stamp your feet like a stroppy kid, go and find something
else to play with. Aviation even GA, wants mature people. Its the idiot
fringe that give us a bad name, just like the magazine that sells a hi Viz
jacket with the phrase, "I am only wearing this to cover someone's ****" .
So childish, but so typical of some of the idiots you meet around the scene.

[Peter]

Post by Chris
There is this stupid notion that the FAA route is an easy less regulated
route. That's stupid and if you listen to the Americans they bitch on all
the time about their system.

They bitch about it allright, yes.

Post by Chris
The US do things differently, and whilst the grass might be greener over
there, the standards are just as tough if not tougher.

That's also true, but they offer more ways forward, whereas the JAA
system will block you quite rigidly at the start. Once you are in,
they are more accomodating.

Not that the cost of a medical is all that relevant on the scale of
flying costs, but I hold both CAA and FAA Class 2 and the FAA one is
about half the price.

The point I made was not about medical issues, and therefore off
topic, but I think it is highly relevant to the future of GA over
here.

There will be more moves towards the FAA position, on both FCL and
certification, because that's is the only way for EASA to achieve the
objective of removing foreign reg aircraft from Europe.

[Greg]

Post by Peter
No, UK GA will probably die but it will be little to do with the CAA.

I can't agree that the CAA has little to do with GA's decline, it's
their stated aim to put much more of their costs onto GA to keep the
airlines happy which has to discourage people.

Post by Peter
The CAA could do a lot though to improve matters. It could revamp the
PPL syllabus to include modern procedures, e.g. GPS. Currently, almost
anybody who lives a reasonable modern life and walks into a flying
school, and is presented with the circular slide rule, etc, will just
cringe.

Surely the CAA has the power to change the syllabus and remove these
discouragements, among others?.

Greg

[Peter]

Post by Greg

Post by Peter
No, UK GA will probably die but it will be little to do with the CAA.

I can't agree that the CAA has little to do with GA's decline, it's
their stated aim to put much more of their costs onto GA to keep the
airlines happy which has to discourage people.

There is a lot of this stuff going around (esp. the Mode S debate) but
you need to look at the specifics of the costs of aircraft operation.

When you write down where the costs come from, you will find that
regulation forms only a small portion.

I could give you a breakdown for say a TB20, operated on a Transport
CofA, versus a TB20 which receives ONLY the manufacturer's recommended
maintenance. The actual work done would be pretty similar in both
cases, but in the latter case there would be no CAA related paperwork
so no CofA fee, and getting all work done by a freelance engineer who
has no CAA costs to pay.

The extra cost, over say a year, would be close to negligible.

I guess the entire regulatory burden is less than 5% of aircraft
operating costs.

The big chunks come from fuel, Annual and hour-based services, and for
an old aircraft (which is nearly all of UK GA) there is a constant
stream of airframe and engine parts which need to be replaced.

Now, if you started to look at the cost of regulation *worldwide* and
the way it jacks up the cost of everything in aviation, you would have
a brilliant point. A TSO certified autopilot costs say £500 to build,
sells for say £8000 trade, £10000 retail, but a non-certified version
(for experimental category aircraft only) sells for £2000 and does a
lot more. The certified version can in fact be junk when it comes to
reliability.

Certification is a brilliant excuse for the manufacturers to jack up
prices and this is what keeps old bloated firms like Honeywell in the
business, making overpriced junk.

Aviation would be vastly cheaper if all the regulation around the
world was dismantled, and you could certainly make a logical case for
that for private flights.

But this isn't "CAA" stuff; this is just the culmination of the way
aviation regulation and the job creation / protection has evolved
around it over the last 100 years, all over the world. Everybody is
playing the same game. Can't blame the CAA for that. It's ICAO, etc,
it's everywhere.

Post by Greg

Post by Peter
The CAA could do a lot though to improve matters. It could revamp the
PPL syllabus to include modern procedures, e.g. GPS. Currently, almost
anybody who lives a reasonable modern life and walks into a flying
school, and is presented with the circular slide rule, etc, will just
cringe.

Surely the CAA has the power to change the syllabus and remove these
discouragements, among others?.

Yes they (and nobody else) could do that, but they won't because the
flight training business would be up in arms over it - because any
move to include GPS in the PPL syllabus would require mandatory GPS
installation in training aircraft. A few grand per.

Even the FAA could not make such a thing mandatory, so they (cleverly
IMHO) mandated the demonstration of knowing all the kit during a
checkride. As schools gradually (*very* gradually, in the UK :))
upgrade their fleet with modern avionics, students end up having to
learn the new stuff. In the USA, you can still do a PPL (and an IR)
without seeing a GPS but it's getting increasingly difficult. 10 years
from now, every new PPL in the USA will know how to set up a GNS430.
Whereas here in the UK, the CAA will still be slagging it off 10 years
from now. At the same time as NATS tearing its hair out over 500-1000
major CAS infringements every year.

[Greg]

Post by Peter
There is a lot of this stuff going around (esp. the Mode S debate) but
you need to look at the specifics of the costs of aircraft operation.
When you write down where the costs come from, you will find that
regulation forms only a small portion.

Unfortunately I'm not in a position to be able to tabulate the costs so
can only go by the claims of the industry, which is being very vocal
about the burden the CAA is putting on it and plans to increase. Of
course the tax on fuel, maintainance and rocketing insurance costs have
got be major factors.

Post by Peter
Yes they (and nobody else) could do that, but they won't because the
flight training business would be up in arms over it - because any
move to include GPS in the PPL syllabus would require mandatory GPS
installation in training aircraft. A few grand per.

Yes I'm sure they would complain about it, but if it was part of a
package of changes to modernise the whole scene and hence attract more
people into GA they aught to take the short term hit for the long term
gains, i.e. their own survival !.
Greg

[Peter]

Post by Greg
Unfortunately I'm not in a position to be able to tabulate the costs so
can only go by the claims of the industry, which is being very vocal
about the burden the CAA is putting on it and plans to increase. Of
course the tax on fuel, maintainance and rocketing insurance costs have
got be major factors.

I pay the same for my insurance as I did 4 years ago, or close to.

"The industry" always blames somebody else. The aircraft/avionics
manufacturers always blame "certification costs" for everything, when
the real answer is that they like their cash cows, lack of
competition, and job security.

Actually almost none of the claims stand up to scrutiny.

Post by Greg

Post by Peter
Yes they (and nobody else) could do that, but they won't because the
flight training business would be up in arms over it - because any
move to include GPS in the PPL syllabus would require mandatory GPS
installation in training aircraft. A few grand per.

Yes I'm sure they would complain about it, but if it was part of a
package of changes to modernise the whole scene and hence attract more
people into GA they aught to take the short term hit for the long term
gains, i.e. their own survival !.

Not really; the average business has no long term interest in
anything. There is no commercial motive to train good pilots, for
sure. The "deliverable" is just the next lesson, no more.

[David Cartwright]

Post by Greg
In what way does the risk change because the aircraft is registered in say
France instead of the UK, or because I cross an imaginary line on a map?. If
the risk doesn't change then the medical requirements shouldn't change, but
they do change change drastically so the whole system is clearly
inconsistent which is the main point I was making.

With regard to the medical requirements, the current rules are actually
reasonably well balanced. The JAA standards are agreed Europe-wide, and thus
anyone with a full class 1 or 2 medical is deemed fit by all JAA-subscribing
countries. Given that all countries need to agree on the standard, it's
understandable that the standard might end up being somewhat higher than any
individual country might be happy to accept. And as the holder of a class 2
medical certificate, my opinion is that the medical gives you a pretty good
check-out without going over the top.

The NPPL is a UK-only concept. Under its restrictions you can't fly outside
the UK, you can't get an instrument, IMC or night rating, etc. Thus the
conditions under which an NPPL-qualified pilot may fly are less intense than
those under which someone with a traditional PPL can fly, and so it makes
some sense that the medical requirements might be less rigorous than the
full medical.

As for the trucker-versus-pilot comparison: I think this is a spurious
comparison. Think of the thought process the CAA went through to decide on
the medical requirements. They started with the idea that some kind of
qualification was required that (a) didn't require an expensive visit to an
AME; and (b) didn't require some new, expensive certification scheme to be
invented. The HGV medical existed and was deemed sufficient to permit people
to drive huge trucks on busy roads, and thus the CAA made what I think is
quite a sensible decision to adopt this as the NPPL medical standard. If you
ask me, this choice was a success on the part of the CAA - they broke the
habit of a lifetime and adopted an existing standard instead of stubbornly
doing their own thing!

Post by Greg
If the CAA accepts that the NPPL medical requirements are adequate then why
have far more demanding requirements for the JAA PPL?, why ground someone
for a hairline fracture that doesn't invalidate them from driving and hence
flying on a NPPL?

Because you can't legislate for every individual condition. What if, for
instance, someone has a condition that doesn't present a hazard when flying
on a nice day, but which might be a problem when navigating at night, in
cloud - even if it's down to a human-factors-related thing along the lines
of you being 100% busy trying to fly and navigate, and your sore arm proves
a distraction? Now I'm the first to admit that it's pretty batty to ground
someone for a condition that doesn't affect their flying, but similarly,
it's important to consider that a JAA medical certifies you, subject to you
getting the appropriate ratings, for flight in extremely trying conditions,
and so it's understandable if the CAA errs on the side of caution. Oh, and
I've also said elsewhere in this thread that the CAA often has to rely on
documentation from other sources, as they're not seeing the pilot in
question themselves - and again, erring on the side of caution is
understandable.

David C

[Peter]

Post by David Cartwright
erring on the side of caution is
understandable.

This is a subjective thing so it could be debated for ever, but the
main basis for arguing that there is considerable over-regulation is
this:

The State has no business in dictating to the individual what his
attitude to risk should be. To argue otherwise would end activities
such as climbing, diving, sailing, flying, driving, cycling, marathon
running, in fact everything where somebody might come to some harm.

The only time the State has a business on protection from risk is
where the *public* is at risk.

In flying, this risk is in two categories: passengers, and 3rd
parties.

Passenger risk can be argued about for ever too. Most accept that
somebody climbing into a GA spamcan is aware that it is not as safe as
travelling in a 747. Frankly, if the passengers don't realise it they
need their head examined.

There is also the general principle that somebody *paying* for a
flight has a higher expectation of safety; it's not logical but I can
see the psychology there. But this is why we have the extra
requirements for public transport ops, both medical and
certification/maintenance. The trouble is that any regs in this area
will always look like protectionism (of AOC operations and the fees
the CAA gets for oversight of these) and to a degree this is IMHO
correct.

3rd party risk in GA is so tiny it is irrelevant. The level of 3rd
party damage and injury which is done through driving (which doesn't
require a medical of any sort) exceeds anything that aviation does by
orders of magnitude.

That's why I think the GA pilot medical requirements are massively
overcooked. Everybody should have the right to determine their own
attitude to risk - just like they do in rock climbing, diving,
potholing, cycling, you name it.

Job creation/protection is everywhere.

[Greg]

Post by David Cartwright
With regard to the medical requirements, the current rules are actually
reasonably well balanced.

I can't agree, at least not with respect to GA which is what I'm
interested in, of course it's fair enough that a commercial pilot
should have stringent requirements. I've yet to hear any argument why
flying a small light aircraft should have significantly greater medical
requirements than for driving, and the NPPL shows that others agree.

Post by David Cartwright
The NPPL is a UK-only concept. Under its restrictions you can't fly outside
the UK.

As I said before, what difference does a line on a map make to medical
requirements?, if it's good enough here it should be good enough across
Europe.

Post by David Cartwright
you can't get an instrument, IMC or night rating, etc.

There's no reason you couldn't have a more stringent medical
requirement for extra ratings, if it could be shown that the rating
made greater medical demands on the pilot.

Post by David Cartwright
and thus the CAA made what I think is
quite a sensible decision to adopt this as the NPPL medical standard. If you
ask me, this choice was a success on the part of the CAA - they broke the
habit of a lifetime and adopted an existing standard instead of stubbornly
doing their own thing!

I quite agree, so why are they not either applying this same standard
to JAR PPL's if they have the power or at least arguing within Europe
for it's adoption?, instead of stubbornly grounding people for minor
conditions which don't warrant it and making they jump through
beurocratic hoops to get back in the air.

Post by David Cartwright
Because you can't legislate for every individual condition. What if, for
instance, someone has a condition that doesn't present a hazard when flying
on a nice day, but which might be a problem when navigating at night, in
cloud - even if it's down to a human-factors-related thing along the lines
of you being 100% busy trying to fly and navigate, and your sore arm proves
a distraction?

The day they ban people from driving for having a sore arm and make
them get specialist's reports before returning their licenses is the
day I'll agree with you on this 8-).

You can of course have an extra licence requirement for something like
night flying, or turning it around have an endorsement on a licnese
that bans night flying, just as my driving license has (along with many
people's) an endorsement 01 banning me from driving without glasses.

Like most people I have a European driving license, it allows me to
drive anywhere in Europe without a medical, relies on voluntary
notification of changes in my health, has medical requirements that are
British and differ from those of other member states yet is accepted
freely by those member states. It doesn't stop me from driving due to
petty issues that have no significant affect, and has a system for
limiting my driving depending on my medical limitations.

Now what on earth would be wrong with a similar system for licensing
the flying of light aircraft for leisure?. If the CAA also revised the
syllabus to cut out the crap, and unburdened the industry financially,
we could have a growing GA scene instead of one in terminal decline.
Greg

[Simon Hobson]

Post by Greg

Post by David Cartwright
you can't get an instrument, IMC or night rating, etc.

There's no reason you couldn't have a more stringent medical
requirement for extra ratings, if it could be shown that the rating
made greater medical demands on the pilot.

A plain vanilla JAA PPL without additional ratings can fly the same aircraft
under the same condistions as an NPPL - the ONLY difference is that the JAA
PPL can fly abroad.

Logic therefore suggests that if the NPPL medical is good enough to allow
people to fly a light aircraft over peoples heads (even within miles of a
school - think about the childrun), then the JAA medical is OTT for the same
flying.

It would not need a genius to work out that a simple modification of the ANO
would permit a JAA PPL holder to fly in the UK, VMC, Day on an NPPL. If the
pilot needs to fly outside those limitations then they'd need a JAA medical
to do it.


The current system is about as logical as the system that says an aircraft
with an 'N' painted on the side is aerodynamically superior to one with a 'G'
painted on the side - that must be the case, otherwise, why would the N reg
be allowed in Class A when the G reg isn't ?

For anyone puzzling over the above - when flown by the holder of an FAA IR !

[Peter]

Post by Simon Hobson
It would not need a genius to work out that a simple modification of the ANO
would permit a JAA PPL holder to fly in the UK, VMC, Day on an NPPL. If the
pilot needs to fly outside those limitations then they'd need a JAA medical
to do it.

Why would a JAA PPL holder need an NPPL also? I suspect you meant "on
an NPPL *medical*".

But that isn't the point behind the NPPL. It was pushed by the flight
training business, to produce a "PPL" which looks cheaper on the
school's price list. A JAA PPL with a simple medical would not be any
cheaper.

The CAA can do what it likes within the UK. For some combinations of
things it needs to file a difference to ICAO and that's it.

There is little logic to medical requirements. Many years ago,
somebody sat down and decided the requirements should be such and
such, and ever since then countless committees have built on the back
of that.

There is only one thing that keeps any sort of lid on it, and that is
the need to *not* disqualify so many ATPL candidates that the airlines
would start moaning, plus the need to not terminate the careers of an
existing highly experienced ATP pilot unless he goes blind or one of
his legs drops off.

Post by Simon Hobson
The current system is about as logical as the system that says an aircraft
with an 'N' painted on the side is aerodynamically superior to one with a 'G'
painted on the side - that must be the case, otherwise, why would the N reg
be allowed in Class A when the G reg isn't ?

Sometimes an N is inferior to G. An N-reg TB20 has a 18k ceiling,
whereas a G-reg one has a 20k ceiling :)

Also a G-reg one can fly into icing (with full TKS) whereas the same
N-reg one can't. Clearly the ice sticks differently to different
registrations :)

[David Cartwright]

Post by Peter
The CAA can do what it likes within the UK. For some combinations of
things it needs to file a difference to ICAO and that's it.

Yup. They invented the IMC rating, which is UK-only and which I think is a
good thing. Additionally, a couple of years ago they changed the rules that
people with impaired colour vision should be allowed to do an IMC rating
(they weren't previously allowed to), presumably on the basis that when
you're in a cloud, it doesn't really matter whether you can tell red from
green :-)

In true CAA style, of course, it seems they didn't bother to tell the AMEs.
Mine found out (and was more than a little dischuffed) when I showed him
the letter the CAA had sent me telling me I was now permitted to do my IMC
rating!

D.

[Peter]

Post by David Cartwright
Yup. They invented the IMC rating, which is UK-only and which I think is a
good thing. Additionally, a couple of years ago they changed the rules that
people with impaired colour vision should be allowed to do an IMC rating
(they weren't previously allowed to), presumably on the basis that when
you're in a cloud, it doesn't really matter whether you can tell red from
green :-)
In true CAA style, of course, it seems they didn't bother to tell the AMEs.
Mine found out (and was more than a little dischuffed) when I showed him
the letter the CAA had sent me telling me I was now permitted to do my IMC
rating!

It's actually been possible for many years, but nobody knew and the
CAA understandably didn't advertise the fact :) The first person I
heard of who did this did it about 5 years ago, but I knew that only
because of the internet.

Just like they don't advertise the fact that you can get past the JAA
*initial* Class 1 medical limits if you have any other ICAO Class 1
plus any ICAO CPL or ATPL.

[David Cartwright]

Post by Simon Hobson
A plain vanilla JAA PPL without additional ratings can fly the same aircraft
under the same condistions as an NPPL - the ONLY difference is that the JAA
PPL can fly abroad.
Logic therefore suggests that if the NPPL medical is good enough to allow
people to fly a light aircraft over peoples heads (even within miles of a
school - think about the childrun), then the JAA medical is OTT for the same
flying.

I can see what you mean, but I can't agree. Your basic PPL can indeed fly in
the same conditions as an NPPL. However, with a PPL there is scope to get
the additional ratings and thus make flights under more strenuous
conditions. Thus the medical requirement has to reflect the most serious
conditions under which the holder might fly, even if the majority of holders
don't ever fly in those conditions.

"Ah", I hear you cry, "what about people with restrictions on their
licences?". Well, at one point I had a "VFR by day only" restriction because
of a colour vision deficiency - so if the NPPL had existed, I'd have given
it serious consideration since international flight wasn't high on my
priority list and my PPL privileges would have otherwise been the same as
the NPPL. In this case, you could make a good argument for the HGV medical
being sufficient for a PPL. In my case, my money wasn't wasted - the CAA was
persuaded to change the rules about IMC ratings (a UK-only concept, of
course) and colour vision, and so my restriction is now only "Flights by day
only" and I gain IMC privileges thanks to having had to go down the PPL
route, not the NPPL one.

Post by Simon Hobson
It would not need a genius to work out that a simple modification of the ANO
would permit a JAA PPL holder to fly in the UK, VMC, Day on an NPPL. If the
pilot needs to fly outside those limitations then they'd need a JAA medical
to do it.

But surely this concept exists already, in that if you're the holder of a
PPL, you can easily transition (or obtain in addition) an NPPL. So if you
don't want to spend the readies on a PPL medical, and you don't need the
extra permissions of a PPL, why not let your CAA medical expire and use the
NPPL instead. (Question for anyone who knows, at this point: if you do this,
can you count hours flown under your NPPL, with your CAA medical expired,
toward renewal of your PPL SEP rating?).

Post by Simon Hobson
The current system is about as logical as the system that says an aircraft
with an 'N' painted on the side is aerodynamically superior to one with a 'G'
painted on the side - that must be the case, otherwise, why would the N reg
be allowed in Class A when the G reg isn't ?

Now you're talking. This is the bit that I wish someone would sort out. The
rules that determine whether you can fly something depending on what's
painted on the side are, on the whole, barking.

DC

[Peter]

Post by David Cartwright
I can see what you mean, but I can't agree. Your basic PPL can indeed fly in
the same conditions as an NPPL. However, with a PPL there is scope to get
the additional ratings and thus make flights under more strenuous
conditions. Thus the medical requirement has to reflect the most serious
conditions under which the holder might fly, even if the majority of holders
don't ever fly in those conditions.

The trouble here is that you need to come up with some objective
reason for needing the extra medical requirements. I don't think the
conditions in night flight or IMC flight are exactly "strenuous". The
difference is largely procedural, not medical. It's not as if a pilot
flying in IMC has to perform 20 press-ups every hour. A well kept
secret of IFR is that IFR workload is way lower than VFR workload.

Post by David Cartwright
Now you're talking. This is the bit that I wish someone would sort out. The
rules that determine whether you can fly something depending on what's
painted on the side are, on the whole, barking.

That is courtesy of ICAO, signed in 1944 or so. If it was not for
ICAO, you could forget half the privileges we have today. A lot of
countries would love to dump their ICAO obligations but they can't -
not without a lot of hassle which is just not worth it.

[Greg]

Post by David Cartwright
Thus the medical requirement has to reflect the most serious
conditions under which the holder might fly, even if the majority of holders
don't ever fly in those conditions.

Why does it?, where does this 'one medical suits all situations' idea
come from and what's wrong with different levels of medical requirement
to match different privileges?.

Why can't the license have a list of the types of aircraft and the
situations in which the holder is permitted to fly, similar to the list
on a driving license, with an appropriate level of medical for those
privileges?. You would initially get a license to fly nothing much
bigger or more complex than a C152 in VFR conditions with
self-certification of your health to normal driving standards. You
could then build up privileges with additional instruction/examination
and nothing more than certificates from a doctor/optician as necessary
for each additional privilege.

The whole concept that GA needs so much more regulation of both the
aircraft and the pilot than something half the polulation do every day
is false and is strangling it to death. If I have a heart attack or a
tyre explodes when I'm belting down the M1 the consequences are every
bit as serious for me and my passengers as if I was flying a light
aircraft, and much more serious for innocent bystanders.
Greg

[Simon Hobson]

Post by a***@core55.co.uk
In January I started to take flying lessons with the view to gain my
PPL within one year. It was all going very well up until June when I
fractured my jaw playing football, it was only a minor fracture but I
felt compelled to report this to the CAA. With immediate effect they
suspended my medical licence pending further reports from a doctor once
I had fully recovered.
Three months on from the injury I have still not managed to get my
medical licence reinstated even though I have been perfectly fit and
well to fly for the majority of this time. The CAA insist that my
hospital send them copies of all their finding from the point when I
was admitted to hospital.

No one else has said it, so I'll point this out - not having a medical
doesn't stop you flying ... as a student with an instructor sat beside you.

This means that you can carry on training, you just won't be able to do any
solo flying until you get your medical back.