No more medicals for private pilots in UK

[kgwilson]

Could this happen here?

 

"UK private pilot licence and national private pilot licence holders will only be required to meet the same standard as that required to hold a DVLA Group 1 Ordinary Driving Licence (ODL)."

 

http://www.caa.co.uk/News/Changes-to-private-pilot-medical-requirements-announced/

 

Read the Consultation doc and the number of Yes' and No's!

 

http://www.caa.co.uk/cap1397

 

CASA should take note of the UK CAA's top level principles which is the major reason this change is taking place. These are:-

 

• Only regulate directly when necessary and do so proportionately
   
   
  
• Deregulate where we can
   
   
  
• Delegate where appropriate
   
   
  
• Do not gold-plate, and quickly and efficiently remove gold-plating that already exists
   
   
  
• Help create a vibrant and dynamic GA sector in the UK.
   
   
  

 

 

The answer to my question at the beginning is "Not until CASA is totally reformed and that would be after a complete regulatory overhaul.

 

 

[Yenn]

The English aviation press doesn't have such a rosy view of the regulator. plenty of gripes about EASA.

 

We can fly non commercially without a medical, by using the drivers licence medical. Restricted to no night VFR, nor aerobatics and only one passenger.

 

 

[aro]

We can fly non commercially without a medical, by using the drivers licence medical.

Except that the DL medical is stricter than a class 2.

 

 

[facthunter]

And if you fail it you can't drive either. Nev

 

 

[coljones]

And if you fail it you can't drive either. Nev

If you fail a RAMPC your medico will then assess you against the AusRoads standards. If you are a private car driver the Ausroads standard is OK and most people can continue to drive despite the failure to get a Class 1 or 2 or RAMPC.

The RAMPC standard is similar to the Ausroads standard applying the heavy vehicle drivers which are tougher than that required for ordinary private car drivers.

 

 

[kgwilson]

Interestingly the UK CAA do not seem too enamoured with EASA as noted in the CAP document. They have separated UK PPL & NPPL & EASA PPL holders flying non EASA aircraft & state that they wish to put pressure on EASA to accept the changes. If the Brexit happens EASA will be history in the UK IMHO. It is not surprising the UK Aviation press is critical of EASA. EASAs regulatory framework is what CASA's regulatory framework is based on. Both are largely unworkable.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

And if you fail it you can't drive either. Nev

At least it's consistent, having an extreme restriction when the risk is less is unfair to aviation.

 

 

[facthunter]

I got info from a very reliable source that the effect is to lose the CAR licence. To get it back might be a fairly long effort with some serious tests attached to it. It's easier to operate with a Class 2 which may have conditions but you at least can deal with the Avmed people. With the RPL you don't and IF you can't tick all the boxes you don't qualify. This is how you bypass Avmed and the DAME.. To tick the boxes you must have had NO issues with the condition at all. Even if you voluntarily go and have something checked and it is subsequently checked out , clear, It's still on your file. This might stop people having symptoms checked which would be a bad idea. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

As some say the RAMPC may be harder than class 2 medical. The reason I went that way is that for a class 2 I have to do a stress test, just because of my age. That costs and I don't need night VFR or aerobatics, even though the plane I fly is very good for aerobatics.

 

The class 2 has a certain number which you have to achieve to avoid the stress test. My age puts me above that number and even if Ihave low cholesterol, don't have high blood pressure, both of which lower the number I would still be touch and go. One good thing is that they havn't put an upper age limit on a licence yet.

 

 

[facthunter]

A straight out limit based on age would be discriminatory. Probably could be challenged successfully. There is great variability for strength and fitness in the 70+ age group. Some people at age 85 can play a good game of tennis. The last Stress test I did was for two minute extra at the max incline and running. 11 minutes total .Not a smart idea really but the cardiologist wanted to impress them. No point they just want to tick the box. Stress tests can actually bring on a heart event and it could be some time after you did it. You only have to get the heart rate above 150 (I think). It can be done by injecting adrenaline. Nev

 

 

[DrZoos]

To discriminate on age is not illegal. Drinking, driving, health insurance, driving licence tests, old age homes, pensions, super... its perfectly legal to require an age for something... there is no legal defence what so ever. Certainly cant be challenged in any Australian court with any success.

 

 

[facthunter]

I did qualify my statement. Mick Poole put a rule that over a certain age , pilots would be required to do a BFR at a shorter time interval. I opposed it at the time. It's not there now.

 

It's a blunt instrument because as I said there is much variation in some categories. You shouldn't just lump everyone together. I respectfully don't agree with your assertion it can't be challenged. On the basis of fairness and subsequently law. Nev

 

 

[DrZoos]

2004 age discrimination act makes it illegal to discriminate based on age only on strict criterea

 

See:

 

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00188

 

 

[anjum_jabiru]

RAMPC is not much different from the requirements of PRIVATE Aus road medical. I am a GP who conducts Driver Medicals routinely and have had a look at RAMPC. And PRIVATE Driver Medicals in Aus are very similar to those in UK. I was a GP in UK for 4 yrs before moving to Australia :)

 

But yes, if RAMPC was to go then it would mean less paper work and less cost to everyone except his GP.

 

 

[jetboy]

Does this mean that UK CAA have dropped CVD (colour vision) requirements for PPL ?

 

CASA are embarking on a crusade in the opposite direction

 

 

[anjum_jabiru]

If they are accepting dvla then looks like they have dropped it for ppl.

 

 

[kgwilson]

Only required if you want a night rating.

 

 

[Vev]

Personally I think the whole notion of a medical for a ppl is a nonsense. There's practically zero evidence that RAA pilots are falling out of the sky due to medical conditions.... Why would this change because one has a ppl.

 

My observation strongly suggests that a med examination is nothing more than a snapshot in time ... One is better off having a long term and open relationship with ones own GP and allow them to help YOU manage your OWN health issues.

 

A medical examination undertaken 1,2 or 4 years ago is not going to direct me not to fly if I have a bad flu today ... We are already left to decide if we are not fit to fly when unwell. Why can't I be trusted to work with my own GP and decide in a more complex medical conditions my fittness?

 

I fear, pilots are avoiding talking to their GP's to cover up any illnesses, that could be easily treated, through fear that CASA may find out.

 

Cheers

 

Vev

 

 

[facthunter]

Making systems that have bad side effects are just dumb. A person being properly treated or controlled is better than someone hiding their symptoms to keep their licence. Plenty of Class 1 pilots have dropped dead not long after doing a full medical with heart attack. Not a good predictor of the event. Most I knew were quite fit as well. Stress seemed to be a factor often. Nev

 

 

[kaz3g]

To discriminate on age is not illegal. Drinking, driving, health insurance, driving licence tests, old age homes, pensions, super... its perfectly legal to require an age for something... there is no legal defence what so ever. Certainly cant be challenged in any Australian court with any success.

Discriminating on the basis of age in areas of public life such as accommodation, education, employment and services is Prima facie unlawful under the Age Discrimination Act in Australia. It's unlawful unless a law renders it lawful or if certain other exemtions apply.

 

Services are a bit of a grey area and I doubt anyone really understands what the High Court was saying in IW v City of Perth but I had the Full Court of the Federal Court hold that the provision of a birth certificate is a service.

 

I seem to remember that Australian commercial pilots working in RPT had to retire at 60 until an inquiry was conducted and, based on actuarial data, the age was increased to 65. That issue did not, as far as my recollection goes, see the Court examine the issue of a licence as property and therefore it's revocation being a matter for compensation on just terms under the Constitution. One day....

 

Kaz

 

 

[frank marriott]

Mick Poole put a rule that over a certain age , pilots would be required to do a BFR at a shorter time interval. I opposed it at the time. It's not there now.

Don't relax on that one , Nev

 

 

[facthunter]

It was done to show something was being done. That's NOT the way to deal with problems in Aviation, but that seems to be the normal approach. Nev

 

 

[Birdseye]

><Snip><

I seem to remember that Australian commercial pilots working in RPT had to retire at 60 until an inquiry was conducted and, based on actuarial data, the age was increased to 65. That issue did not, as far as my recollection goes, see the Court examine the issue of a licence as property and therefore it's revocation being a matter for compensation on just terms under the Constitution. One day....

 

Kaz

As best as I can recall from my aging mind, it was unfair dismissal cases brought by (or on behalf of) a couple of Qantas pilots, one domestic and the other international. The outcome was that it was illegal to apply an age 60 retirement for pilots operating domestically, but applicable to pilots on international routes due to international obligations.