Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1570908
So for me the question is - do I think I'll want/need to fly EASA certificated a/c next summer? Actually, the answer is probably likely to be yes.

So, off to look at LAPL medical standards as on Med Dec at the moment; thanks for the pointers.
#1570921
I could yet again but have done this too many times now in similar threads where people (not you) bemoan the fact that they need a medical to fly in some cases.

Got too frustrated to retype it all again, and frankly too naffed off with the ongoing 'greedy AME' comments, who according to some hinder 'progress' towards less onerous standards.

Reality is that AMEs and some regulators have worked hard to get better more relevant standards.

The ability of AMEs to hold up progress is zero/zilch/nada/nix.

The Acceptable Means of Compliance of Class 2 and LAPL can be found here:

http://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/ ... 20crew.pdf

OK then, major difference between Class 2 and LAPL are.

- Fewer conditions which are 'disqualifying' or an issue
- Lower frequency of examinations
- No need for certain tests as routine (e.g. ECG)
- Can (in the UK and Norway) also be done by your GP*

*where your GP doesn't want to do it or wants to charge for it is not down to AMEs or the regulator but the choice of the GP

And don't moan there are too many options either - people who cannot cope with that should maybe not fly.

There you go, a nice controversial post.

:D
G-BLEW, PeteSpencer, A le Ron and 4 others liked this
#1570938
There is a list of 20 odd conditions which would preclude and initial issue of a LAPL Medical by a GP.

You can find the list here:

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CA ... %20GPs.pdf
#1570968
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:There is a list of 20 odd conditions which would preclude and initial issue of a LAPL Medical by a GP.

You can find the list here:

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CA ... %20GPs.pdf

One of those conditions is "organ transplant". It does not distinguish between donor and recipient which is odd, considering one has to be checked out extensively to donate a kidney. I fail to see why that should be regarded as a risk factor - recipient yes of course, donor no.
#1570981
Please note: if the applicant has previously held a CAA medical certifcate and informs you that they have been made ‘unft’ at any time, you must refer the applicant to an AME.


A literal interpretation of this would suggest that a temporary grounding on an existing valid certificate (whilst for instance any possible side effects of a new medication are assessed) would prevent issue of an LAPL medical by a GP?
This must apply in many instances, although presumably if the applicant did not so “inform you” then issue would be permissible. :wink:
#1570984
Got too frustrated to retype it all again, and frankly too naffed off with the ongoing 'greedy AME' comments, who according to some hinder 'progress' towards less onerous standards.


I haven’t checked Frank, but I think those contentious comments were directed to “foreign” AMEs rather then the good folk on here.
I can see that they would grate though.