[flybymike]

It only applies to Part-FCL licences issued before 8th April and does not include conversions from UK legacy licences issued before that date.

I assume the 'ICAO conversion / variation' refers to 3rd country licences...

Which is it?
There is no logical reason I can think of to exclude legacy U.K. licence conversions. There must be thousands of such licence holders
Surely this must apply to third country non EASA member state conversions only.

[venteux]

GrahamB

Just to clarify:

They have their own regulatory authorities who would have to be in agreement. Perhaps it may happen, but it is not in the gift of the UK CAA to decide what is allowed in other territorial jurisdictions.

The Isle of Man has its own ANO and aircraft registry. However, it does not issue licences. All EASA PPL and EASA LAPL are issued solely by the CAA. Licensing is nothing whatsoever to do with the IOM regulatory authority. We come under exactly the same EASA/CAA licensing regulations (and charges!) as other pilots in the UK and N Ireland.

[The Westmorland Flyer]

Being a bear of very little brain I find all these partial changes in medical requirements jolly confusing. And I should say that being of a certain age, when class 2s are an annual ritual, I do actually find them a handy sort of medical MOT. Nevertheless, my interest is piqued, so...

I have an EASA Part FCL-PPL(A) issued in 2014 so I gather that I can now fly an "EASA aircraft" on a medical declaration. But I actually fly a CAA/LAA permit aircraft: does that mean I still need a class 2 medical? If so that seems to be perverse in the extreme.

I am wont to toddle off to the IoM a few times a year and I think that also means that I need a proper grown up medical as well?

I also have a valid IR(R) but as my permit aircraft will, apparently, come to instant grief if it ever so much as grazes a dollop of IMC, I don't actually use it in anger. If I were to ever find myself in the clag, it seems I'd better have my medical up to date as well.

Is that about it?

[A le Ron]

Being a bear of very little brain I find all these partial changes in medical requirements jolly confusing. And I should say that being of a certain age, when class 2s are an annual ritual, I do actually find them a handy sort of medical MOT. Nevertheless, my interest is piqued, so...

I have an EASA Part FCL-PPL(A) issued in 2014 so I gather that I can now fly an "EASA aircraft" on a medical declaration. But I actually fly a CAA/LAA permit aircraft: does that mean I still need a class 2 medical? If so that seems to be perverse in the extreme.

I am wont to toddle off to the IoM a few times a year and I think that also means that I need a proper grown up medical as well?

I also have a valid IR(R) but as my permit aircraft will, apparently, come to instant grief if it ever so much as grazes a dollop of IMC, I don't actually use it in anger. If I were to ever find myself in the clag, it seems I'd better have my medical up to date as well.

Is that about it?

Pretty much, yes. The CAA have previously stated that a UK-issued EASA PPL can be validated by a med dec for use in an Annexe 2 aircraft in UK airspace, and I see nothing in the new regulations that changes that.
As ever, the devil is in the detail: most of the questions posed on this thread could be answered by reading the exemption as linked.

[Edward Bellamy]

We come under exactly the same EASA/CAA licensing regulations (and charges!) as other pilots in the UK and N Ireland.

Yes but the IOM ANO gives the legal framework for which licences are valid on IOM registered aircraft and for flying on the IOM. It is not within the direct gift for the CAA to determine which licences are acceptable to the IOM authorities.

I say direct because it would almost certainly be possible to arrange, but it is not automatic. Since the IOM are not part of EASA, it would also be a separate legal mechanism used to achieve it.

[venteux]

Yes but the IOM ANO gives the legal framework for which licences are valid on IOM registered aircraft

My aircraft is not on the Manx register but an EASA listed aircraft on the G- register. It, therefore, is subject to all the rules and regulations relating to maintenance and licensing of EASA & the CAA.

As far as the EU is concerned, the Isle of Man is linked with the EU under the Protocol 3 arrangement.

Did the CAA forget about including Alderney in the list of countries that the exemption doesn't apply????

[johnm]

Did the CAA forget about including Alderney in the list of countries that the exemption doesn't apply????

Alderney is part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey.

[Ian Melville]

Can someone clarify some of this for my situation?

I hold an NPPL(A), and currently, fly with a GP's Declaration that has a few years before expiring. From 8th April I assumed I would no longer be able to fly the Clubs EASA aircraft.

4)
This exemption is subject to the following conditions
: i) The licences specified in paragraph 2 must have been issued by the CAA before 8 April 2018;

Implies to me that I could submit an application for a LAPL(A) PDQ, on the back of my NPPL(A), and hopefully get it issued before the 8th.
Yet

5)
The following are excluded from this exemption:
i) Initial applicants for the licences specified in paragraph 2;

Seems to imply otherwise. Also, would a new Self Declaration be acceptable for a new issue of an LAPL(A)? I suspect not, which makes Section 4.i worthless?

[The Westmorland Flyer]

The CAA have previously stated that a UK-issued EASA PPL can be validated by a med dec for use in an Annexe 2 aircraft in UK airspace, and I see nothing in the new regulations that changes that.

Thanks, Monsieur le Ron. I've now determined that my kit built Sportcruiser is an Annexe 2 flying machine, so it looks like my occasional visits to IoM have become a little more expensive as they are the only reason I now need a grown up medical. Less irksome than Ronaldsway's handling charges though. My AME will be pleased...

[Edward Bellamy]

Protocol 3 has nothing to do with it. The European legislation has been exempted from, so that's not the issue. But it didn't directly apply in the IOM in the first place.

This issue is that when an aircraft of any registration flies on/in the IOM, it is subject to the IOM ANO. It is that ANO that makes an EASA licence (or whatever ICAO licence it may happen to be) 'rendered valid', not the UK one.

Now having had a quick read of the IOM ANO, generally speaking for private flying any licence is OK so long as it is valid under the state of registry of the aircraft being flown - however this is qualified by a following article relating to licences which do not meet ICAO standards. Now *technically* that would only apply in the case of a licence that is actually endorsed that it does not comply with ICAO (and there are all sorts of arguments about whether that means the licence itself, the medical or whatever) but the basic intention of that text is that licences must be ICAO compliant to be accepted automatically.

Re Alderney, I'm not sure, I have a feeling it comes under one of the other CI ANOs.

Anyway, all that needs to happen is for the IOM authorities (and the CIs) to issue a relevant permission/exemption that follows on from the CAA one. It has to be a different one, because the legal framework is different, but it should not be difficult to implement.

[David Roberts]

It would be really good if stakeholders could stimulate EASA to accept medical self declarations in the whole of EASA land.
I know that some people in EASA are not averse to that.

That is not within the gift of EASA; EASA only drafts rules. Only the member states can enact them. In fact it was EASA, very much stimulated by UK CAA, which supported and took a proposal to the EASA Management Board (of Member States) in the autumn of 2017 to have self-declaration / driver licence standards for the PPL and LAPL licences. The proposal was backed strongly by France (DGAC) and the UK DfT / CAA but every other member state rejected the proposal.
Before anyone asks why, consider how the system of rule-making works and who attends the meetings. They are risk averse and do not necessarily study the evidence which was provided, based on the UK system deployed for many years in gliding, and more recently in the UK NPPL. That evidence is quite clear: medical incapacitation is an extremely low risk.
This exemption announced today by the UK CAA is partly to do with building empirical evidence in applying self-declaration to flying EASA aircraft (of course that is a very different risk to flying Annex II aircraft - NOT), so as to build a case again for putting to member states. However, I do not suggest you hold your breath on that, and certainly not if Brexit happens (and we "stay in EASA" because we shall lack a vote and influence).
The exemption announced today is limited to one year, at present. And if you read very carefully there are conditions attached, some of which folks will find difficult to meet. Especially 4) ii) in which I presume the "which remains valid and has not been withdrawn" refers to the medical declaration and not to the Article 163(3) of the ANO !

[Smaragd]

The exemption announced today is limited to one year, at present. And if you read very carefully there are conditions attached, some of which folks will find difficult to meet. Especially 4) ii) in which I presume the "which remains valid and has not been withdrawn" refers to the medical declaration and not to the Article 163(3) of the ANO !

Isn't that just saying that at the time you wish to take advantage of the exemption you have to have a current, valid declaration?

[muffin]

So in a nutshell, I read it that if you are currently flying an EASA aircraft on an EASA PPL or LAPL, for the next year you don’t need a Class 2 or an LAPL medical respectively but just make a declaration?
Is that it?

[Smaragd]

So in a nutshell, I read it that if you are currently flying an EASA aircraft on an EASA PPL or LAPL, for the next year you don’t need a Class 2 or an LAPL medical respectively but just make a declaration?
Is that it?

Don't forget paras 4 & 5!

[trapdoor]

The exemption announced today is limited to one year, at present. And if you read very carefully there are conditions attached, some of which folks will find difficult to meet. Especially 4) ii) in which I presume the "which remains valid and has not been withdrawn" refers to the medical declaration and not to the Article 163(3) of the ANO !

Isn't that just saying that at the time you wish to take advantage of the exemption you have to have a current, valid declaration?

Sooooooo .... does that mean then that one has to self-declare now against Annexe II to be able to then carry on with a self-dec PMD after 8th April?

Does that mean I need to get a declaration in NOW even though I fly an EASA type on my current LAPL medical?

This is awfully contrived ... why should you need to have self-declared prior to the implementation date?

(Goes off to find the relevant bit on the CAA website)