[PaulB]

There are a couple of ORS4 exemptions being discussed here at the moment.

One is ORS4 1312 which exempts certain VFR traffic in class d from the SERA separation requirements and which comes to an end in March.

The second is ORS4 1283 which allows EASA PPL & LAPL holders to fly EASA G reg aircraft with a medical declaration rather than a Class2/LAPL medical. This exemption expires in April and many people hope it will be renewed.

The CAA has stated that the former (1312) will not be renewed and that it is discussing 1283 with the Department of Transport to see what can be achieved with 1283.

Looking at these two exemptions I noticed different wordings and wondered if anybody knew why that was the case.

ORS 1312 (the SVFR one) says

The Civil Aviation Authority, on behalf of the United Kingdom, with the consent of the Secretary of State for Transport and pursuant to article 71(1) of Regulation (EU) No. 2018/1139, exempts.......

EU 2018/1139 is here and Article 71(1) says

Member States may grant exemptions to any natural or legal person subject to this Regulation from the requirements applicable to that person pursuant to Chapter III, other than the essential requirements laid down in that Chapter, or to the delegated or implementing acts adopted on basis of that Chapter in the event of urgent unforeseeable circumstances affecting those persons or urgent operational needs of those persons, where all of the following conditions have been met:

(a) it is not possible to adequately address those circumstances or needs in compliance with the applicable requirements;

(b) safety, environmental protection and compliance with the applicable essential requirements are ensured, where necessary through the application of mitigation measures;

(c) the Member State has mitigated any possible distortion of market conditions as a consequence of the granting of the exemption as far as possible; and

(d) the exemption is limited in scope and duration to the extent strictly necessary and it is applied in a non-dis­ criminatory manner.

In such a case, the Member State concerned shall immediately notify the Commission, the Agency and the other Member States, through the repository established under Article 74, of the exemption granted, its duration, the reason for granting it and, where applicable, the necessary mitigation measures applied.

ORS1283, on the other hand has different opening text, saying

The Civil Aviation Authority (‘the CAA’), in exercise of its powers under Article 266 of the Air Navigation Order 2016 (‘the Order’), exempts....

Article 266 of the ANO says

266. The CAA may exempt from any of the provisions of this Order (other than articles 179, 230, 247, 250, 251, 252, 255, and 267) or any regulations made under this Order, any aircraft or persons or classes of aircraft or persons, subject to such conditions it deems appropriate.

For one exemption (SVFR) the CAA acted "with the consent of the SoS". The other doesn't mention the DfT or SoS and from reading Article 266 appears to be able to act as it deems fit.

I'm clearly not a lawyer, but do wonder why both exemptions have different conditions, one seemingly requiring the consent of the SoS and the other seemingly being in the CAA's gift.

I've probably got this woefully incorrect.... Please feel free to correct any of the above and I'll amend the above with a credit.