[SteveX]

It could all be so simple.

One PPL. One training course. One set of exams. One set of revalidation requirements. All ICAO compliant. Your initial licence covers you for whatever class of aeroplane you took your test in. Choose what variety of aircraft you want to move on to and get them added to your initial licence by means of differences training signed-off by an instructor, no examiner input required.

Two levels of medical. An ICAO compliant Class 2 or a simple medical declaration as per PMD.

If you have an ICAO medical, you are good to go anywhere in the world in a G-reg. If you have a PMD then it's effectively sub-ICAO and UK only.

Maybe make the licence a small plastic card and have the data all stored on a database with appropriate access for pilots, instructors and examiners.

It might be that when everything settles down, and LAPL medical could be added if we can agree on this for flying in Europe.

The current hundreds of pages of FCL could be reduced to less than 100 at stroke. Might not be good for these forums though as the endless questions about licences, revalidation, etc. would slow to a trickle.

Just saying.

P

Pretty much what I said further up. As for medicals - the standard class1/2 that covers everything for anything, but also perhaps a PMD that has to also show an eyesight test with correction in the last 12 months. That PMD can only be used solo, yes no passengers hence no risk to anyone else.

Ultimately if you can't pass a flying course and exams, can't pass a medical then you should not be allowed in the air. That goes for those SSDR things also.

[Bill McCarthy]

Is there EVER a simple licence question !?

[JAFO]

As for medicals - the standard class1/2 that covers everything for anything, but also perhaps a PMD that has to also show an eyesight test with correction in the last 12 months. That PMD can only be used solo, yes no passengers hence no risk to anyone else.

Is there a good, evidence based, reason why you want to make things more restrictive than they are at present?

[VFRBimbler]

A lot of time and effort has gone into trying to make aviation as accessible as possible. As alluded to by JAFO, there is no evidence that safety has been compromised.

There are few enough aviators as it is. By restricting numbers further, there will be knock on adverse effects on the aviation industry generally, which doesn’t bode well for anyone. Increased exclusivity is not what we should seeking to achieve.

[Irv Lee]

Prior to Jan 1st, didn't I see NATS giving pointers to planned change on cloud separation? Q: How people will complain that they wanted to have a NATS survey to be able to say "please ensure Redhill continues to close to VFR when cloud is bkn or ovc 1400' at Gatwick, it is vital we screw the businesses there".? A: zero.
Safety: ssea issued up to 7/4/18, pilot deemed safe (for a one off £46 admin fee) for flying all suitable G-reg certified aircraft in UK on a lapl with a pmd, but ssea issued next day onwards, no way, other than a FULL ab initio licence course, requiring the full medical for whichever licence (lapl or ppl). The pre April 2018 lot also have a defined way to a full icao ppl, and could still convert ssea to lapl to ppl today if they have not started to progress yet.
There is more than one way to solve the issue of ssea progression - I don't think there is a justifiable reason to delay a policy announcement similar to the Nats one on "cloud" that non punitive progression will be introduced including Part21.... whether that is ssea flying Part21 and a progression to ppl restored, or really simple, get rid of the 7th/8th April 2018 divide and the route is already there. Pmd and £46 to get a lapl, then for those wanting more, class 2 and already defined training to ppl.

[SteveX]

As for medicals - the standard class1/2 that covers everything for anything, but also perhaps a PMD that has to also show an eyesight test with correction in the last 12 months. That PMD can only be used solo, yes no passengers hence no risk to anyone else.

Is there a good, evidence based, reason why you want to make things more restrictive than they are at present?

This is a good point. I think rather than make them more restrictive for the hell of it (which would be wrong) it needs a review to simplify the license structure. What comes out of that may or may not be more restrictive, but it needs to happen. Just look at that sheet on Higherplane with all the scenarios, its utterly ridiculous.

Looking at it in reverse......if pilots can fly by just declaring themselves fit without going near an AME then why on earth have things called lapl and class 2 medicals? Shouldn't they be abolished then for PPLs?

One license, one medical in order to be a ppl who can carry passengers I think sorts it all.

[Bathman]

What about the NPPL?

Can a student go solo in a G reg Cessna on a PMD again?

I know someone who has just spent 1200 quid on investigations required for a LAPL medical and he is still not finished.

And an NPPL would allow him to everything that he wants to do.

If this industry wants to flourish post Brexit then all these little "wins" need tidying up.

[JAFO]

This is a good point. I think rather than make them more restrictive for the hell of it (which would be wrong) it needs a review to simplify the license structure. What comes out of that may or may not be more restrictive, but it needs to happen. Just look at that sheet on Higherplane with all the scenarios, its utterly ridiculous.

Looking at it in reverse......if pilots can fly by just declaring themselves fit without going near an AME then why on earth have things called lapl and class 2 medicals? Shouldn't they be abolished then for PPLs?

One license, one medical in order to be a ppl who can carry passengers I think sorts it all.

Steve, I absolutely agree that the attempts to make aviation more accessible have, in fact, confused the matter massively.

Why not an NPPL with PMD for UK only upto 2000 kgs and 3 pax (which is what we had until very recently) and a PPL with a Class 2 (or 1) which is full ICAO with the ability to add all sorts of bells and whistles and number of engines and wobbly props and disappearing dunlops and all that sort of thing?

Same currency/recency requirements for both but the former is largely recreational and quite limited while the latter doesn't have those limitations. There could also be a straightforward upgrade option.

[Paul_Sengupta]

Now we have departed EASA we should be lobbying the CAA to provide maximum flexibility of the Class 2 within ICAO SARPs to permit foreign flight while continuing to accumulate statistical verification of the equivalent level of safety provided by the PMD.

Or re-introduce the ICAO compliant Class 3 which was removed in 2000 with the introduction of the JARs.

Looking at it in reverse......if pilots can fly by just declaring themselves fit without going near an AME then why on earth have things called lapl and class 2 medicals? Shouldn't they be abolished then for PPLs?

Problem is that that would, to be ICAO compliant, have to be agreed on a worldwide basis. Good luck!

[Bathman]

Or re-introduce the ICAO compliant Class 3 which was removed in 2000 with the introduction of the JARs.

Why was it pulled?

[Paul_Sengupta]

Why was it pulled?

Europe. JARs.

I can't remember the details of the content but the validity periods were definitely longer than the current Class 2. I don't know if the old Class 2 was more stringent in terms of content than the current Class 2, I never held one. If I remember correctly, instructors had to have a Class 2?

[Earl Grey]

Is there EVER a simple licence question !?

Doesn't look like it!...but generated an interesting discussion anyway...

EG

PS I shall continue to get both licences signed

[patowalker]

Or re-introduce the ICAO compliant Class 3 which was removed in 2000 with the introduction of the JARs.

The ICAO compliant FAA Class 3 is very similar to the LAPL medical. At least it seems so to me, when I have one examination and pay my AME for two.

[Paul_Sengupta]

The ICAO compliant FAA Class 3

Wasn't there a bit of a hoo har a couple of years ago when European agencies refused to believe the FAA Class 3 was ICAO compliant?

Edit:

https://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=103738

[Edward Bellamy]

Just re class 3, there is no class 3 in ICAO Annex 1 for pilots - there may have been in the past but currently it’s for ATCOs.

All we need is class 2 + PMD. LAPL perhaps if mutual recognition is on the table but otherwise not sure what the point would be.

I’m not sure what having a US style class 3 would really buy us?

Going forward I’m also not sure whether NPPL/LAPL for aeroplanes is really worth it - if you can have PPL + PMD (including for initial issue) is there really any advantage to having NPPL/LAPL for aeroplanes larger than microlights?