[patowalker]

They do, as long as you arrive in a microlight.

But not in a 600Kg one, as I understand

KE

Max 500kg and 70kph stall speed. Must be registered as a microlight, I expect.

[townleyc]

I read the French guidance recently, and they stress the weight difference

Worth checking chapter and verse if in a new rules microlight - when they come in

KE

[Gustosomerset]

How about: "(d) any recent surgery or new medical treatment, (f) any history of... (d)"
If you've had a general anaesthetic, I'm guessing you therefore have a history of surgery, so that's us both ruled out again...

I disagree with your interpretation. Surgery 10yrs ago is not recent, nor a condition that exists. As for the poorly worded (f) any history of... the fact the surgery has been declared and a medical has been issued several times since satisfies the requirement to visit an AME.

The difference here, I think, is that you are 'interpreting' the wording in a valiant attempt to translate it into common sense. I am simply stating what the wording says - which is, self-evidently, nonsense - and that's my point. If this wording becomes legislation, it is not up to us to 'interpret' it, it will be up to lawyers to take advantage of it.

[patowalker]

Oh dear! Should I have visited an AME and applied for a LAPL, because I had my tonsils and adenoids surgically removed when I was about 8 years old?

[PeteM]

The sensible response is that British case law is built very much upon the judgement of 'a man on the Clapham omnibus', which usually means that a common sense interpretation is going to be legal.

Regulators are supposed to employ people who are paid to supposedly be competent and professional who can write regulations which meet that test. When they cannot, then you have an organisation which frankly is not fit for purpose.

My dealing with HMG have thankfully been at the more intelligent end (major hazards where real professionals work) - this stuff should be really simple - why can't they do it?

[Gustosomerset]

Regulators are supposed to employ people who are paid to supposedly be competent and professional who can write regulations which meet that test. When they cannot, then you have an organisation which frankly is not fit for purpose.

Precisely.

[Miscellaneous]

@Gustosomerset I understand the point you are making, however I still don't see the literal wording being interpreted as you do. I consider my own interpretation to be rock solid as I described. What part of my interpretation do you think is wrong?

[RisePilot]

Just a curious query, why the concern on what powers the aircraft in regards to the pilots medical? What is the historical background/rational on this?

Example: Flying an R44 is very little different to flying an R66; however PMD only covers the former. Yes, the latter has 5 seats, but some R66's are 4-seaters as they have a permanent centre console (factory installed) in the back.

[Gustosomerset]

@Gustosomerset I understand the point you are making, however I still don't see the literal wording being interpreted as you do. I consider my own interpretation to be rock solid as I described. What part of my interpretation do you think is wrong?

I completely understand that you consider your interpretation of what you think the rules should mean to be sensible. But do you really believe that what is actually currently written would provide you with a 'rock solid' argument for your interpretation against, for example, an insurance company's barrister defending a major claim? With respect, I think you'd be laughed out of court if that were the basis of your argument.

[Miscellaneous]

With respect, I think you'd be laughed out of court if that were the basis of your argument.

I ask again, in what respect could it be argued I did not comply with regulations?

[Gustosomerset]

I think we may need to agree to disagree, at the risk of boring others. However, I'll just try to clarify my point once again.

You had surgery 10yrs ago. You declared it and a medical has been issued several times since by (I assume) an AME. The (absurdly poorly worded) regulations currently state that a PMD is not valid if the pilot has: "...any recent surgery or new medical treatment (or) any history of recent surgery or new medical treatment."
10 years ago, your surgery was 'new medical treatment'. A lawyer may convincingly argue that you therefore have a demonstrable history of new medical treatment. Absurd, but straightforward logic based on the actual words.

You argue that because an AME has issued you a medical several times in the past (in the knowledge of that treatment) a PMD should now be valid. Perhaps it should. But there is nothing in the regulations to allow for that. Again, perhaps there should be. But there isn't. Specifically, they do not say, for example: "...any history of recent surgery or new medical treatment, except in the case of notified treatment that has not previously prevented the issuance of a medical." If they did, you'd have a case. But they don't. So you haven't.

The wording of these conditions is dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because if they pass into legislation someone who thought their PMD made the flight that ended badly was legal, will discover that a lawyer can very easily take advantage of the nonsense defining its validity to show that it wasn't, with the full implications of being uninsured as a result following quickly behind.

Finally (I promise), I'm not just making a theoretical point. I have a minor cardiac arrhythmia, notified to my AME that, once examined, did not prevent the issuance of a medical several times in the past. My personal judgement is that the history of that condition means that I cannot now rely on a PMD on the basis of the regulations as currently worded - much as I would like to and believe that I should be able to. I'll get my coat.

[flybymike]

The wording of these conditions is dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because if they pass into legislation someone who thought their PMD made the flight that ended badly was legal, will discover that a lawyer can very easily take advantage of the nonsense defining its validity to show that it wasn't,

Essentially I agree with your view on the potential consequences of a literal interpretation of the PMD wording.
However, as you have yourself pointed out, the wording is so obviously “nonsense,” illogical and non sensical, that I don’t think it could be endorsed in its literal sense by any court,

[Miscellaneous]

...I don’t think it could be endorsed in its literal sense by any court,

Nor do I, any lawyer trying to win a case on the strength of a pilot having his tonsils out when he was 8 is going to be laughed out of court, in the fantasy land where he would have got that far. Indeed, his fitness to practice law may be in more question than the pilot's fitness to fly minus tonsils.

@Gustosomerset I think you are suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias.

[JAFO]

@Gustosomerset Just tick the <2000kg box and all that worry goes away.

[Miscellaneous]

@JAFO where is this box to select weight/PMD preference?