[Flyer Content Team]

Major changes to the Pilot Medical Declaration (PMD) are on the way, according to the latest review by the CAA.

Read more

[Flyin'Dutch']

A-ma-zing.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I can guess, but don't know. What are the reasons for the removal of the above 2000kg limit? Do we know? The CAA document doesn't really explain the reasoning.

G

[nickwilcock]

What are the reasons for the removal of the above 2000kg limit?

See CAP2604, particularly Q4. Of the subsequent responses, only 16% objected to the removal of the 5700kg category.

[Genghis the Engineer]

So...

Theme 1 – Weight of aircraft
3.13 For aircraft at or less than 2000Kg, it was agreed that the pilot medical
declaration scheme (when the guidance is adhered to) provides a level of
assurance of medical fitness to fly.
3.14 Accepting the DVLA Group 1 (car category) approximates to a 20% annual
incapacitation risk which is higher than the legacy accepted benchmark of 2%
for solo pilots in CS-231 certificated aircraft, or 5% in ELA22 certificated aircraft.
3.15 It was agreed that the DVLA standard was accepted by society and that the
third-party risks were similar. This was based upon the risk of an at or less than
2000Kg (large SUV type motor vehicle) travelling in a suburban area at 30 mph.
An incapacitation could result in death or damage to third parties. Although
aircraft at or less than 2000Kg have significantly more kinetic energy, aircraft
should always operate at heights that allows them to glide or auto-rotate clear of
the populated areas, in the event of failure of the power-plant. The hazards
were therefore felt to be equivalent.
3.16 For aircraft greater than 2000Kg the CAA proposes that medical screening
should be reintroduced as part of the licencing system. The pilot medical
declaration scheme does not manage the risk for aircraft of this weight to a level
that would be judged to be acceptable by the public.

Not evidence based then, beyond "nobody really minds".

To be honest, I don't really mind either, but there's discussion and thinking behind this that's not being declared I think, and I'm a nosey sod.

I can't help wonder if future Shoreham-like incidents were in the CAA's collective mind?

G

[Cubflyer]

"3.14 Accepting the DVLA Group 1 (car category) approximates to a 20% annual
incapacitation risk which is higher than the legacy accepted benchmark of 2%
for solo pilots in CS-231 certificated aircraft, or 5% in ELA22 certificated aircraft."

So what does that really mean? Surely it doesnt mean that they expect 20% of drivers to have an incapacitation event every year?!
Most of the pilot incapacitations you hear of are airline pilots with class 1 medicals. Where is the evidence that proves that the incapacitation risk is higher for people with a PMD? actually occurrences in flight vs actual occurrences of people with a medical. The FAA data suggests there is no difference.

where is the evidence that filling in the form again every X years makes you safer? You are already supposed to review your own fitness to fly before each flight and Im sure most of us do, at least subconsciously. Anyone that is going to go flying with a serious issue is just going to lie on the form anyway and they could just as easy develop a serious issue sometime after having their medical, or fly with no medical like happened in the days before the PMD. This is not a safety issue at all, its just someone in the legal dept thinking it covers their ass and pleases their bosses.

and why the charge? Im already a taxpayer and this is supposedly there to benefit the public, they are the ones who want me to have a medical, Im sure they are more in danger from cyclists, make cyclists pay for a medical, licence, registration and have third party insurance too!

[Peter Gristwood]

and why the charge? Im already a taxpayer and this is supposedly there to benefit the public, they are the ones who want me to have a medical, Im sure they are more in danger from cyclists, make cyclists pay for a medical, licence, registration and have third party insurance too!

You forget the CAA's motto: "The regulated WILL PAY for the costs of the regulator."

And if the PMD project requires a whole new IT system and audit process, then that won't be cheap.

[Ibra]

3.16 For aircraft greater than 2000Kg the CAA proposes that medical screening should be reintroduced as part of the licencing system. The pilot medical declaration scheme does not manage the risk for aircraft of this weight to a level that would be judged to be acceptable by the public.

DfT still allow some to drive 10000kg on roads at 70mph

I think +2T is mainly related to warbirds and displays and CAA wanted to stay away from PMD on these…

[kanga]

..

You forget the CAA's motto: "The regulated WILL PAY for the costs of the regulator."

...

That's not "the CAA's motto", it is the Treasury's mandate on all public regulatory bodies: "cover the cost and a (Treasury-mandated %) profit". It has been thus since early '80s.

[Peter Gristwood]

Very true, but the CAA seem to enjoy it.....

[Mz Hedy]

Meanwhile, at the lighter end of the market, I've just received a survey from the CAA asking my views on the older revalidation by experience requirements for pre2008 PPL(M) and/or (SLMG) pilots who may still choose the original 5 hours in 13 month cycle. Interestingly it's hung on the back of an AAIB report from a couple of years back where a pilot in his late 80s died in a landing accident and they thought it might have been a result of his age. The theory appears to be that if he'd flown with an instructor for an hour sometime in the previous year or two he'd have been much less likely to have had this accident.

I imagine the regulatory trajectory is to send us all back to our GPs to get signed off as not unfit to fly and to join everybody else having a jolly every couple of with a friendly instructor.

What does the team think?

Declaring an interest, I use that exemption myself.

[russp]

Meanwhile, at the lighter end of the market, I've just received a survey from the CAA asking my views on the older revalidation by experience requirements for pre2008 PPL(M) and/or (SLMG) pilots who may still choose the original 5 hours in 13 month cycle. Interestingly it's hung on the back of an AAIB report from a couple of years back where a pilot in his late 80s died in a landing accident and they thought it might have been a result of his age. The theory appears to be that if he'd flown with an instructor for an hour sometime in the previous year or two he'd have been much less likely to have had this accident.

I imagine the regulatory trajectory is to send us all back to our GPs to get signed off as not unfit to fly and to join everybody else having a jolly every couple of with a friendly instructor.

What does the team think?

Declaring an interest, I use that exemption myself.

Honestly (and notwithstanding the very poorly done AAIB report where there was nil evidence to suggest age or health was an issue) I think it's ridiculous that there are different requirements simply based on what licence you got and when you got it. It's long beyond the point that it was all simplified and that all pilots across the board have the same regime for revalidation and that can only be the one proposed by the current review. Why should someone flying a 160mph microlight have a different revalidation to someone in a cessna with a lesser performance? Anyone that thinks that an hour with an instructor every two years is an imposition or too expensive probably shouldn't be flying anyway.

[Mz Hedy]

... I think it's ridiculous that there are different requirements simply based on what licence you got and when you got it. ... Why should someone flying a 160mph microlight have a different revalidation to someone in a cessna with a lesser performance?

Absolutely! Couldn't agree more! It's ridiculous that the fast, expensive, heavy machines should ever be called microlights.

The following is an extract from a letter I sent to Flyer which was kindly published in September 1997 when it was proposed to increase the microlight weight limit from 390kg to 450kg:
"I agree with Ronnie Faux in the Summer Special issue of Flyer that increasing the weight limit on microlights poses a threat to the future of microlighting.
Heavier aircraft are already available to those who wish to fly them, they just need a group-A licence to fly them. Those pilots wishing to fly further, faster and higher should surely be trained to the same standards as pilots already doing that in C152s etc. The blurring of the boundaries between microlight and light aircraft classifications can only lead to pressure to raise the training and medical requirements for microlights until the distinction is effectively lost."
<sob>

I hesitate to write this in case the CAA haven't already thought of it, but I predict the next to go will be the allowance that NPPL pilots who fly only single-seat microlights are not required to have the hour under instruction to maintain their licence validity.


The only positive thing I can draw from this sorry saga is that I have been privileged to live and fly, and even briefly earn a meagre living, through the heyday of microlighting.


[edit] PS. My last flight with an instructor was 18 months ago.

[Sooty25]

Having had personal experience of the AAIB, in particular the Human Factors division, I now have very little faith in that part of the service.

I'm sure the technical side that collects and analyses both wreckage and data such as ADSB trails are perfectly competent at processing facts, but HF, no.

The Beccles report reads like it was compiled by the same investigator that I dealt with.