I could yet again but have done this too many times now in similar threads where people (not you) bemoan the fact that they need a medical to fly in some cases.
Got too frustrated to retype it all again, and frankly too naffed off with the ongoing 'greedy AME' comments, who according to some hinder 'progress' towards less onerous standards.
Reality is that AMEs and some regulators have worked hard to get better more relevant standards.
The ability of AMEs to hold up progress is zero/zilch/nada/nix.
The Acceptable Means of Compliance of Class 2 and LAPL can be found here:
http://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/ ... 20crew.pdfOK then, major difference between Class 2 and LAPL are.
- Fewer conditions which are 'disqualifying' or an issue
- Lower frequency of examinations
- No need for certain tests as routine (e.g. ECG)
- Can (in the UK and Norway) also be done by your GP*
*where your GP doesn't want to do it or wants to charge for it is not down to AMEs or the regulator but the choice of the GP
And don't moan there are too many options either - people who cannot cope with that should maybe not fly.
There you go, a nice controversial post.