Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1700148
stevelup wrote:
Paul_Sengupta wrote:We led the way with GP medicals and now with the self declaration.


Really? They've had the 'sport pilot' medical in the USA since 2004 which basically says if you're fit to drive you're fit to fly.


The CAA implementation of the 'driving licence' medical is significantly simpler than the FAA's Basic Med, but one swallow does not a summer make

https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/airmen_certification/basic_med/

Ian
#1700168
The FAA Basic Med seems to be superior to the CAA 'driving licence' medical in that the former allows you to fly pretty much any GA airplane that you can fly with the standard medical; at least pretty much any one the typical PPL might fly. The CAA option doesn't appear to allow EASA aircraft, meaning the majority of real go-places airplanes are disallowed. Far more restrictive.

The CAA website isn't super clear though.
#1700186
Is that a feature of the non-federal structure of the EU, each country being an ICAO signatory in its own right?

I guess a US analogy would be that US states each had their own registry and licences (as well as the FAA licences) and (say) Alaska wanted to relax a regulation but it only applied to its own licences and aircraft, but then issued an exemption to allow the same relaxation to FAA registered aircraft.... but only in Alaska.

... or something like that.

It's really odd that the CAA can be so forward thinking with medical regs, but so backwards in other ways. It's as though there's no leadership.

[Edited errant apostrophe!]
Last edited by PaulB on Sat Jun 15, 2019 2:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
#1700197
"It's really odd that the CAA can be so forward thinking with medical regs, but so backwards in other ways. It's as though there's no leadership."

Maybe (CAA forward thinking with medical regs) that's because the head of CAA medical section, two to three years ago, presented the case to EASA / EC for lighter medicals for flying "EASA aircraft", including GP-endorsed medicals. But the initiative hit resistance not within EASA or indeed the Commission but with certain member states' representatives who still think in 'control' mode and have the ultimate say in regulatory policy decisions in the relevant committee.

Of course the BGA has led in this field over the last 60 years or so with glider pilot medicals (self-declaration for non-instructors then later with GP endorsement), and the CAA acknowledged this excellent track record in terms of extremely low numbers of accidents caused by medical incapacitation.
#1700302
PaulB wrote:I guess a US analogy would be that US states each had their own registry and licences (as well as the FAA licences) and (say) Alaska wanted to relax a regulation but it only applied to its own licences and aircraft, but then issued an exemption to allow the same relaxation to FAA registered aircraft.... but only in Alaska.


State aircraft registration programs are tax related and have no impact on compliance with FAA rules. There are no state pilot certificates either, AFAIK. The FAA makes allowances for pilots residing in certain states, for example Alaska pilots can be granted a licence with night flying restrictions if they trained in the summer, when there are not enough hours of darkness to complete the required night flying tasks.

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/aviation/regis ... 3steps.htm
#1700572
stevelup wrote:
Paul_Sengupta wrote:We led the way with GP medicals and now with the self declaration.


Really? They've had the 'sport pilot' medical in the USA since 2004 which basically says if you're fit to drive you're fit to fly.


Two years after the UK introduced the NPPL with similar requirements.

Katamarino wrote:Of course, the logic of the bureaucrats at the CAA is probably that they can't be blamed for birds, or people scud running; and covering their **** is far more important to them than safety in the national aviation system, I'd wager.


And if people do scud run or use their own home made approaches, the CAA (or the Flyer forum) can wag their finger at them and tell them how naughty they are.

Katamarino wrote:The FAA Basic Med seems to be superior to the CAA 'driving licence' medical in that the former allows you to fly pretty much any GA airplane that you can fly with the standard medical; at least pretty much any one the typical PPL might fly. The CAA option doesn't appear to allow EASA aircraft,


It's EASA which disallow this but the CAA have a current exemption.