PPL Medical- unexpected gift

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 11:48 am

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4_689.pdf

I found the above from an article on Flyer

Does this mean I may exersize all the privs of my PPL? the document makes no references to limitations.

Of interest to me, it would seem to mean that I can legally fly a UK reg aircraft into Europe on the exactly the same medical conditions as those required for a NPPL.

the ANO can be found at http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?c ... ail&id=226
the relevent bit is Section 1 Part 4 Page 11 ( about 57 pages down )[/url]

Dave Hall · Post by **Dave Hall** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:01 pm

The CAA page to read is:-

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?c ... l&nid=1642

It makes it clear that it only confers the privileges of the NPPL. Since this does not include the right to fly in other countries outside the UK FIR, I'm afraid the answer would seem to be no.

It's just to stop lots of people converting to NPPL just for the simpler medical. I don't know the motivation behind this.

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:46 pm

The announcement - even though it comes from the same person, is not the same as the ANO amendment. It makes no distinction regarding the flight context ie local or international. it says that the pilot may fly certain types of aircraft ie micro, SLPG, SEA.

Mike Cross · Post by **Mike Cross** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:13 am

Shirley the issue of foreign flight is bu@@er all to do with the CAA and everything to do with the State within whose airspace you want to fly? The Chicago Convention requires States to allow you to fly in their airspace an aircraft registered in the same state as the one which issued your license if you hold a valid ICAO License and Medical Certificate and if the aircraft has a valid ICAO compliant C of A.

Take away any of that and you no longer benefit from the rights you had under the Convention. The NPPL medical declaration is not ICAO compliant.

Might very well be useful to someone who is temporarily unable to meet the requirements for a Class 2 but whose GP is happy to sign a NPPL declaration.

Dave Hall · Post by **Dave Hall** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:48 am

Pete, the page reference you gave was just for NPPL arrangements, which only covers flying in the UK FIR. As Mike Cross points out, what other countries may allow is up to them - you would have to apply separately for permission.

The other CAA clarifications says the GP medical used with a UK or JAA PPL allows the privileges and restrictions of the NPPL, so it's just like having an NPPL without the bother of actually sending off your £140 or whatever to get one (something I did a couple of years ago when my initial PPL medical expired).

If you fancy checking what EASA has in mind for GP medical, look at thew proposals:-
http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/doc ... 08-17c.pdf

Worryingly, they seem to suggest that GPs will need to either be pilots or go on an aviation medicine course to sign you up. I can't see that happening, and we need to point this out to the authorities while the consultation period is open.

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:11 am

Mike, the intention of the amendment is pretty obvious, however the brevity of the doc is such that it leaves folks in a position to interpret the doc - that is regardless of what you believe to be the legal position, if it ain't written down, it ain't law. Risking being grounded in L2K by a French official is a different issue

Dave, thanks for the link to the EASA stuff.

Reading it through, it looks like the LPL med will need revalidation every 2 years 60 through 65, and it certainly looks like we will need to go to an AME ( or lapsed AME ) to get the signature as I doubt if there are many folks whose GP is either a pilot or has aero med training

The existing NPPL med is based on the HGV med, which required a Bruce test for anybody who has had heart surgery, the last one cost me more that a Class 2 med !!

Steve Brown · Post by **Steve Brown** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:03 pm

Pointless post but I'm going to say it anyway. bearing in mind how few aircraft accidents (whether caused by medical , technical or pilot error factors) ever results in people on the ground being injured

- surely the elephant in the room is -

why do we have to put up with such onerous medicals / costs when we fly lightweight (ie not 44 tonne lorries) aircraft many 00's metres away from other craft, people buildings & animals whereas a car / van driver passes within inches of 000's of other cars / vans & pedestrians on a daily basis and no medical is required?

Depressing and very expensive - especially when taken in context with LAA type aircraft costs.

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:21 pm

well yes, in fact if you extrapolate from the car driving statistics, us folks with controlled ailments probably have less accidents per capita than our younger fitter brethren, less testosterone and all that

Dave Hall · Post by **Dave Hall** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 5:41 pm

As an update to the original posting, the CAA exemption document permitting GP medicals to be used with our PPLs can be read at http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4_711.pdf .

The exemption is granted until 31 August 2009. I suppose that gives time for the effects of the exemption to be assessed.

I am curious as to whether it is primarily aimed at reducing the issue of NPPLs as second licences, or to help out PPLs with the cost of keeping flying, or maybe to set up grandfather rights for the European LPL.

Trevor Lyons · Post by **Trevor Lyons** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 12:59 pm

Steve Brown wrote:Pointless post ! ...Surely the elephant in the room is: why do we have to put up with such onerous medicals / costs when we fly lightweight (ie not 44 tonne lorries) aircraft... Depressing and very expensive - especially when taken in context with LAA type aircraft costs.

Far from pointless; exactly to the point! But there is another elephant in the room, the second being the compulsory insurance imposed by the EU. I am a Europhile over most things, but why on earth did Member States choose a sledgehammer to crack this tiny nut?

Flyers who operate from private strips and small airfields for a local bimble surely invoke few significant 3rd-party risks; so the compulsory insurance is an over-the-top cost penalty. If one pays, say £1,000 p.a. in insurance, and flies 50 hours p.a., that amounts to £20 per hour, which could well be more than the (highly taxed) fuel you are burning.