NPPL Medical Standards

[QDMQDMQDM]

These are interesting. They are basically those you need to meet to get a driving licence, as per here:

http://www.dvla.gov.uk/at_a_glance/content.htm

If you are fit enough only for a private driving licence, you can have a med cert allowing you to fly solo or with another PPL next to you, but no passengers. i.e. you are allowed to kill yourself, but no-one else, which seems reasonable.

If, however, you can qualify for a heavy goods vehicle licence, you can get an unrestricted med cert, allowing you to fly up to three passengers.

The thing is, you can get a heavy goods vehicle licence with a few conditions which somewhat raise my eyebrows when it comes to flying. This is particularly relevant for me at the moment because I am about to give someone a med cert for the NPPL who has lost their Class 2. (I don't want to go into specifics on that.)

I'm not really sure they've thought this thing through or devoted sufficient resources to it. HGV driving isn't the same as flying. You can't pull over.

There may be a few spouses out there who would be well-advised to do a few hours instruction so they at least know how to land the thing!

QDM

[Philip Whiteman]

Didn't aprreciate that you were a medic, QDMQDMQDM!

I think the rationale behined the NPPL medical sign-off is pretty robust myself. Decades of gliding experience showed that pilot imparement or incapicitation simply was not a significant factor in accidents. (Glider pilots are signed off by their GPs.) In several of the tiny number of cases where pilots had actually conked out, the individual concerned was a PPL holder with a current medical!

As private pilots, we are not routinely whizzing up into the stratosphere or hurling ourselves into the sort of inner-ear challenge that is military fighter flying. Nor should we expect to be rejected by the system because we are not perfect physical specimens. Why should we Sunday flyers be burdened with medical requirements that were first formulated for the RAF, especially when they appear to have a negligable impact on flight safety?

One of my friends is currently engaged in one of those hugely expensive one-CAA-medic-after-another cardiac referral sagas. £1,000-odd later, he will get his Class 2, fly for years and die in bed. He tells me that he can afford it, but just think how many flying hours this saga could have cost him, and certainly would cost most of us. Here is the real crux of the thing: it is practice that truly makes the safe pilot!

[StrateandLevel]

This is particularly relevant for me at the moment because I am about to give someone a med cert for the NPPL who has lost their Class 2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rumour has it that insurers have already said they will not cover such pilots, who have a known medical problem!

Does anyone have any confirmation of this?

[QDMQDMQDM]

Hi Philip,

I completely agree with you and I applaud the NPPL med standards in principle. But turn it around for a moment: I'm a medic with a reasonably broad background and I fly, so I know a bit about both things. I'm looking down the HGV list and saying to myself: would I be happy if I were a non-pilot passenger to sit in the right seat of an aircraft piloted by someone with XYZ condition? The answer in some cases is 'No'.

The NPPL is going to let a lot of people fly who were unjustly prevented from doing so by the Class 2 medical. It's also going to let a few people slip through the gap who possibly shouldn't and, eventually, something unpleasant will happen. Maybe that's just life, but I'm glad that I, personally, am in a position to assess who I would fly with from a medical point of view (and in any case I could probably get most aircraft on the ground in a couple of largish pieces).

Cheers,

QDM

[EastMids]

QDM,

With respect, I understand that you may not want to fly with an NPPL with certain medical conditions, and it's obviously your right to exercise that judgement. But, is it yours to make a judgement as to whether a person should be able to fly as an NPPL with other passengers, based on their medical situation?

Surely, the NPPL has a set of associated medical standards, and if a person can meet those standards, they should be given a certificate by their medical practicioner. I certainly hope that no one WHO CAN MEET THE MEDICAL REQUIREMENTS is prevented from flying just because a doctor feels it is unsafe for them to do so, and therefore elects not to issue a certicate.

Whether the standards are right or not is a broader issue that I hope can only be addressed by the CAA. With the normal JAR PPL class 2 certificates, the standards have evolved through many years of experience, and possibly the NPPL standards may also evolve over time. But ultimately, without statistical analysis that proves the standards are wrong, the only logical alternative to allowing such standards to evolve from what we have now is to only allow people to fly who are 100% fit in every single respect.

Andy

[QDMQDMQDM]

But, is it yours to make a judgement as to whether a person should be able to fly as an NPPL with other passengers, based on their medical situation?

Er, yes. My signature goes on the medical certificate, which means my arse is on the line.

I certainly hope that no one WHO CAN MEET THE MEDICAL REQUIREMENTS is prevented from flying just because a doctor feels it is unsafe for them to do so, and therefore elects not to issue a certicate.

Well, obviously. I'm just saying, as the person who signs the certificate, that sometimes my signature will be an uneasy one. I also know that I am not alone in this.

Whether the standards are right or not is a broader issue that I hope can only be addressed by the CAA.

From what I can gather the CAA basically isn't all that interested in getting involved and is crossing its fingers and hoping.

As I've said before, I think it's a great thing for most people concerned. I also think there will be some people flying passengers who possibly shouldn't be. I'd actually favour a three grade medical standard for the NPPL:

a) Can fly solo or with another PPL and no passengers
b) Can fly solo and take non-pilot passengers, but needs to brief them that he has XYZ medical condition and there is a remote chance that something might happen, but nevertheless it is a real one. (This could be aided by a proforma piece of paper he has to give to them to read, rather analogous to the 'Experimental' placard in PFA types.)
c) Can fly solo and take non-pilot passengers, no warning / briefing needed.

I'm all in favour of small government and letting people do stuff and take risks, but I like people to be aware of the risks they are taking. In this case, I think some passengers are being ill-served by the system and should be given a choice. Most will probably just say 'Yeah, go on, let's do it, just don't keel over on me, OK?!'

I'll reiterate -- driving an HGV is not the same as flying a plane and applying the same standard to both isn't necessarily going to produce a satisfactory outcome.

QDM

[EastMids]

QDM,

Fully understand what you're saying. And I agree, albeit that there's a risk that any pilot with a normal JAR medical could just keel over and die at the controls of an airplane. So whilst there may possibly be an increased risk with certain NPPL holders, there is none the less a risk with any pilot at the controls - its been said many times that a medical only really guanantees that a pilot is fit to fly on the day of the medical, and not necessarily six months or even two years later.

> I'm just saying, as the person who signs the certificate, that
> sometimes my signature will be an uneasy one. I also know
> that I am not alone in this.

Despite not being a medic, I can understand that too. I am sure its not easy, but at the end of the day surely the rules have to be applied, and if the rules are met the certificate gets issued - anything else sets up the medical practicioner as a law unto themselves. And despite the responsiblilty that goes with signing that certificate, surely if the rules have been met if anything does happen the responsibility is not yours (easy to say I'm sure).


I think that the onus for declaring medical conditions to passengers should really be with the pilot. All of us pilots take a decision about whether we are fit to fly before every flight - we all suffer from short term conditions from time to time that should make us decline to fly. I would hope that most will take a responsible attitude to short term as well as long term conditions that could impact the safety of a flight, as anyone who takes command of an aeroplane is putting their own life at risk as much as they are putting their passengers at risk.

Andy

[A_Pommie]

Not being a medic and not knowing which conditions you are concerned about will make this a general sort of reply.
As someone who has lost his medical in the past and I will lose it again in the future.
Having the illness I do means that my health is checked far more frequently than that of healthy people(would this be true of the illnesses you are concerned about?). Surely this goes some way to mitigate your concerns . The next time my health fails I will know long before the CAA do and it will be me that grounds myself and then informs the CAA of my situation.

[QDMQDMQDM]

All I'm saying is that if you relax the rules, more people will get through and more things will almost certainly happen. You can't ever predict someone is or is not going to drop dead or become incapacitated. You can, however, look at their medical condition and say 'Oo, er, there's a bit more of a risk there.'

There are people who the rules tell me I must give a med certificate to, but who, as a result of their medical condition, I wouldn't let my kids fly as passengers with. And I've discussed it with other doctors and they've agreed, including aviation-oriented ones.

The only thing I have a problem with is that I think people will be flying as passengers and won't be in possession of the full picture. I cannot imagine how terrifying it must be to be a non-pilot sitting in an aircraft with a dead, incapacitated or semi-incapacitated pilot. Yikes!

Anyway, the stats in five years -- if anyone bothers to keep them -- will prove it or otherwise.

QDM