Originally Posted by
Easy Street
I wonder how Mr Hill intends to approach the matter of his susceptibility to, ahem, "cognitive impairment" when asked by the AMO during his renewal examination. After building his criminal defence upon an unpredictable occurrence of the condition (of which remarkably little - nothing? - seems to have been written since), it would be cakeism on almost a Johnsonian scale for him to claim to that he is now safe to fly. I wonder if the CAA is prepared to refuse a medical on the grounds of Hill's "impairment" to see if he will expose himself to ridicule by downplaying the "condition" on appeal?
Do you remember Ernest Saunders? He built a defence based on being an Alzheimer’s sufferer and then became the only person in the world to fully recover from it.