can someone explain this document from the CAA site
The page you have found refers to the rules applying to the issue of an
NPPL (National Private Pilot's Licence), not any form of JAR licence.
For an NPPL no JAR medical is required; the standards applied are those applied by the DVLA for drivers, either HGV or ordinary cars. Under those rules an epileptic MIGHT be allowed to fly light non-complex types of aircraft after being proven to be fit-free and well-controlled for at least three years.
Let me re-iterate, epilepsy is a TOTAL BAR to any form of JAR medical certificate.
This is, perhaps, not completely the right place for a full discussion on this topic, but many believe that the NPPL is an outrageous example of double standards. If, under the prevailing legal rules for all other pilot certification in the UK ( ie the JAR regulations) , Mr X is not deemed "fit to fly" for whatever reason at all, then how can it be justified that he is allowed to fly the same machine, in the same airspace, but simply under a different set of rules ? ? It makes a mockery of the whole concept of "regulation". Also makes a mockery of "safety".
Yet the department responsible for this is, wait for it, the
"SAFETY REGULATION GROUP" ! !
Finally, two more points for you to consider. Fits are often (though not always) triggered by "photic stimulation" (flashing or flickering lights).
The risk is extremely high from sunlight being flickered through a rotating propeller disc. Secondly, many epileptics get a brief warning that a fit is about to occur. Not very long, but could just be long enough for a driver to stop, or pull onto the hard shoulder. Now in the case of a pilot cruising at 3000 feet, maybe even over water . . . . . . . . . . .
Hmmmm - I'm not at all happy about any of this
