I read that the LAA are clamouring for people to make formal comments on the draft LAPL medical regulations (LAPL may replace the NPPL on a European basis). Comments must be submitted by 23 August. Having read the
comment response document on the EASA website, I don't entirely agree with the LAA assessment that this will make the system unworkable.
On page 25, the General Practitioner (ie your GP who has access to your medical records) must either have acquired knowledge about aviation medicine OR have held a pilot license at some point. No need for a full training course. For the purposes of the LAPL medical, the GP is an acting AME.
The new initial examination itself requires urine, vision and hearing tests.
I've had both the GP and AME examinations this year. The GP was a formality - I think probably the first one he'd ever done - and didn't require a urine/hearing tests (I did show my recent optician's report). It helped that this aligned with the DVLA requirements for commercial drivers. It would be fair to say he didn't have any aviation knowledge apart from reading the briefing document that goes with the NPPL medical declaration. He's been my doctor for over 20 years, so has a very good understanding of my medical history.
The AME didn't have access to my medical history so apart from a very thorough physical examination with lots of tests, it seemed to me I could have omitted salient facts.
Clearly, requiring all LAPL pilots to visit an AME isn't workable but that isn't my interpretation of the draft regulations. Do others agree with my interpretation or not? (If not, submit your comments direct to EASA quickly!)