Malibuflyer wrote:
Is breaking the Covid regulation a crime in the UK
It is an “offence”. So is murder, there is no formal distinction between “offences” and “crimes” in English law, such as “misdemeanour”/“felony” in the US or “Ordnungswidrigkeit”/“Straftat” in Germany.
There is, however, a distinction how offences are treated. In some cases, the law allows for fixed penalties / fines to be applied (e.g., traffic violations, Covid-19), and depending on the offence and the expected penalty, it can be tried at a magistrate’s court by magistrates or a district judge, or a crown court with a jury.
It looks like the CAA can’t read… the current regs say
Part 3 “Businesses permitted to remain open” includes “Dental services, opticians, audiology services, chiropody, chiropractors, osteopaths and other medical or health services, including services relating to mental health.”
and nothing prevents someone seeing their doctor regarding [insert whatever condition you regard as trivial].
This seems ridiculous, there’s NO breach of the Regulations by visiting an AME.
Part 3 “Businesses permitted to remain open” includes “Dental services, opticians, audiology services, chiropody, chiropractors, osteopaths and other medical or health services, including services relating to mental health.”
Part 2 “Restrictions on movement” includes “Exception 1: leaving home necessary for certain purposes” (note not “necessary purposes” but simply necessary for the purpose) – Exception 1 is that “it is reasonably necessary for the person concerned to leave or be outside the place where [they are] living (a) to buy goods or obtain services from any business or service listed in Part 3 of the Schedule”
Therefore it is legal to leave your home to obtain services from anything in Part 3, and an AME is clearly any “medical or health services” which is in Part 3.
The tone of the letter is really odd, “We would not want any AMEs being accused of colluding with anyone seeking to breach the regulations” and “As we have been doing during this COVID period, we continue to monitor weekly AME activity by volume and medical class and will be able to identify cases where the applicant appears to have breached the current Government lockdown regulations.”
And do what? I’d argue whether that would be appropriate processing of that personal data under GDPR either for that matter.
Again, the CAA has UK Airspace Authority. The Government Lockdown is England only.
Is there any difference between renewing your Class 2 while it is still valid, and regaining it after a lapse?
(My Class 2 goes to LAPL only on 19/12.)
Maoraigh wrote:
Is there any difference between renewing your Class 2 while it is still valid, and regaining it after a lapse?
I don’t believe so. It’s the same checks/tests and valid from then for the usual period (5 years, 1 year, etc.)
Good point that the letter doesn’t refer to different UK regions. Now that Wales has come out of lockdown, I can see no reason why AMEs should be constrained there.
There is a clear view from the CAA medical department that Personal Medical Declarations should be adequate for most recreational pilots. There is still currently a requirement to have a Class 2 prior to first solo, any IFR or instruction and a Class 1 for commercial which surely all highly justify taking a checkup before they expire. I have no idea how many pilots continue to maintain their Class 2 without realising they don’t need it – perhaps because they want to retain the option to fly abroad and/or IFR.
The poorly thought out common expiry date for medical exemptions means there is a huge backlog at the moment, with AME’s twiddling their thumbs (and losing money), followed by what will be an extremely busy from December 3rd.
I would think it perfectly reasonable for the CAA to remind PPL/LAPL holders that they could continue VFR only within the UK on a personal medical declaration, and encourage them to do so if that fits their needs. But I don’t agree that it is the CAA’s job to create their own arbitrary and poorly thought out rules for this with a threat of enforcement. The letter brings the CAA into disrepute and clearly needs to be revised and reissued after some careful thought.
Cobalt wrote:
It is an “offence”. So is murder, there is no formal distinction between “offences” and “crimes” in English law,
In that case the core question is, if abetment to break covid regulations is an offense as well or not.
DavidC wrote:
There is a clear view from the CAA medical department that Personal Medical Declarations should be adequate for most recreational pilots.
Even if they are flying on an EASA license with an EASA airplane? Where is this documented?
Even if they are flying on an EASA license with an EASA airplane? Where is this documented?
CAA official notice ORS4 1421 issued 3 Sep 2020 allows exactly that:
UK Part-FCL PPL and LAPL holders
Personal Medical Declaration https://apply.caa.co.uk/CAAPortal/terms-and-conditions.htm?formCode=PMD (it take 2 minutes and immediately provides approval, revalidate when aged 70)
G- Reg aircraft
Within UK or within Channel Islands (but not flying between the two)
Day or Night VFR (no IFR)
LAPL privileges only (ie. max 2000kg, max 3 pax)
No pilot training flights (ie flying as instructor onboard or solo student)
No Introductory Flights (ie Air Experience) although you can take friends and passengers.
No Cost Sharing flights
Valid until 31 March 2021
We can only hope that this exemption will be continued indefinitely, which the CAA may be able to do after 1st January due to BREXIT.
So if that’s all you need to achieve your “mission profile”, then postpone that expensive trip to the AME until March (but book your appointment in good time). Those who instruct, are training towards LAPL/PPL, fly IFR or have commercial licences will still need a full certificate.
Yes, indeed – see e.g. here.
I wonder how many people know that the PMD (medical self declaration) can’t be used to fly between say England and Alderney? And no cost sharing!! That last one alone is a show-stopper, because most of the UK rental community cost shares ~100% of flights.
There are many aviators who opt to substitute a Class 2 examination each year for the annual health check recommended by our GP’s. It is my small (£180) contribution to relieving demand on my overstretched local NHS practice and anyway kills two birds with one stone. I thought that preventative medicine was encouraged in Dr Mitchell’s profession, but to seek to prevent us from accessing our preferred method of medical examination seems to me to be both unethical and unprofessional.
Along with the CAA’s heavy handed and unaccountable attitude to Airspace Infringements this latest ill thought out missive must strengthen the case for a means of independently scrutinising the Authority’s activities.
As with the zero tolerance infringements policy, it appears like it’s another “initiative” spearheaded by a single yellowjacketed jobsworth in the CAA…
