In the USA they have the Sports Pilot license, which doesn't need a medical.
But there is a catch: you cannot downgrade to it if you have actually failed a medical. You have to "know" that you are going to fail the medical, and just not submit yourself for it.
I have come across a better procedure (reproduced here, from a US site, with the author's permission):
These days, you have to file your medical application to the AME electronically. Once he pulls it up, you are stuck if you have an issue on the medical history or flunk your medical since you can't unsubmit your application. The solution suggested by the AME is to ask your AME for the application review and class 3 physical to be done prior to electronically accessing your application, thereby not activating it. If there is something in your application or physical that doesn't pass muster, you only had a consultation and now have an opportunity to take corrective action prior to officially activating your application. One way to do this is to print out the application form without the file number and bring it to the exam.
Interestingly it doesn't seem that Europe is heading in this direction. You can downgrade yourself to the UK NPPL upon failing the CAA Class 2.
In the past, rumour had it that the CAA kept an eye out for people who were on the record for failing their medicals but whose planes were seen to be flying, etc. When the NPPL came out, this monitoring was no longer possible, and in fact the majority of NPPL applicants were people who failed (or could not renew) their Class 2.
Will the EASA LAPL work the same way?
Leaving aside the whole issue of whether medicals are necessary for private flying (they are not) the American system of refusing LSA licensing following failure of a medical is plainly crazy, given that the reason for failure may well have been for a far less serious clinical condition than those who have never undertaken a medical examination in the first place may well be suffering from, but who are not barred from driving and therefore not barred from flying either. This has always seemed an anomaly to me, given the liberal stance normally associated with American aviation regulation.
Interestingly, in the UK, medical incapacitation statistics for GP self declaration medical certificates show a better safety record than full medical holders.
Interestingly, in the UK, medical incapacitation statistics for GP self declaration medical certificates show a better safety record than full medical holders.
I don't think that's interesting, unless you have good demographics to show that nppl holders are identical to ppl holders in terms of age. As it's a newer licence, you may expect most of its holders to be younger and therefore healthier. 40 years down the line, the picture may or may not be different. It seems very unlikely that the act of having a medical makes you more at risk of incapacitation, in which case, so what?
I don't know how the American system works, and it would be crazy if you lost an eye (criterion for failing a PPL medical) and weren't allowed to fly on a LAPL licence (allows for monocular pilots, I belive). On the other hand, if you failed due to something subtle that would not otherwise have been detected, it could be reasonable.
As an example, I recently saw a gentleman who collapsed whilst standing in a queue. If I'd been with him at the time, I'd have told him that he'd had a simple vasovagal attack and that he didn't need to seek medical attention. However, someone helpfully called the ambulance who did an ECG and found that his heart kept stopping for a few seconds then going back to a normal rhythm. By the time he was in hospital it was more or less back to normal. Without medical assessment, he could have gotten a pilot's licence. After seeing his ECG it would have been manslaughter to let him solo a plane.
As an aside I've now seen two patients with a hemianopia (effectively blindness down the same side in both eyes - due to a stroke to the brain) who were driving.
The situation with the FAA Sport Pilot results from it being the only way they could get it passed - there was no rational basis outside of legal considerations. As I remember, the original proposal allowed the private pilot to fail a Class 3 medical and then fly under Sport Pilot, but it was changed because the FAA lawyers did not want to be in that legal position. I think the resulting expedient compromise was accepted because the goal is to build a database to support removing the medical exam requirement for private pilots. The Class 3 medical is pretty much a formality already - my last one took maybe 10 or 15 minutes.
If and when the FAA Class 3 medical is eliminated, I think Sport Pilot will dry up and blow away, having served its purpose.
Without medical assessment, he could have gotten a pilot's licence. After seeing his ECG it would have been manslaughter to let him solo a plane.
What makes you think he would have attempted a solo if he'd known his condition without an AME telling him he may not?
Most people are actually quite reasonable, if you don't show them open distrust (by regulating every little detail they may or may not do, like what is often done in aviation). I've seen a few people handling their age very reasonably, for example by deciding to no longer fly alone even though they still had a full medical.
I don't think the medical system works very well, because the AME is the trust person of the agency and not the pilot. He may make the pilot jobless or deprive him of his hard earned hobby (both in cash and effort) in the blink of an eye, so the pilot will not tell him things nobody can prove he should have told (like frequent headaches in the morning, etc). Yet I cannot imagine any doctor doing a reasonable diagnosis without full cooperation of the patient, except in obvious cases like one eye missing.
In contrast, a GP trusted by the pilot at least has the chance of doing a reasonable diagnosis, so the pilot will have a better picture of his own health. In contrast, with an AME medical, he may be overestimating his health. This only works if the GP does not report failed or attempted examinations to the authority, only passed ones, because otherwise the trust relationship would be gone.
Interestingly, in the UK, medical incapacitation statistics for GP self declaration medical certificates show a better safety record than full medical holders.
Hi FBM,
Can you direct me to the paper/source from which this information has been derived?
A gazillion postings on equally as many forums have been made about the usefulness or otherwise of the medicals.
Looking at the outcome; flight accidents/incidents relating to a medical problem, it appears that this is an infrequent occurrence. Whether that is because the regulations are so apt, the AMEs so clever or there is a self selection by those wishing to take to the air but don't on account of self-management is an interesting question.
I suspect that the reasons are diverse and not mutually exclusive.
The notion posted above that people would be honest with their GP but not their AME holds little sway.
Almost without exception people are honest folks who have their own interest firmly in view when it comes to their desire not to have a medical issue when aviating, I suspect that those who are economical with the truth would do the same with their GP.
Also, am I right that in the UK, nowadays, the CAA obtains your GP records for issuing a medical, so your GP has no duty of confidentiality to you anyway.
You have to consent to the GP supplying your data to the CAA but if you don't consent then you won't get the medical 
The only person who has a real duty of confidentiality to you is your lawyer. Your accountant doesn't have such a duty, for example.
I think most people will self disqualify, but there are a few crashes which suggest that not everybody does.
I think most people will self disqualify,
. . . which is what I have just done. Ironically, under the new CAA rules there was no need for me to have an ECG this year, but I had it done anyway - and as (bad?) luck would have it something showed up which my AME felt should be investigated further. Under the present rules there was no reason not to issue the Medical (with conditions attached). However, he phoned the next day to discuss his concerns with me and asked would I mind for the Medical to be suspended until further notice. Hey ho!
What makes you think he would have attempted a solo if he'd known his condition without an AME telling him he may not?
That's a separate issue. Added to which you could ask what's to stop him flying even if his AME has told him that he may not - as it seems that many people do? Certainly lots of people drive with clear medical contra-indications, though perhaps this is more likely because driving is a more central part of most people's lives.
My point was that flying when you are known to have a medical contra-indication is different from flying with one that is unknown.
Frank, Dave Roberts produced some statistics a while back on the flyer forum on class 2 versus medical declaration. I will post a link if I can manage to find it.
KWLF, the NPPL is probably at least ten years old now and not really "new" any more. Far from your assertion that the majority of pilots are therefore relatively young, they are in fact generally older PPLs who have downgraded to self declarations because they cannot meet class 2 standards!
