The CAA’s recent war on class 2 medicals doesn’t help…guess we are about to lose a lot of experienced instructors.
If you are over 63 and on any BP medication you’re going to require exercise ECG’s….expensive!
https://www.caa.co.uk/media/4leldjqa/20231009-hypertension-algorithm-v3-0.pdf
Point 5) second sentence now includes class 2
https://www.qrisk.org/ Gives risk, 63+ is 10%+
Is there any evidence at all that BP<160 carries any significant risk relevant to flying? This seems like yet another aspect of the CAA’s determination to make aviation impossible.
Using qrisk, which they seem to like…no.
The CAA’s recent war on class 2 medicals doesn’t help…
Oh, come on… finally the CAA acts against the plague of dozens of leisure pilots falling out of the sky like dead flies, every day of the year, therefore severely endangering the civilian population grazing in the pastures below 😶🌫️
I only hope that my NAA does not get inspired by those brilliant ideas 🫣
Ha! Thought for one moment you were serious..
Dan wrote:
I only hope that my NAA does not get inspired by those brilliant ideas 🫣
They are already quite strict about other stuff.
It’s interesting how much this differs between countries. These are the GA hours flown in Sweden from 2015. The pandemic is not noticeable.
I guess, at 0.1 of the UK activity level, and 0.15 of the population, the GA population in Sweden looks fairly robust. Perhaps they are more wealthy whereas in the UK most GA hours is renters who are on the limit of their funding.
I guess Sweden did not ban flying during covid but then neither did the UK 
The activity drop here was
Peter’s graph includes gliders who usually need a whole bunch of people to fly. During the pandemic, this was hit especially hard, even though this was outside with wind and whatnot.
