Estonia also granted the extension of licenses and medicals(with no restrictions expect visual) until end of july.. My home airfield is closed, but practically it means its open as usual for GA , you can take your plane and fly. Pilots Estonia offered help to our island hospitals to carry medical supplies if necessery, the offer was accepted,so I might even get to do something useful with my plane.
Austria has done some sort of extension
Google translation:
I believe the best inspiration to resolve our problem comes from Austria, see the attachment and the blue text below.
They simply prolong all time periods in the relevant regulations, and that´s it, doesn´t have to be rocket-science:
I wonder how he’d feel about it if he were an Austrian GA insurance risk manager?
Silvaire wrote:
I wonder how he’d feel about it if he were an Austrian GA insurance risk manager?
Don’t get your point. If the regulator, i.e. Austro Control extends the validity of a license and/or rating then you’re legal to fly during that period. Actually better than the FAA who only don’t enforce expired licenses / ratings. The FAA route does seem to create a grey area, whereas the Austrian does not.
A CAA extending medical and/or flight review periods changes the assumptions under which insurance companies calculated the risk in selling an existing policy, thereby exercising arbitrary power over a business and in effect forcing them to take on additional risk without compensation. If they don’t like the additional risk, their only option is to absorb the cost of contacting every client with what was an expiring certification, telling them the policy is cancelled on the relevant preexisting certification date and making a refund on the balance of the policy term. There is no way that would pass muster with FAA lawyers knowing the limits on their legal scope of authority.
The FAA medical certification enforcement policy memo is (as usual) better disciplined: FAA issued a memo saying only what they themselves plan in relation to enforcement, which is fully within their scope of authority and does not affect the terms of an existing commercial insurance contract. That then positions the pilot/owner to contact his insurance company by phone or email with FAA memo in hand, if he’d like to negotiate insurance terms for the new situation. If he doesn’t do so, the insurance contract is unaffected and nobody got screwed.
Contractual considerations aside, (and I take your point) I’m not sure whether extended medicals pose any real risks to insurers.
Here in the U.K. we have four years or so of self certified medicals for PPLs, and a history of nearly 20 years self certification for NPPLs with no noticeable increase in premiums outside normal market fluctuations which I’ve been able to see, and no significant difference in accident or safety statistics since self certification was introduced.
I think periodic flight reviews must reduce the risk to insurers. I don’t think medical certification reduces risk to insurers in almost any circumstance, 15 years of FAA Light Sport with no medical other than a driver’s license also supports that POV, however a CAA that requires and normally enforces medical certification would surely disagree with us on the latter point… 
and therefore wouldn’t have much of an argument that they’re not affecting insurance risk on medical certification either.
People will be flying less, which will improve matters for them in the short term.
There will be no accident claims when not flying, but there will be
Peter wrote:
It’s like the horse example I posted earlier. Feeding a horse (in a stable) is not a valid journey on the UK govt list. Therefore the horse must starve to death
That’s not true. The list isn’t prescriptive, it’s guidance, and no one is going to fine you for taking care of an animal welfare issue. And if some ice-hearted police officer tries, you will have grounds for successful appeal.
