I don’t know the full range of factors but the PMD system (which in Europe is unique to the UK) has removed about 50% of AME workload,
That’s really great.
Nowadays, I suspect that AMEs – like taxi drivers – do allright so long as they get a decent utilisation.
Sure, but it’s great for everybody else when an Uber option comes along.
Not all of the world is America.
I wouldnt be eligible in any case, but I once looked into what it would take to become an AME in the UK and you needed approved premises that were subject to regular inspection and met a series of guidelines. You also need indemnity insurance (no idea how much this costs – would be curious), and you needed to show how you were keeping up to date with guidelines. I can imagine it may pay well if it’s a big part of your job, but meeting all the requirements would have made it too onerous to dabble in.
Not all of the world is America.
With respect to aviation medical practice more’s the pity, although the UK self declaration regulation was a very unusual European move towards the future.
The US system has some problems e.g.
But, to get back on topic, because a US AME is not an “agent of the FAA”, you can do some shopping if you get a bad one, and it is a lot less likely that you will get trouble.
The UK PMD system may not persist in its current form.
The CAA are conducting a consultation exercise on it, and their consultation exercises are generally very poorly disguised setup pieces for what they plan to do.
This one contains much to suggest that they think the PMD is being inappropriately overused, whatever that may mean. I think they rolled it out with an assumption it would only be used by some small subsection of the ultralight community and that most people would continue to get a Class 2.
My guess is there has been a serious backlash from the vested interests, i.e. current AMEs and those who see it as part of their future, e.g. military medics.
Exactly – the AME lobby is powerful. I was at a conference some years ago and one CAA AME described it as thus, with some example of where they lobbied for extra work. But obviously the lobbying is under the table; doing it overtly would look self-financing 
It shows there is quite a mixture of people in the CAA. Some want to be progressive while others are holding it back.
How long would it take to increase the number of AMEs (or at least increase the number of AME appointments if the existing AMEs are willing to do more work?) My guess is that rolling the initiative back may not be easy, and that the stream of military→civilian AMEs will be far smaller than it was in the 1970s and 1980s. If the system fails you would end up with issues such as airline pilots being out of work due to not being able to get appointments.
In that above-linked proposal the CAA cite a % of “bogus” PMDs. Well, that’s bound to happen, and they do say they don’t have a clue whether they were accidental or deliberate. Just updated that thread with a March 2023 response, containing the expected comments from vested interests.
If the system fails you would end up with issues such as airline pilots being out of work due to not being able to get appointments.
Yes and I’d say the only way you can preserve the PMD system is by holding out against vested interests until the number of AMEs is permanently reduced by attrition.
In general I think creative destruction can work but once a vested interest gets its ‘gate’ from government, one at which participants can charge you to proceed in doing what you would otherwise do freely, it is like a cancer that even when cut out may recur. A portion of the money collected is used to compile whatever fear based argument justifies continuation, plus soft kickbacks to government officials.
Yes and I’d say the only way you can preserve the PMD system is by holding out against vested interests until the number of AMEs is permanently reduced by attrition.
There’s also a possibility that the PMD was driven by the drop in the number of AMEs as the service was tightened up?
