Recommendation Date
Recipient Name
CAA
Text
that the Microlight Aircraft Association of New Zealand Inc. be required to: Provide for pilot's medical certificates to be retained by the clubs.
Reply Text
Microlight operations are acknowledged to be a high risk activity and these risks are generally recognised and accepted by participants. Since public exposure to these risks is minimal, it is CAA policy to avoid undue restriction on microlight activity.
It is important for CAA to monitor microlight incidents and accidents for indications of safety trends. This monitoring is hindered by a probable under-reporting of incidents, and the accident in question is of concern to CAA in its implication that the present system of medical certification also hindered investigation. It is possible that the case involved the passenger (who was killed) believing that the pilot was medically fit to fly. There is limited evidence that this was not correct (or at least that the pilot might have been better to have been restricted to not carrying passengers).
It is important, even in such a high risk activity, for participants not to have misplaced confidence in a system of medical certification. One option would be to disband the present system, and have no medical certifications. This option is not favoured by the CAA.
The alternative would seem to be to insist that the Association develop a more credible system of medical certification. While the CAA supports this option, it does not favour the exact detail of recommendation 060/92, which sounds a little paternalistic. Pilots licensed by CAA are responsible for holding their own CAA Medical Certificate. It seems appropriate that a microlight pilot, rather than the Association, should hold the equivalent certificate. The CAA recommends that the Association as the 'licensing' body should consider establishing a centralised database. Individual clubs could hold copies (not originals) of certificates, notifying the central association of updated information. When pilots transfer to another club, an appropriate transfer of documents should occur (as noted in your letter of 24 December 1992). Pilots not flying via a club, should provide the central register with the updated information and should be identifiable on the database as having this independent status.
The database should hold basic identifying information of each pilot. In the case of the medical certificate, essential details to be recorded would be date issued, name and address of issuing doctor, whether the doctor is the pilots general practitioner or is a CAA-appointed medical examiner, and details of any restrictions recommended by the doctor. There should be an indication of whether the Association holds more detailed records elsewhere. It would permit the Association to set up some quality controls central, to ensure that documents are being issued to a standard appropriate to the activity. Such standards should be incorporated in the Association's operations manual.
It is important for CAA to monitor microlight incidents and accidents for indications of safety trends. This monitoring is hindered by a probable under-reporting of incidents, and the accident in question is of concern to CAA in its implication that the present system of medical certification also hindered investigation. It is possible that the case involved the passenger (who was killed) believing that the pilot was medically fit to fly. There is limited evidence that this was not correct (or at least that the pilot might have been better to have been restricted to not carrying passengers).
It is important, even in such a high risk activity, for participants not to have misplaced confidence in a system of medical certification. One option would be to disband the present system, and have no medical certifications. This option is not favoured by the CAA.
The alternative would seem to be to insist that the Association develop a more credible system of medical certification. While the CAA supports this option, it does not favour the exact detail of recommendation 060/92, which sounds a little paternalistic. Pilots licensed by CAA are responsible for holding their own CAA Medical Certificate. It seems appropriate that a microlight pilot, rather than the Association, should hold the equivalent certificate. The CAA recommends that the Association as the 'licensing' body should consider establishing a centralised database. Individual clubs could hold copies (not originals) of certificates, notifying the central association of updated information. When pilots transfer to another club, an appropriate transfer of documents should occur (as noted in your letter of 24 December 1992). Pilots not flying via a club, should provide the central register with the updated information and should be identifiable on the database as having this independent status.
The database should hold basic identifying information of each pilot. In the case of the medical certificate, essential details to be recorded would be date issued, name and address of issuing doctor, whether the doctor is the pilots general practitioner or is a CAA-appointed medical examiner, and details of any restrictions recommended by the doctor. There should be an indication of whether the Association holds more detailed records elsewhere. It would permit the Association to set up some quality controls central, to ensure that documents are being issued to a standard appropriate to the activity. Such standards should be incorporated in the Association's operations manual.
Related Investigation(s)