It would seem that those of us who fly on a stand alone American license outside the USA. e.g. the U.K. are not covered by this extension.
Indeed. teaches one to read carefully 
NO will be the default answer
It always is
Especially if carrying a 9mm.
I, like some others, own my aircraft through a company. I am a director of the company. Visiting the aircraft for operational purposes is “work”. It is not reasonably possible to do an engine run from the place I live. ’Nuff said…
Further down in the same text is this
and this relates directly to airworthiness requirements of the aircraft, and consequently insurance cover, etc.
Let’s say you park your car 100m away from your house. Somebody smashes the windows. You have a legal obligation (for any insurance claim) to minimise your losses, so you are required to cover it up with a tarpaulin so the interior does not get destroyed by rain. Yet the law doesn’t provide for this, thus forcing you to de facto abandon/destroy the car, because the 100m walk to the car is not allowed.
That is obviously absurd.
Not everything can be specified in a restrictive manner. This regulation was drawn up for the “benefit” of the utterly thick selfish and ignorant who crowded out the parks and had a huge party, on the first day of the “lockdown” (and actually continue this in some countries even now) and it was obvious to anyone watching the scenes on TV that something drastic would follow ASAP, and sure enough it did.
Obviously one is not likely to be able to argue this (or anything else) with a policeman, so one will have to take the £30 fine on the chin, to preserve the engine worth 1000x more.
If the 2m spacing cannot be maintained that’s a different story.
Of course anybody seen on FR24 will get the “usual treatment” on the UK forums and FB
Peter_G wrote:
It would seem that those of us who fly on a stand alone American license outside the USA. e.g. the U.K. are not covered by this extension.
There is no extension, there is just a statement by FAA on enforcement. Obviously your medical will still be expired and FAA has no authority over a foreign government’s policy.
The Greek CAA has done an extension – here local copy
Malta too – para 2.2.2 for PPL(A)
Both this and the Greek one have this as a prerequisite: “[the pilot] shall have completed at least one flight, including relevant manoeuvres and procedures, under the supervision of an instructor with relevant instructional privileges”.
Silvaire wrote:
There is no extension, there is just a statement by FAA on enforcement
Which means if you care about being insured, it is completely worthless. If you have an incident while your medical is expired but not being enforced, it’s likely the insurance company will push back.
FAA has no influence or interest in insurance – that’s between you and your insurance co. And long may that remain the case.
If the insurance company doesn’t want to be faced with a large number of cancellations/refunds, assuming getting a medical or Basic Med is actually an issue for a significant number of customers, they’ll do what the market demands and write waivers. And if the market doesn’t actually need it, then they’ll do nothing and it will be the right thing.
As a wise friend who was very successful in business once told me, more often than not doing nothing ends up being the right choice because over reaction is more likely than correct action.
Both this and the Greek one have this as a prerequisite: “[the pilot] shall have completed at least one flight, including relevant manoeuvres and procedures, under the supervision of an instructor with relevant instructional privileges”.
That makes the concession worthless because
and same incidentally for the medical.
