ASW22 wrote:
I am already getting called by friends from Germany/Bavaria If they may come to stay with me for a couple of days to fly in Austria since we will be allowed to do so beginning in friday.
My family by marriage has traveled back and forth between homes in Austria and Germany once a week or so for the past few weeks. I’m not sure how that has been influenced by the current situation, but FWIW they have been doing it.
What I don’t get is that all of Europe, France included, is full of bizjet flights. I am sure they are not all repatriating French citizens, or carrying PPE In France, are the operators “purchasing” some permission, or just have a “good contact” somewhere?
Prob40 Politicians. Should be some quite some traffic from South to North with them on board with a mission to get these tight Northern b*stard to open up the financial floodgates, maybe using language that they don’t want to use on a leaky app like Zoom 
Graham wrote:
He can close the airfield, but in practical terms he has to let you remove it if you want to. Of course that may mean you are never welcome back…
It appears that’s what he’s done, although a helicopter did make a pretty long flight about yesterday, despite the airfield being notamed closed and him stating no aircraft flying whatsoever. I’m dying to hear what nonsense he comes up with.
I’m very close to just getting out as the behaviour from the airfield is getting pretty predictable. If they get a chance to shut it down, they do. It’s just annoying as it’s relatively close.
Looks like the FAA has just published the SFAR to extend recency and many other time-bound deadlines and requirements:
https://www.faa.gov/coronavirus/regulatory_updates/media/FAA_SFAR_118_CoVid-19_Relief.pdf
It is a long document, some relevant passages are here:
For BFR:
The FAA finds, under the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 outbreak, that
extending the 24 calendar month requirement of §61.56(c) by up to three calendar months will
not adversely affect safety, provided the extension applies to active pilots and certain risk
mitigations are met. The three calendar month extension applies to pilots who were current to act
as PIC of an aircraft in March 2020 and whose flight review was due in March 2020 through
June 2020. To mitigate any safety risk, the pilot must have logged at least 10 hours of PIC time
within the twelve calendar months preceding the month the flight review was due.This flight
time must be obtained in an aircraft for which that pilot is rated. In addition, eligible pilots will
need to complete FAA Safety Team online courses totaling at least three WINGS credits.
For IR currency:
The FAA finds, under the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 outbreak, that
relief for instrument recency is appropriate under certain conditions. The FAA is extending the
six calendar month requirement of §61.57(c)(1) by an additional three calendar months. This will
enable a pilot to continue exercising instrument privileges, provided the pilot has performed the
required tasks within the nine calendar months preceding the month of the flight, instead of the
preceding six calendar months.
To be eligible for the relief, a pilot will need to have some recent experience in
instrument flight. More specifically, the FAA is requiring that the pilot have logged, in the
preceding six calendar months, three instrument approaches in actual weather conditions, or
under simulated conditions using a view-limiting device. Eligible pilots may exercise the relief in
this SFAR through June 30, 2020. After that date, a pilot must be current in accordance with
§61.57(c). If the pilot does not meet the instrument experience requirements before June 30,
2020, the pilot retains the ability to reestablish recency in accordance with §61.57(d). However,
the pilot will no longer have six months to reestablish instrument recency. Instead, the number of
months available for a pilot to attain the instrument experience prior to requiring completion of
the instrument proficiency check will depend on when the person last established instrument
recency in accordance with §61.57(c). For example, if the pilot performed and logged the tasks required by §61.57(c)(1) in October 2019, that pilot may
continue exercising instrument privileges under this SFAR after April 2020, provided the pilot meets the
qualification requirements. This SFAR would allow that pilot to continue acting as PIC under IFR or in weather
conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR until June 30, 2020. After June 30, 2020, that pilot would be
required to comply with §61.57(c). As previously mentioned, §61.57(d) gives a pilot who has failed to meet the
instrument experience requirements of paragraph (c) a grace period of six calendar months to reestablish instrument recency. A pilot who does not reestablish instrument recency during those additional six calendar months may
reestablish instrument recency only by completing an instrument proficiency check. Therefore, if the pilot in this
hypothetical fails to complete the tasks required by §61.57(c)(1) by June 30, 2020, that pilot would have four
calendar months (until October 31, 2020) available to attain the instrument experience prior to requiring completion
of an instrument proficiency check.
Sometimes an airport parks vehicles on the runway to stop people removing their aircraft.
That might not be a insurmountable problem for his Husky equipped as it is with extended main gear and a pair of 31” Alaskan doo-dads. It could probably fly right out of the hangar, just like a real airplane. 
wbardorf wrote:
Looks like the FAA has just published the SFAR to extend recency and many other time-bound deadlines and requirements:https://www.faa.gov/coronavirus/regulatory_updates/media/FAA_SFAR_118_CoVid-19_Relief.pdf
It is a long document
It sure is a long document, in particular a lot of fuss for something (i.e. what was once called the Biennial Flight Review) that wasn’t even required until November 1974. If I read it correctly I think some of the most relevant info for the 3 month FAA Flight Review extension is that:
The relief applies to any flight requiring a CPL, Private Pilot flights incidental to business or employment, flights in support of family medical needs or to transport essential goods for personal use, flights necessary to fly an aircraft to a location in order to “meet a requirement of this chapter”, flights to transport essential goods and/or medical supplies to support public health and flights by pilots conducting charitable medical flights as a volunteer.
Commercial pilots must’ve logged 10 hours of PIC time within the twelve calendar months preceding the month the flight review was due.
Private pilots need 500 hrs total time, 400 hrs PIC and 50 hours within the twelve calendar months preceding the month the flight review was due.
For flights conducted by private pilots, no one may be carried on the aircraft unless that person is essential to the purpose of the flight.
Eligible pilots must complete FAA Safety Team online courses totaling at least three Wings credits. The courses must have been completed in January or later.
It’s obviously not intended to be a blanket extension. For me, no flight I make is eligible and anyway it will be a great deal less hassle to do a Flight Review with a CFI friend, as I would normally do.
That’s quite a strict concession, especially
Private pilots need 500 hrs total time, 400 hrs PIC and 50 hours within the twelve calendar months preceding the month the flight review was due.
In Europe, a very small % of PPLs would be able to take advantage of it. Folklore has it that some 90% give up within 2 years, and/or they do less than the 12 hours required when they do. I would put > 500hr pilots to be in very low single digit percentages. Annual average hours estimates vary around Europe, with the main GA countries in the 10hr-30hr range, so very few will reach 500.
This shows the vastly greater pilot currency in the US.
This concession seems made not for US pilots but pilots flying N-reg in areas her COVID is widespread, far (physically) from FAA oversight.
Maybe more for turbine pilots carrying medical personnel and equipment more than the average GA pilot.
Peter wrote:
Sometimes an airport parks vehicles on the runway to stop people removing their aircraft.
This is a legitimate move legally when an airport has a lien over an aircraft.
Certainly in the UK, airports have greater powers over aircraft with respect to lien than exist in other areas of law. I’d imagine it’s to do with the history of airlines going bust and taking the p*ss again and again….
If there is no lien and the airport manager just closes down on his own initiative and won’t let you fly out, it is not an aviation matter and he has (effectively) unlawfully seized your property. He will have no legal comeback if you just turn up and fly out, but in practical terms you will not be able to use the airport again and if he is well-connected with the CAA you may find some vindictive reckless endangerment charge is trumped up.
CAP1913 – Latest UK CAA stuff on license etc extensions local copy
Something wrong with the above PDF; it was poorly generated and renders extremely slowly. Version without background graphics
