This covers non-commercial use of a third country licence
True… but it makes it illegal for a bizjet to fly over to the UK, because that is a “private flight”.
I think it is written poorly but is only meant to apply to operators based in the EU.
Peter wrote:
That’s not what it says, however.
Also the oral exam and the FAA Class 1 or 2 requirement is bizzare.
I think the FAA Class 2 medical requirement is an error. They go on to say that an EASA Class 2 medical is OK too…
It does not say anything about the aircraft registration. Would this not be a breach of the Chicago Convention if foreign aircraft were not allowed to transit through the UK airspace?
Aviathor wrote:
I think the FAA Class 2 medical requirement is an error. They go on to say that an EASA Class 2 medical is OK too…
I doubt that is an error. FAA class 3 is not really recognised as being enough in Europe.
Same text, it seems. No explanation or comment.
Is this draft BASA text anywhere? I have not previously noticed a requirement for an FAA Class 2 in it.
An FAA Class 2 is not harder than an EASA Class 2, but it does have some slightly unusual variations e.g. the FAA requires a “return to service” angiogram if you have had certain procedures which involve an earlier angiogram. So the rather invasive procedure has to be repeated, regardless of whether there is a medical reason for it. I guess US commercial pilots simply pay the $5k-10k, or carry insurance. Even EASA doesn’t have this crazy requirement, and this is why the FAA Class 3 is so good for the GA population. It does the job very well. A small detail but one which will be relevant to many FAA licensed private pilots.
There is one issue which needs clarifying. In the explanatory notes to my post above the AOPA/ the CAA state that the FAA licensed pilot should hold a FAA medical Class 2 or better. Under the FAA system a pilot who is flying only in a private capacity just requires a Class 3 medical to operate under instrument and visual rules. For my part I have a Class 2 medical which lasts for 1 year and then drops down to a Class 3 for the following year. It’s very convenient and much cheaper than the EASA system (I’m 58 years old).
Interestingly this exemption only appears to apply to FAA license holders and there is no mention of other 3rd country license holders.
Try this Peter http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/1220.pdf
[ local copy here ]
Thank you, johnzh. That is the same text as appeared in the 6th April doc posted in post #9 above.
So this looks like that while the UK CAA is confirming the April 2019 derogation from the EASA FCL “attack on N-regs” they have imposed a load of conditions on it.
Am I right to read the current “situation” as follows:
By April 8th 2017, all UK based N-reg pilots with a Class 3 medical will need to get the FAA Class 2 medical (which for anyone with a stent etc is a mandatory angiogram) OR get an EASA Class 2 medical. I think it is possible to get an EASA Class 2 without having an EASA license. A great AME revenue opportunity however you look at this!
This is basically nutty as a fruitcake.
BTW all US licenses have implicit ELP; you cannot get one if you aren’t:
so this
is a bit silly!
@Peter, FAA started issuing pilot certificates with ELP noted on them after some ICAO agreement on the subject maybe 5-10 years ago. ELP has always been an FAA requirement, so they just started noting it. Older credit card style certificates don’t have the notation but if you apply for a replacement, for instance after an address change, the new one will automatically have that notation.
Re FAA 3rd class medicals, they are ICAO compliant… which is gradually becoming the main reason to get one versus Sport Pilot (drivers license) or the recent alternate and reformed FAA Medical procedure. This UK CAA action looks to me a typical misunderstanding of the (now) four tiered FAA medical system, which of course wouldn’t be important if UK CAA stuck to their own business. This CAA action is an extended but now modified second layer of fussy over-analyzed nonsense implemented to delay implementation of the first layer of fussy over-analyzed nonsense (the anti-FAA rule), that itself wouldn’t be necessary if European residents hadn’t reacted rationally to European pilot and aircraft regulation being fussy over-analyzed nonsense. It’s cancer.
