Aviathor wrote:
Actually the question is whether one can fly outside of the US at all with “only” an FAA Class 3 medical
That should not be the question. The FAA has discretion under ICAO treaty to determine the 3rd Class Medical is ICAO compliant for international flight by private pilots in N-registered aircraft, and it has already explicitly done so. With recent changes to the FAA medical system, ICAO compliance for international flight is the only reason the (now optional) 3rd Class Medical still exists!
Aviathor wrote:
And wouldn’t the consequence of the UK considering that the FAA Class 3 is not ICAO class 2 compliant be that you cannot fly in the UK on a class 3 medical even if you do not reside there?
Yes, a key question is whether correspondence from CAA (John Overall, Policy Specialist – Licensing Policy) is an indication that UK CAA intends to convict non-resident FAA pilots flying N-registered aircraft perfectly legally on valid FAA medical certifcates, in violation of the UK’s ICAO obligations.
It is indeed absurd.
With this Pythonesque chaos in place
It’s surreal, but I doubt that even the Python crew could have made this one up. More Lewis Carroll than Monty P.
and with the UK CAA record of criminal prosecutions
which is that they fail to obtain convictions for 70-80% of contested charges
That said, the new law addresses only UK residents
It’s aimed at any EU resident operating in U.K. airspace on FAA papers. So a person could fly my N-Reg Maule on an EASA LAPL with non-ICAO medical, but not with a full FAA private certificate and Class 3 medical. 
It’s aimed at any EU resident operating in U.K. airspace on FAA papers
Where is this defined? The original form I saw (and posted here) didn’t have this. I got it from a bizjet/TBM/KA pilot who IMHO, on my then reading of it, rightly concluded that it would prevent e.g. a ferry flight of a TBM from the USA to the UK, on the FAA Class 3.
I realise that the intention is unlikely to be to shaft occassional visitors to the UK…
But in that case every US airline that flies to the UK would immediately be grounded as well, which it clearly won’t be. I very much doubt this is the case. Either your info is wrong, or they have yet to reach a definitive conclusion.
AdamFrisch wrote:
But in that case every US airline that flies to the UK would immediately be grounded as well, which it clearly won’t be. I very much doubt this is the case. Either your info is wrong, or they have yet to reach a definitive conclusion.
Airline pilots would hardly used class 3 medicals, would they?
What is the legal reach of an Information Note from the CAA?
It does say non commercial somewhere in there.
Aviathor wrote:
What is the legal reach of an Information Note from the CAA?
None on an individual level in this case, as @Silvaire correctly pointed out. The CAA cannot change the ICAO treaty by issuing a Note. The only legal reach is that it goes to prove that they do not intend to honor the treaty that they signed and this should be addressed by their signatory partners, i.e. the US should request that they abide by the treaty that they signed.
It is really the same issue that I pointed out in the discussions about Language Proficiency exams. When State A examines a pilot and puts “language proficient” onto his licence (issued in State A), State B cannot simply declare this entry “invalid” and ground the pilot. I would even go so far as to say that a lack of any LP entry would not justify a grounding; State B could only inform State A of a supposed violation for further prosecution of the pilot by State A. Any issue about the language proficiency exams themselves would have to be addressed on an intergovernmental level. Same goes really for medicals.
And that remains true within the EU, which still consists of individual sovereign nations. Even though they all agreed to apply the same (EASA) rules, EU State B cannot directly take enforcing FCL actions against a pilot with papers from EU State A. If he breached national law (e.g. about airspace, noise abatement or whatnot) that would of course be different. Which is why the reports of pilots being grounded in France due to a lack of LP entries always appeared bogus to me (and turned out to be false).
I admit that this is my personal understanding of the legal situation, which may be wrong, but I would be really surprised if it were.
Yes, they can, but it is a bit more work.
All ICAO states agree to issue licences, medicals, air operator certificates, etc. based on ICAO standards and notify any differences. Unless anything exists to the contrary, this grants free acceptance by other ICAO countries for aircraft of the originating country. Hence a US pilot can fly with US licence and US medical on an aircraft with a US Certificate of Airworthiness anywhere in the world, even if differences are notified.
But countries retain sovereignty over their airspace, and can tell people to stay away. On that basis, the EU excludes certain airlines or airlines from certain countries. While ICAO requires the EU countries to accept their AOC, the EU declares that EU states do not accept it. But this is a “big deal”, there is a specific regulation for that and the ban list is published officially.
But for all of the above I wonder on the basis of what legislation this recent nonsense is issued. Unless there is specific enabling regulation, the CAA or the Department for Transport cannot make up regulations.
Silvaire wrote:
Yes, a key question is whether correspondence from CAA (John Overall, Policy Specialist – Licensing Policy) is an indication that UK CAA intends to convict non-resident FAA pilots flying N-registered aircraft perfectly legally on valid FAA medical certifcates, in violation of the UK’s ICAO obligations.
The CAA can’t convict anyone of anything. That would be up to a court to do. The CAA would likely lose that case if it went to court – there is actually due process in the UK when the CAA tries to prosecute someone.
Jacko wrote:
“It’s aimed at any EU resident operating in U.K. airspace on FAA papers”
and Peter asked:
Where is this defined?
This cobblers from the CAA is a conditional exemption to EASA’s “let’s screw N-Reg pilots” regulation. But that regulation does not affect “operators” who are resident outside the EU.
In other words, EASA only targets the N-Reg pilots who live here and are most likely to know local (EU) air law, weather, navigation, language and RT phraseology.
