quatrelle wrote:
I cant see the difference between a 61.75 and full FAA licence (irrespective of an IR) if you have EASA Licence, but maybe I am wrong?
No. You are absolutely right. Those that have a 3rd country rating and do not have the corresponding EASA rating cannot use that 3rd country rating.
I just took that specific case if the 61.75 + IR as a specific example I believe is pretty common.
Peter wrote:
It is the State of Registry (the USA) which requires you to hold the FAA papers. So IMHO a 61.75 PPL plus an IR will be fine.
As long as you also have an EASA IR (if you want to exercise the privileges of that rating)
quatrelle wrote:
I just wish someone would just spell the whole damm thing out in plain unambiguous English so that everyone knew exactly where they stood.
It is actually very simple. All pilots who reside in an EASA country must be appropriately qualified according to Part-FCL regardless of the tail number on their airplane. And in addition to that, they must hold a license that allows them to act as pilot on airplanes of that registry.
So for an EASA resident to fly an N-reg in EASA land, he needs a Part-FCL license with the appropriate ratings/privileges (EASA requirement), and for flying outside the country which delivered his EASA license, he also needs the appropriate FAA privileges (FAA requirement).
Until today one could do with FAA certificate/ratings only.
Aviathor wrote:
So for a EASA resident to fly an N-reg in EASA land, he needs a Part-FCL license with the appropriate ratings/privileges (EASA requirement), and for flying outside the country which delivered his EASA license, he also needs the appropriate FAA privileges (FAA requirement).
So in the case of a UK resident with an FAA licence, who self-declares on form SRG2140 and meets the conditions set out, he can continue to fly in UK airspace. But when he exits UK airspace, lets say to France, do we believe that the FAA licence alone is sufficient, since he is no longer in the country which delivered his EASA licence? If that is correct, then the situation isn’t as bad as I thought. I had started to believe that a similar derogation or exemption would be needed from each country overflown, which would obviously make it completely impractical, and would force everyone down the route of the temporary validation process, or else a licence conversion, or a wait-and-see-what-BASA-delivers approach.
Aviathor wrote:
It is actually very simple.
Aviathor wrote:
for an EASA resident to fly an N-reg in EASA land, he needs a Part-FCL license with the appropriate ratings/privileges (EASA requirement), and for flying outside the country which delivered his EASA license, he also needs the appropriate FAA privileges (FAA requirement).
Thanks Aviathor, appreciated…thats the first time that I have heard it in plain language….I can now sit back and relax..
My understanding is that holders of FAA licences are exempted from complying with Annex 3 until April 2019 if they wish to fly purely in a non commercial capacity in UK airspace. See http://www.aopa.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=631:exemption-for-holders-of-faa-pilot-licences&catid=78:latest-news&Itemid=1039
The requirement to have a Class 2 medical is a pain because as US license holders know a Class 2 drops down to a Class 3 in the second year, but it’s not the end of the world. English proficiency is written on the FAA license, so that’s not a problem. If you have ever been issues with a UK PPL then you can surely satisfy the Air Law requirement and if you have a radio telephone license then the appropriate ATC knowledge. I lost my FAA license towards the end of 2015 and applied online for a replacement which is dates September 2015 and that therefore satisfies the requirement to demonstrate that I have a license issued within the last 2 years. Finally, I don’t see anywhere that there is a fee to pay, which if the case is also comforting.
Have I missed something?
Outside of the UK, I confess to not knowing what the current situation is.
johnzh wrote:
Finally, I don’t see anywhere that there is a fee to pay, which if the case is also comforting.Have I missed something?
It seems like the IN is unclear and the fee is only payable by non-FAA pilots looking for a more than 28 day validation.
The requirement to have a Class 2 medical is a pain because as US license holders know a Class 2 drops down to a Class 3 in the second year, but it’s not the end of the world
It is much more of a pain, as many would tell you off the forum…
To the delight of a good number of people who hate the USA and hate people flying nice planes, this measure – if not rescinded soon – will really screw the N-reg community, especially the upper end of it (in airframe terms e.g. TBMs).
For clues, look up the FAA medical requirements for a Class 2, especially the requirements if you have had some very commonly done cardio procedures done anytime in the past. Quite shocking actually. These people will have to get the EASA Class 2, if they can, but many can’t for some other reason.
On past record of how the DfT works, this mad measure may be rescinded but only after say a year, by which time it will have achieved the desired effect.
I don’t get the legal basis for this. EASA regulations is what matters. Today one cannot fly an N-reg w/o EASA paperwork. The EU will hopefully very soon adopt the 2019 postponement and that will be the end of it for now.
With respect to EASA vs FAA medical, I can tell you that I had no problems regaining my EASA medical following a surgical procedure, but the FAA class 3 medical was a completely different story and I am not out of the woods yet. Not that I really need the FAA medical.
