You may not be able to get a Class 1 due to some temporary issue.
Also there is a case for CPL privileges which don’t need a Class 1 e.g. flight training where the “student” is already licensed.
But what is the use of a CPL without these privileges?
Apparently this local copy now says that you can have a CPL with a Class 2 medical.
However you still need a Class 1 for the initial issuance, or to exercise the CPL privileges.
In the US, you can get a CPL or ATP with a Class 3. The medical needs to be upgraded only if/when you need to exercise the license privileges. That is much more sensible.
dublinpilot wrote:
The explanation makes no sense at all. “The medical is only need to issue or use the privileges of a licence.” What use is a licence that you can’t use the privileges of, especially when you can’t hold a second licence!
Annex 1 1.2.4.4 essentially says that you’re not allowed to exercise privileges unless you have a medical appropriate for your licence. Strictly speaking, the old wording doesn’t allow you to keep your licence if you lose your medical. So, the explanation reflects the change they actually did.
These people are the same ones they require us to hold English Language Proficiency certificates.
Language Proficiency is an ICAO creation.
dublinpilot wrote:
These people are the same ones they require us to hold English Language Proficiency certificates. I think they could do with a little brushing up on their own English! Perhaps we should require EASA regulators to hold ELP level 6
This has nothing to do with English proficiency but everything do to with being able to express reasonably complex matters clearly and unambiguously. Some people just can’t do that and it doesn’t seem to have anything to do with intelligence of linguistic ability either.
Anyway, part-FCL is a wonder of clarity if you compare with part-M. It is so badly written that I almost wonder if it is intentional.
So we started with this:
(f) Applicants for and holders of a commercial pilot licence (CPL), a multi-crew pilot licence (MPL), or an airline transport pilot licence (ATPL) shall hold a class 1 medical certificate.
They want to allow (I think!) a CPL fly with the privileges of a PPL, when they hold a class 2 medical, so they change the wording to
(c) When exercising the privileges of a licence:
[…]
(4) holders of a commercial pilot licence (CPL), a multi-crew pilot licence (MPL), or an airline transport pilot licence (ATPL) shall hold a class 1 medical certificate.
And somehow they think that makes it better?
Then they explain it with
MED.A.030 Medical certificates: Changes have been made because the medical certificate is only needed for the issue of the licence (to comply with ICAO Annex 1 point 2.1.1.3) and for using the privileges of the licence exercised (to comply with ICAO Annex 1 point 1.2.4.4).
The explanation makes no sense at all. “The medical is only need to issue or use the privileges of a licence.” What use is a licence that you can’t use the privileges of, especially when you can’t hold a second licence!
The wording of the old quote means essentially the same as the new quote.
These people are the same ones they require us to hold English Language Proficiency certificates. I think they could do with a little brushing up on their own English! Perhaps we should require EASA regulators to hold ELP level 6 
Is this an example of very badly worded regulation or does anyone believe it is/was truly the intention to require a CPL to have a Class1 medical to operate a private flight?…. I suspect it is the former…
I haven’t seen an Opinion emerge for NPA 2013-15 yet. That means there may still be time to change the wording.
I don’t read the EN quite like you do. It could simply mean that you don’t need to hold a medical if you’re the holder of a licence but not using it, without resolving the issue we’re discussing.
The UK CAA approach is innovative but strictly speaking in breach of FCL.015(c) “A person shall not hold at any time more than one licence per category of aircraft issued in accordance with this Part.”
Not quite.
The old wording of MED.A.030 indeed, if interpreted to the letter, required the holder of a licence to hold the corresponding medical, otherwise the privileges of the entire licence could not be exercised.
Old wording:
(f) Applicants for and holders of a commercial pilot licence (CPL), a multi-crew pilot licence (MPL), or an airline transport pilot licence (ATPL) shall hold a class 1 medical certificate.
This is changing with Amendment 2013-15, where they change it to
(c) When exercising the privileges of a licence:
…
(2) holders of a private pilot licence (PPL), a sailplane pilot licence (SPL), or a balloon pilot licence (BPL) shall hold at least a class 2 medical certificate.
…
(4) holders of a commercial pilot licence (CPL), a multi-crew pilot licence (MPL), or an airline transport pilot licence (ATPL) shall hold a class 1 medical certificate.
While still poorly worded (instead of holders it should say “when exercising the privileges of”, the intent is 100% certain, because the commentary explicitly states as the reason for the change
MED.A.030 Medical certificates: Changes have been made because the medical certificate is only needed for the issue of the licence (to comply with ICAO Annex 1 point 2.1.1.3) and for using the privileges of the licence exercised (to comply with ICAO Annex 1 point 1.2.4.4).
bookworm, MED.A.030(f) is being replaced with MED.A.030(c)(4) as above.
The UK CAA got around the previous stupidity by printing both a PPL and a CPL on the EASA licence under the “Licences Held”.
Peter wrote:
So if you have a CPL and your Class 1 medical lapses to a Class 2, or you have only a Class 2, the CPL cannot be used even as a PPL.
That’s incorrect at the moment in the UK, as verified with the CAA recently.
Are you saying that this is going to change?
