Very interesting – many thanks for your analysis.
the FAA could consider an EASA class 2 medical as meeting the criteria of a FAA medical
The FAA Class 3 has some additional items over the EASA Class 2. There is one specific eye test. Also the FAA wants your full relevant medical procedure history each year; you can’t just say “previously reported” as used to be done for years. They also want actual values for some things which I can’t remember, not just “within limits”.
So seems very possible it can be done in Europe
A BFR-type flight with an FAA CFI can most definitely be done in Europe.
FAA examining authority
A US flight instructor certificate with an airplane category and single-engine class rating does not confer examining authority.
Because the situation in the U.K. is still very fluid:
I’m sitting quietly and don’t intend to jump until I really have to.
We have a definite SRG2140/2142 concession until June 2021.
Regardless of brexit, the UK govt is not likely to take that away.
rschris wrote:
3.1.2. The applicant shall meet the FAA medical certificate requirements to exercise the
privileges of an FAA pilot certificate, as prescribed in 14 CFR Part 61 First thing here, IMO “meet” doesn’t mean you have to pass a FAA medical. One could imagine here that the FAA could consider an EASA class 2 medical as meeting the criteria of a FAA medical3.1.4. The applicant shall complete a flight review with an FAA certified flight instructor who
holds appropriate FAA examining authority, as detailed in the TIP-L The interesting words here are “flight review” with a (FAA certified) “flight instructor”.
So seems very possible it can be done in Europe
In FAA speak, “meets the requirements of” is often used to not require having met the actual TSO or requirement involved. So wording like “shall meet the FAA medical certificate requirements” is not the same as the wording used in 61.3 for US pilots which specifies they must hold the appropriate medical certificate:
(c) Medical certificate. (1) A person may serve as a required pilot flight crewmember of an aircraft only if that person holds the appropriate medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter, or other documentation acceptable to the FAA, that is in that person’s physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft. Paragraph (c)(2) of this section provides certain exceptions to the requirement to hold a medical certificate.
Regarding 3.1.4, I am an FAA certified flight instructor with instrument rating and can provide a flight review in the US, but I don’t hold an examining authority, only a DPE holds that. So with this wording, it can be interpreted you would need to take the flight review with a DPE examiner. Besides being more expensive, how many examiners are there in europe?
Regarding 3.2.4, it is clearer that this must be accomplished with an examiner. I can give a US pilot an IPC if they are already rated, but since this is in effect the addition of an instrument rating, it makes sense that it would require an examiner.
NCYankee wrote:
[appropriate FAA examining authority] can be interpreted [as meaning] you would need to take the flight review with a DPE examiner.
I completely agree. This issue has been raised with the relevant person in the Commission. The annex has already been published so it will be a while until the FAA reviews the text in each of the EU languages, I’m told. In raising an objection I quoted the response given by the Administrator to comments on the rule proposed in FAA Notice 72-9 (23 Mar 1972). The response in 38 FR 3158 (01 Feb 1973) (link) makes it quite clear that the flight review is not a test.
A number of comments contained the
opinion that the proposed biennial re-
view is really a flight check. This mis-
understanding is apparently based on
the statement in the proposal that the
person giving the review must endorse
the pilot’s logbook, certifying that he is
competent to exercise the privileges of
his pilot certificate in addition to certi-
fying that he has accomplished the flight
review. The FAA does not intend the
flight review to be a flight or proficiency
check. As has been previously stated,
the purpose of the flight review is to
make sure that at least once every 2
years each pilot rides with a competent
person who can comment on his piloting
ability and review with him the current
regulations and operating practices. As
the proposal stated, a person who within
the 2-year. period has taken a profi-
ciency check required by the Federal
Aviation Regulations, does not have to
take a flight review. On the other hand,
a flight review is not a substitute for a
required proficiency or flight check. All
that is really needed for the purpose of
the biennial review is that each pilot suc-
cessfully accomplish the review. There-
fore, to allay the fears of many com-
mentators, and to make it clear that the
flight review is not a flight check, the
proposal has been changed by deleting
the requirement for an endorsement as
to a pilot’s competency to exercise the
privileges of his certificate. As adopted,
the person giving the flight review need
only certify that the pilot has success-
fully accomplished the review.
The biennial review was largely brought about to meet a recommendation in a report to the Secretary of Transportation on General Aviation Safety done by the Assistant Secretary for Safety and Consumer Affairs. 15 Sep 1971. Accession number PB202928 in the US National Technical Reports Library (link).
I’m amazed by the amount of knowledge of the people in this forum. Hat off to you guys
I’m told the TIP-L will be published on 14 Dec.
