the initial issue of the CPL requires a class 1 medical…
It does here.
I have never checked the legal requirement for that
Good luck with that 
Qalupalik wrote:
I disagree. The language in MED.A.030(c)(5) is “[w]hen exercising the privileges of a … CPL…” which mirrors the language in FCL.040. Otherwise, it follows that a CPL ceases to be held once the medical expires, which seems contrived.
I agree that would be very contrived. So you mean that when you hold a CPL and instruct for the CPL, you are not actually exercising the privileges of your CPL? That also seems contrived as then you wouldn’t need a medical at all to instruct! Or do you mean that when you instruct (for any certificate) you are actually only exercising the privileges of a PPL (which a CPL holder with a class 2 medical can do).
To take “it follows that a CPL ceases to be held once the medical expires” literally is to say that if your medical expires, so does the CPL, which would be crazy.
If your medical expires then you can’t exercise those CPL privileges which need that medical, which is reasonable. Actually in the US you can instruct or examine with just a Class 3, if the candidate is legally PIC on the actual flight, AIUI, and that is much more reasonable.
Airborne_Again wrote:
So you mean that when you hold a CPL and instruct for the CPL, you are not actually exercising the privileges of your CPL?
I would agree with that. The list of “privileges of the holder of a CPL” is defined in FCL.305 CPL and does not include instructing:
CL.305 CPL – Privileges and conditions
(a) Privileges. The privileges of the holder of a CPL are, within the appropriate aircraft category, to:
(1) exercise all the privileges of the holder of an LAPL and a PPL;
(2) act as PIC or co-pilot of any aircraft engaged in operations other than commercial air
transport;
(3) act as PIC in commercial air transport of any single-pilot aircraft subject to the restrictions
specified in FCL.060 and in this Subpart;
(4) act as co-pilot in commercial air transport subject to the restrictions specified in FCL.060.
lionel wrote:
I had in mind that the initial issue of the CPL requires a class 1 medical… (…) I have never checked the legal requirement for that.
It is Part-MED.A.030.(b):
An applicant for a licence, in accordance with Annex I (Part-FCL), shall hold a medical certificate issued in accordance with this Annex (Part-MED) and appropriate to the licence privileges applied for.
I eat my words 
But it is still nonsense – you should not need a medical to apply for a license.
lionel wrote:
I would agree with that. The list of “privileges of the holder of a CPL” is defined in FCL.305 CPL and does not include instructing:
Neither does the list of privileges of a PPL holder… FCL.205.A(a): The privileges of the holders of a PPL(A) are to act without remuneration as PIC or co-pilots of aeroplanes or TMGs engaged in non-commercial operations and to exercise all privileges of holders of an LAPL(A).
On the other hand non-commercial flight training actually is a “non-commercial operation”. So by that logic a CPL holder would need a class 1 medical to instruct for the CPL at a commercial ATO, but a class 2 medical would be sufficient at a non-commercial ATO. That actually makes some kind of sense.
But the question is if this helps @HB-JAN in practise. While non-commercial instructing for the PPL is common (in the club environment), I would think it is very unusual with non-commercial instructing for the CPL. Also, it would not be allowed to receive remuneration when instructing for the CPL while exercising the privileges of a PPL as the derogation that allows PPLs to receive remuneration for flight training is limited to LAPL/PPL.
I do wish the regs could be more explicit. What do you think @Qalupalik?
Airborne_Again wrote:
On the other hand non-commercial flight training actually is a “non-commercial operation”. So by that logic a CPL holder would need a class 1 medical to instruct for the CPL at a commercial ATO, but a class 2 medical would be sufficient at a non-commercial ATO. That actually makes some kind of sense.
It is relatively clear that “flight training” is not a commercial activity and it is not a “commercial air transport operation”, even if this is done for remuneration.
It is also not distinguished whether a DTO of the ATO is operated in a club environment or not.
Please consult this document on page 3 “Flight Training Qualification”.
https://ffac.ch/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Fluglehrer-im-schweizerischen-Recht.pdf
HB-JAN wrote:
It is relatively clear that “flight training” is not a commercial activity and it is not a “commercial air transport operation”
An ATO can be commercial in the sense that it operates for profit and part-NCO/NCC will still apply. The maintenance regs (part-ML) make a clear distinction between “commercial” and “non-commercial” ATOs/DTOs. In any case the derogation that allows someone “exercising the privileges” of a PPL to accept remuneration for flight training only applies to training for the LAPL/PPL.
