All we now need is sensible CAAs who do not overinterpret the regs beyond or sometimes even against the clear intent of the regulator. A simple “ombudsman” at EASA would be fantastic and resolve most of the issues gold plating regs still causes.
Noe wrote:
Seems horrible from a safety point of view. How is the person going to keep current?
On the one hand. However the other hand is, how long after the simulator session will he get his medical back??? I.e. the sim session may be create a false sense of currency/recency. I can sort of see why they would refuse.
Better would be: get the medical back, book a sim session and complete, then go fly (with an instructor if still lacking competency).
By the way basic regulation Article 7 says:
Except when under training, a person may only act as a pilot if he or she holds a licence and a medical certificate appropriate to the operation to be performed.
So it seems that you can train without a medical, and I don’t think that applies to the Prof Check.
Archie wrote:
It’s pretty well industry standard that you can’t carry out a prof check without a valid medical.
I believe the opposite is true. Skill Test requires a medical, Proficiency Checks not. I have no reference though. But pilots I know have maintained their ratings this way, without a valid medical.
I have a friend who lost his medical this year after a surgery. He did a PC 4 months after without any problems since it was dual command.
So did we come to a conclusion here? Reason I ask is that I may find myself in a similar situation in January. For logistical reasons it looks like I’ll do my medical a few days after the bi-annual reval flight w an instructor (that’s for the EASA license) if that’s legal. Thoughts?
