[glazer]

In the end the only sensible direction is to force acceptance of FAA class 3 medical. And this is really what I would expect AOPA to work for.

[patowalker]

http://www.aopa.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=481:use-of-nppl-or-lapl-with-n-reg-aircraft&catid=78&Itemid=1039

I did admit I was from Barcelona.

[glazer]

Ok so it confirms what I thought. Cannot fly Nreg on an LAPL outside Uk. No use to me.

[G-BLEW]

So Nick Wilcocks suggestion of flying on an LAPL is not possible with Nreg.

I think Nick's suggestion is that you would fly with an FAA certificate and an FAA class 3 medical, but that your privileges would be reduced to those of a LAPL licence which means no IFR (presumably that would change at the FIR boundary, but who knows…)

I (guess) his suggestion is intended to provide the CAA with something it might be more comfortable with, since it clearly has an issue with accepting ICAO compliant medicals and is willing to ignore its regulatory principles as a result.

Despite what I believe to be a deliberate obstructive act by someone at the CAA and/or DfT, I have to hope that logic will prevail, and that the CAA will once again recognise the FAA's class 3 medical as ICAO compliant.

Ian

[Flyin'Dutch']

I understand from my informant that this referred to pilots who had been unable to hold an FAA Class 2 but were able to hold a Special Issuance FAA Class 3. This is endorsed 'NOT VALID OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES', but my informant alleges that some pilots may have been using an SI Class 3 in Europe. Hence the reticence to accept Class 3 FAA medicals as complying with ICAO if some don't.

The FAA may derogate from ICAO rules as they please in the US, but not elsewhere.

The draft BASA requires FAA PPL holders who need to hold an EASA pilot licence in order to fly EASA aircraft to hold at least an EASA Class 2 medical - and the relevant text has been transposed into ORS4 No.1220.

Not being able to hold an FAA Class 2 has nothing to do with the ability to hold an FAA Class 3.

The vast majority of people who hold a Class 3 do so because that is what they 'need'

Some people hold a Class 3 Special Issuance - just like some people hold an EASA Class 2 which has been issued after special consideration from the relevant competent authority because they have had an issue which requires special consideration; the difference between the FAA and EASA system being that the majority of the EASA special consideration medicals do not get endorsed with a 'special issuance' code. The majority of Special Issuance FAA Class 3 medicals are not endorsed 'not valid outside of the USA'

If people have been using a Special Issuance Class 3 endorsed 'only valid in US National Airspace' then that is unfortunate and irresponsible by those people but a) I am not sure if that is true b) if so it can have only been on a very occasional basis as I don't have the numbers available but in doing FAA Medicals for a decade and a half I have never yet had anyone been issued with one of those.

Can you ask your 'informant' for some substance to these allegations i.e. numbers as it would be nice to know on what evidence base the action was taken.

[glazer]

Ian
Thanks for the clarification. That would be a suitable interim solution to allow us to fly although without IR . But I also understand that AOPAs suggestion was made some six weeks ago and so far has not been agreed. A bit odd if they did agree to this but still held out against allowing FAA Class 3 to be considered equivalent to Class 2. If they could agree to one then why not the other?

[Paul_Sengupta]

That may be true but doesn't address my concern about being restricted to the UK

Not in itself, but if it's allowed in the UK, the next question was about what the DGAC's stance is in France.

Yes of course there's an "ideal" and "logical" solution, but I'm trying to think of current ways to keep you flying if this doesn't pan out or it takes a long time.

[G-BLEW]

Not in itself, but if it's allowed in the UK, the next question was about what the DGAC's stance is in France.

The DGAC has no issue with people flying N reg aircraft with FAA certificates and FAA class 3 medicals (like the rest of the world apart from the UK's DfT and CAA).

Ian

[glazer]

That's fine so it is only the UK that needs sorting out.

[Paul_Sengupta]

That's it then if the following from Irv is correct:

4 - I think the laa got some faa decision recently on this to allow a UK issued lapl licence for N reg in UK airspace didn't they?

If you have an LAPL with LAPL medical you can fly using that to the border, then switch to your FAA licence. Or a UK national PPL with medical declaration. (or even an NPPL SSEA?) One of those will keep you moving until it's "sorted out" in the UK.

[Irv Lee]

Ah but... what is France doing about the April 7th/8th last minute surprise that the third country rules would not get a two year extension? The UK pushed out form 2140, 41, 39 etc. What did France do?

[glazer]

"If you have an LAPL with LAPL medical you can fly using that to the border, then switch to your FAA licence. Or a UK national PPL with medical declaration. (or even an NPPL SSEA?) One of those will keep you moving until it's "sorted out" in the UK."

But at the moment we cannot fly Ref on an LAPL in the UK. Furthermore my FAA licence is based on my having an EASA licence, not LAPL. So if I change to LAPL I lose my EASA CAA licence and thus my FAA privileges.

Catch 22.
Mike

[flybymike]

Another stupid consequence of LAPL privileges not being embedded in a full EASA licence.

[G-BLEW]

Ah but... what is France doing about the April 7th/8th last minute surprise that the third country rules would not get a two year extension? The UK pushed out form 2140, 41, 39 etc. What did France do?

France signed the exemption and extended everything for a couple of years.

Here's my column from this month's mag

Ian

[Irv Lee]

Just by coincidence, magazines usually reach the top of my in-pile sometime in the month they have printed on the cover...