Revalidating in USA

[Mike Cross]

Lack of a medical does not render the license invalid, it simply prevents you from exercising the license privileges (Art 72B of the ANO).

Art 247 deals with extra-territorial effect of the Order and makes it clear that outside the UK it relates to flights by UK registered a/c and the crew thereof.

If the FAA is happy to accept an FAA medical to fly an N Reg in FAA land and outside of the jurisdiction of UK law and the UK courts then precisely what law is being broken?

[wb9999]

Mike, what wording is on the plastic airmen's certificate for piggyback licences?

I only have an old paper airman certificate, which is obviously no longer valid. The wording on that states
"Issued on the basis of and valid only when accompanied by United Kingdom Pilot License Number(s) PP/xxxxxx/A/. All limitations and restrictions of the United Kingdom Pilot License apply."

If the wording is the same on the plastic certificate, then you won't be able to use a EASA/JAR licence as a piggyback without a valid EASA medical, as you have restrictions on its use under the ANO - you are not entitled to exercise the privileges of the licence. And those restrictions will apply to the FAA licence.

[Mike Cross]

Well we're getting into severe pedantry here but my own plastic 61.75 is very near what your old paper one says with one word changed that word is ON insted of OF

Issued on the basis of and valid only when accompanied by United Kingdom Pilot License Number(s) PP/xxxxxx/A/. All limitations and restrictions on the United Kingdom Pilot License apply

In section XII of my CAA PPL under Remarks/Restrictions it says "No Entries"

As I said earlier the ANO has no effect in the US other than in the case of flights in a UK registered a/c.

The FAA's intent in FAR 61.75 is crystal clear, as pointed out by Mark 1

Holds a medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter or a medical license issued by the country that issued the person's foreign pilot license

note the use of the word OR.

We'll have to agree to differ on this. Suffice it to say that if my UK medical certificate ran out while I was in the US I would have no qualms about flying using an FAA one.

[wb9999]

Mike, part-MED specifies "that for a licence to be valid the holder must also have a Medical Certificate appropriate to the licence", a minimum of class 2 is stated for PPL(A). So if you do not have an EASA medical certificate then an FAA piggyback license would not be valid on the basis that an EASA/JAR licence would not be valid.

[Mike Cross]

I hear what you say

[MarkerInbound]

If you go back to link I posted above, the FAA guidance covers this. Paragraph 5-597 E near the top. What they say is if the foreign licence has a medical endorsement on the license then you must have a current foreign medical to use your 61.75. They list several countries that do this, Canada, Germany, Kenya, Singapore, Austria and some others are listed. But if there is no medical endorsement on the license the FAA says a US medical is OK for a 61.75.

Most of this was written before JAR/ EASA so the question is, does EASA put a medical endorsement on your license?

[wb9999]

MarkerInbound, the link you posted states "the foreign pilot license must be valid". As I've already written, an EASA licence is only valid with a current medical certificate (Part-MED - EU law). I don't think you can get any clearer. The loopholes that people normally look for do not exist.

[Mark 1]

I have been flying on a 61.75 certificate, while living in the US for several years and have raised the point with both the local FSDO and a DPE while presenting the paperwork on my IR check ride.

They were both unequivocal on their interpretation of 61.75 in that a foreign medical was not required to meet the validity requirements of a foreign licence.

OK, I don't have anything in writing to back that up, but I certainly won't be taking a 5000 mile round trip to my nearest UK authorised AME (in Florida) to keep the UK medical running.

[MarkerInbound]

I'll admit I know nothing about your licensing system. Is that EASA requirement different from what JAA or the old CAA said?

[Mark 1]

part-MED specifies "that for a licence to be valid the holder must also have a Medical Certificate appropriate to the licence"

Can you point me to the specific reference for that quote?

My EASA licence does not state that. In section IX - Validity, it only states that a medical is required to exercise the privileges of the licence.

[wb9999]

Mark 1, part-FCL and part-MED are all detailed at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:311:0001:0193N:PDF.

MED.A.30 Medical certificates:
"...holders of a private pilot licence (PPL)... shall hold at least a Class 2 medical certificate"

Hence, no valid medical certificate means no valid licence. The quote in one of my previous posts was taken from the CAP804 (non-legal), but the above quoted paragraph is from part-MED (law).

[Mark 1]

It could be worded more clearly, but the point is that the licence itself remains valid unless suspended. revoked or expired.

To exercise the privileges then there must be a valid type/class rating and medical certificate. FCL.040 says as much. Your argument would similarly imply that the aircraft rating is also valid on the foreign licence.

Unless I see anything that explicitly says otherwise, I have no intention of getting an EASA medical to exercise the privileges of my US Airman's certificate.

I think this could go on ad nauseum, so I'll rest my case.

[Ebbie 2003]

Some parsing of the question and tendentious semantics here I think - a license is used to legally fly an airplane - I think that is the best definition of "valid" - OK play ducks and drakes with the medical requirements if you like but get ramp checked in the US with a piggyback and no medical from your originating ICAO state and you'll be getting a big fine, possibly some jail time, a life-time ban from the US and, if the check is following a accident, US level law suits coupled with invalid insurance.

The rules are very simple and are set out in the regulations with commendable clarity - no reason to be imputing ambiguity to them where there is none.

[Mark 1]

From the FAA's guidance notes Q&A:

Question 2: Is it permissible to be issued our U.S. pilot certificate on the basis of the person’s foreign pilot license by permitting the applicant to use a current FAA medical certificate if the applicant’s foreign medical license has expired?

Answer 2: Ref. § 61.75(b)(4); If the verification from the foreign civil aviation authority states that the foreign pilot license is valid, but the foreign medical license has expired then in accordance with § 61.75(b)(4), it is permissible to accept the FAA medical certificate as meeting the requirement for a current medical certificate. If the foreign civil aviation authority specifically states [emphasis added: it must state it on the foreign pilot license] that the foreign pilot license is not valid because the medical endorsement/license has expired, then a U.S. pilot certificate may not be issued to the applicant.

[wb9999]

Ebbie 2003, I agree. If an incident was to occur and the FAA were to verify with the UK CAA if the licence is still valid the response from the CAA would likely be "no". In CAP804 the CAA say that a person must have a current medical certificate for a licence to be valid, so I wouldn't be surprised if they applied this in foreign licence validation requests from the FAA.

It's a big risk to take.

Mark 1, MED.A.30 only mentions licences and licence holders, not ratings or privileges. A PPL licence holder must have a minimum class 2 medical. So a licence holder without is not complying with requirements to be a licence holder. I understand that to mean the licence would not be valid, and the CAA make clear in CAP804 that is their view also.

[Mike Cross]

It would be an FAA decision on prosecution and a US Court decision on whether or not an offence had been committed. They are not going to lose any sleep over convoluted arguments like that.

EASA and the EU are not states and have no legal jurisdiction, nor are they ICAO contracting states. EU States are required to enact EU law into their own national law. The extra-territorial effect of the UK legislation, to which I've already provided a reference, does not extend beyond UK reg aircraft so no offence will have been commtted under UK Law.

UK Law, reference again supplied, does NOT say that a license is invalid if it is not accompanied by a valid medical certificate. it says that the privileges cannot be exercised.

The US has decided that it will allow the holder of an FAA 61.75 Airman's certificate to exercise the privileges of THAT certificate subject to the foreign license being readily available in the aircraft and the existence of a valid medical certificate issued in accordance with Part 67 CFR OR one issued by the foreign state.

[wb9999]

Mike, EASA regulations are UK law and override the ANO. The ANO is a worthless law for flight crew licencing, unless you have a CAA national licence, so there's no point referring to it or quoting it. If you have a JAR or EASA licence then Part-FCL and Part-MED are the regs to know and comply with.

Nobody is saying that an offence is committed under UK law, so I'm not sure why you mention that. FAA 61.75 says that you must have a valid foreign licence, so the key point is whether a foreign licence is valid or not when using an FAA piggyback licence. EASA regs (remember, they are UK law), and the CAA's interpretation of them, say that a PPL licence holder must have a minimum Class 2 medical certificate for a licence to be valid. Which bit of that is ambiguous?

If an incident occurs, the FAA won't be the ones to determine if a foreign licence is valid or not. It could have been revoked or suspended since they initially verified it, so they'll go back to the issuing authority for confirmation. And what will the CAA's response be? If it's a no, then what happens to the FAA piggyback licence? How can you be certain that the CAA will say your licence is valid and, if not, that the FAA will still confirm your piggyback licence is valid? Prosecution or not, I am pretty sure the FAA will make sure you never fly in the US again if you get caught flying "illegally".

If someone at an FSDO tells you it would be legal to fly with an FAA medical instead of an EASA medical and then you should get that in writing. Because it won't be that FSDO that makes a decision on how to proceed if someone else says it's not legal.

[englishal]

it says that the privileges cannot be exercised.

Mike, I know you are bored of this topic

But I think that if a person was ramp checked, they held an FAA 61.75 certificate AND US medical but no EASA medical.....then you'd be fine.

If one crashed into a school and killed a load of children and the US lawyers got involved, then I think they might argue that although the holder had a US medical, that they were not valid because the "privileges" of the EASA licence were nil due to the missing EASA medical and therefore you had no right to fly ("All limitations on the foreign license apply").

Remember, all this 61.75 stuff is written for any ICAO licence, not just EASA. It might be that some other ICAO state doesn't put any restriction anywhere but could for example just state "you must have a medical every two years which conforms to an ICAO medical").

I think this is something that can only be proved one way or the other in a court case, and I for one would not like to try it out. At least if one holds an EASA medical, and a BFR then one is 100% legit and there are no technicalities that a lawyer could use to fleece you.

[Mike Cross]

You might think that the US courts would accept such an argument, I don't concur. They are fiercely protective of their constitution and a suggestion that a bit of foreign regulation would take precedence over a US Federal Regulation, that a foreign medical should somehow be more important than an FAA one is not going to hold water.

wb9999 As stated earlier my 61.75 is based on a CAA lifetime license which is a UK license not an EASA one.

[wb9999]

So Mike, bearing in mind that the FAA require a valid foreign licence, if the FAA were to write to the CAA to ask them to re-verify your licence, would the CAA confirm it was a valid licence?

Because that is what would happen in Englishal's example.

wb9999 As stated earlier my 61.75 is based on a CAA lifetime license which is a UK license not an EASA one.

In which case, sections 72 and 72A of the ANO do apply to you, and are even clearer than part-MED. The "medical certificate forms part of the licence", to quote section 72A. If you're missing a medical certificate then your licence is not complete or rendered valid.