FAA Private on basis of JAA - Medical Reqts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA Private on basis of JAA - Medical Reqts
According to 61.75 an FAA Private can be issued on the basis of a CURRENT foreign licence provided the applicant has a current FAA medical or medical from the state that issued the foreign licence.
My question is (as I am currently living in the US), can I fly an N reg aircraft in the US with an FAA medical and FAA licence issued on the basis of a JAA/UK licence, without a JAA medical ie: is the JAA licence CURRENT without the JAA medical ? If this is so, then I assume I could keep my JAA licence current by doing a JAA bienniel with the instructor as P1 and not requiring a JAA/UK medical.
Thanks for your thoughts,
Mark...
My question is (as I am currently living in the US), can I fly an N reg aircraft in the US with an FAA medical and FAA licence issued on the basis of a JAA/UK licence, without a JAA medical ie: is the JAA licence CURRENT without the JAA medical ? If this is so, then I assume I could keep my JAA licence current by doing a JAA bienniel with the instructor as P1 and not requiring a JAA/UK medical.
Thanks for your thoughts,
Mark...
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: E Anglia
Posts: 1,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your piggy back FAA license is based on your JAA/CAAPPL and as such the CAA/PPL must be fully valid.
If you haven't got a current JAA medical, your JAA PPL is not valid and therefore nor is your FAA/PPL, regardless of the fact that you've got a FAA medical.
Your best bet is to see if there's an AME locally who is authorised to issue CAA Medical Class 2.
Or else get a JAA medical next time you're in UK> Meantime you're flying illegally.
Cusco.
If you haven't got a current JAA medical, your JAA PPL is not valid and therefore nor is your FAA/PPL, regardless of the fact that you've got a FAA medical.
Your best bet is to see if there's an AME locally who is authorised to issue CAA Medical Class 2.
Or else get a JAA medical next time you're in UK> Meantime you're flying illegally.
Cusco.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not so sure. FAR 61.75 only specifies that the foreign license (sic) must be "current" and not revoked or suspended, it is silent on the subject of ratings validity (that's what the BFR is for), and FAR 61.75 (b) (4) clearly indicates that the medical can be FAA.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: E Anglia
Posts: 1,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It'll all boil down to semantics and what 'current' actually means.
To me it means that with a current licence you can hop in an aeroplane and fly it away..........
Oops: no medical? can you still hop in the aeroplane and fly it away? I don't think so.
Does an FAA class 3 medical make a CAA licence 'current'. I don't think so......
Ergo your 61.75FAA/PPL is not valid.
But then I'm not the FAA : best do what they advise: you're in their country after all.
Now the converse is true: If you have a current CAA/JAAPPL with a 'current' JAA medical you can, in theory fly a N Reg on a FAA61.75 without a FAA class 3 medical because all the requirements to make you JAAPPL valid (JAA medical) are in force. (I'm using 'JAA' and 'CAA' interchangeably here because my PPL is a lifetime CAA PPL and I've got used to the terminology)
Didn't stop the US folks insisting I had a FAA class 3 medical moments before I was due to take the FAA/IR checkride though, despite my having a CAA/PPL with current CAA class 2 medical and therefore a valid 61.75 FAAPPL: With the examiner pacing up and down outside and ready to go I wasn't going to argue the toss: I had my FAA class3 medical
Just read what it says on your FAAPilot Certificate:
"Issued on the basis of and valid only when accompanied by United Kingdom Pilot license number UK/PP XXXXXXXX. All limitations and restrictions on the United Kingdom Pilot License apply."
I would offer that the absence of a JAA medical was a limitation applied to a JAA license (no medical, no fly)
Cusco
To me it means that with a current licence you can hop in an aeroplane and fly it away..........
Oops: no medical? can you still hop in the aeroplane and fly it away? I don't think so.
Does an FAA class 3 medical make a CAA licence 'current'. I don't think so......
Ergo your 61.75FAA/PPL is not valid.
But then I'm not the FAA : best do what they advise: you're in their country after all.
Now the converse is true: If you have a current CAA/JAAPPL with a 'current' JAA medical you can, in theory fly a N Reg on a FAA61.75 without a FAA class 3 medical because all the requirements to make you JAAPPL valid (JAA medical) are in force. (I'm using 'JAA' and 'CAA' interchangeably here because my PPL is a lifetime CAA PPL and I've got used to the terminology)
Didn't stop the US folks insisting I had a FAA class 3 medical moments before I was due to take the FAA/IR checkride though, despite my having a CAA/PPL with current CAA class 2 medical and therefore a valid 61.75 FAAPPL: With the examiner pacing up and down outside and ready to go I wasn't going to argue the toss: I had my FAA class3 medical
Just read what it says on your FAAPilot Certificate:
"Issued on the basis of and valid only when accompanied by United Kingdom Pilot license number UK/PP XXXXXXXX. All limitations and restrictions on the United Kingdom Pilot License apply."
I would offer that the absence of a JAA medical was a limitation applied to a JAA license (no medical, no fly)
Cusco
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cusco,
basic problem is that 61.75 is worded in the context of the FAA philosophy with regard to licence duration, rating validity and so on, so the JAA licences and terminology don't make for simple interpretation.
My take is that a JAR licence can be current even though the ratings it contains require re-validation and the holder is out of medical. As you say its semantics and we will have to differ.
At the end of the day MRECHT would PROB90 be better off getting a stand alone FAA PPL and Class 3 medical rather than taking heed of thee & me!
basic problem is that 61.75 is worded in the context of the FAA philosophy with regard to licence duration, rating validity and so on, so the JAA licences and terminology don't make for simple interpretation.
My take is that a JAR licence can be current even though the ratings it contains require re-validation and the holder is out of medical. As you say its semantics and we will have to differ.
At the end of the day MRECHT would PROB90 be better off getting a stand alone FAA PPL and Class 3 medical rather than taking heed of thee & me!
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Orlando, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I look at *ALL* these questions and ask myself....
In the event of an incident or accident, in this current litigious society, at the subsequent board of investigation.....will I get away with it when pressed hard by a vicious prosecuting attorney".
Am I 100% comfortable that all my ducks are in a row, the i's are dotted, the t's are crossed, all the slices of swiss cheese are misaligned to not let the holes match up? (
[for the mods]).
If an attorney is questioning YOU, as you sit in the witness box, does YOUR interpretation cover you 100%?
You can get a JAA medical in Tyler, Texas - so just go get one every three years or so.
In the event of an incident or accident, in this current litigious society, at the subsequent board of investigation.....will I get away with it when pressed hard by a vicious prosecuting attorney".
Am I 100% comfortable that all my ducks are in a row, the i's are dotted, the t's are crossed, all the slices of swiss cheese are misaligned to not let the holes match up? (
[for the mods]).If an attorney is questioning YOU, as you sit in the witness box, does YOUR interpretation cover you 100%?
You can get a JAA medical in Tyler, Texas - so just go get one every three years or so.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hotel this week, hotel next week, home whenever...
Posts: 1,492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another 2 penneth worth....
Why not just get an unrestricted FAA certificate by doing a checkride with an FAA examiner, then you don't have to worry about the JAA medical or currency / revalidating / renewal of that rating. If you're coming back to Euroland just pull the dust covers off and get an examiner on the job when you come back for good.
DD
Why not just get an unrestricted FAA certificate by doing a checkride with an FAA examiner, then you don't have to worry about the JAA medical or currency / revalidating / renewal of that rating. If you're coming back to Euroland just pull the dust covers off and get an examiner on the job when you come back for good.
DD
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Orlando, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and would all the other countries outside the USA still have to accept the FAA licence as valid in their country?
All those Brits with FAA licences no longer allowed to fly G reg?
All those Brits with FAA licences no longer allowed to fly G reg?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: E Anglia
Posts: 1,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally- and this is just my own view - the FAA should abolish the 61.75 'based on' and make anybody who wants to fly PIC in a N reg - jump through all the required hoops and security clearances and get a full unrestricted FAA certificate. It solves all the problems and removes any ambiguity..
I'm sure more than a few Brits with 61.75 licences (I'm one of them) just want the facility to rent an N Reg when in the USA for a hol:
I fly a G-Reg in UK and have absolutely no access to an N reg to rent here.
I personally couldn't be *rsed to do the extra exam, flt test/checkride etc just to get a standalone.
It would be a bit like making Brits pass the US Car driving test before they could rent-a-Hertz automobile.
I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of man to include the onlineFAA renewal facility for 61.75 just like the standalones:
The minimal extra paperwork is acceptable from the 'based-on' country's Aviation authority: it's the messing about with the FSDOs thats the problem.
If it's identification/assessment of the English language that's the problem, why not use video linking? Even my cheapo lappy has this facility.......
Cusco
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the intent of 61.75 is to comply with the ICAO requirement to have a method of recognising/rendering valid other countries licences for PPL type flying. In the UK, this is automatic - your ICAO licence is Rendered Valid by definition in the ANO with no requirement for any administration.
The US require a fairly basic administrative process to achieve the same result. The principle behind subjecting the licence to underlying limitations is that you shouldn't magically get privileges you have not been trained and qualified for simply by virtue of the administrative process. So if you are not allowed to fly at night, or OSOS, or whatever, you still are limited by this restriction on the FAA licence. Further, 'current' is only used in the preamble not the detail definition, which makes clear that current means not expired, suspended, revoked, etc.
'Current' is slightly more complex in terms of recency in that it has been argued that the fact your foreign licence is 'current' means your FAA is current without the need for a BFR. I have equally seen it argued the opposite way. In both cases supported by alleged comment from various FSDOs. There is a poster who has been trying to get a formal answer from the FAA Chief Council - but to my knowledge has not yet received said answer.
This is a different issue, As you know the medical standards for a CAA/PPLIR are different than for a CAA/PPL. Because this can be true (and is in this case), if you want to extend a privilege on an FAA licence you must meet the FAA medical requirement for this privilege - hence the requirement to have the FAA Class 3 (which in this case is a bit silly as the Class 3 requirement is a subset of the JAA Class 2 - but in general it might not have been)
The US require a fairly basic administrative process to achieve the same result. The principle behind subjecting the licence to underlying limitations is that you shouldn't magically get privileges you have not been trained and qualified for simply by virtue of the administrative process. So if you are not allowed to fly at night, or OSOS, or whatever, you still are limited by this restriction on the FAA licence. Further, 'current' is only used in the preamble not the detail definition, which makes clear that current means not expired, suspended, revoked, etc.
'Current' is slightly more complex in terms of recency in that it has been argued that the fact your foreign licence is 'current' means your FAA is current without the need for a BFR. I have equally seen it argued the opposite way. In both cases supported by alleged comment from various FSDOs. There is a poster who has been trying to get a formal answer from the FAA Chief Council - but to my knowledge has not yet received said answer.
Didn't stop the US folks insisting I had a FAA class 3 medical moments before I was due to take the FAA/IR checkride though, despite my having a CAA/PPL with current CAA class 2 medical and therefore a valid 61.75 FAAPPL: With the examiner pacing up and down outside and ready to go I wasn't going to argue the toss: I had my FAA class3 medical
