UK national licence, and conversions of it

skydriller wrote:

if the rumours are to be believed on the other GA forum …

schedule 1 to the The Aviation Safety (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI 2019 No. 645, (link) contains amendments to the Air Navigation Order 2016 that will be made after implementation period completion day (2300z 31 Dec 2020).

Subsequent amendments should appear in these search results at legislation.gov.uk (link).

I suspect alot of Pilots do, and for one reason alone : BREXIT

I SOLI’ed to France, but first applied to the CAA for a UK-PPL so I would be covered to fly anything in any country.
Every person I have heard of that SOLI’ed to another EASA state made sure they had a UK-PPL first as protection.

The irony is that as of last April the UK-PPL is only valid for Annex 2 (1?) aeroplanes… And if the rumours are to be believed on the other GA forum the UK CAA is going to continue with the current EASA rules after Jan 1st 2021 so there is the possibility that I will have to use my European licence to fly a G reg aeroplane in the UK after the UK has left the EU !!

Regards, SD..

I wonder what % of UK pilots hold this old license?

It is now limited to Annex 1 aircraft, bizzarely, though I would expect that to change after 31 Dec 2020.

172driver wrote:

I’ve had a few validations over the years (although never the 61.75; I hold standalone FAA and EASA licenses), but all the others stipulated that the validation was only valid as long as all the conditions for the underlying license were met. This, to me, always meant to include the medical, as without it you cannot exercise then privileges of the original license.

Here (italicized) is the FAA text from the link attached to my Post #33 above.

Eligibility; Medical Requirements. A person applying for a U.S. pilot certificate must submit evidence that he or she currently meets the medical standards for the foreign pilot license on which the application for the pilot certificate is based (see § 61.75[f]). Some foreign Civil Aviation Authorities (CAA) enter periodic medical endorsements on their foreign pilot licenses, which affect the license’s currency. Therefore, if the foreign pilot license must have a medical endorsement in order to be valid, an FAA medical certificate alone will not satisfy the regulations.

What FAA is referring to is the potential that a physical medical endorsement (e.g. a periodic stamp) on the foreign pilot’s license itself is a feature of the foreign licensing system. If not, FAA does not consider maintaining the foreign medical necessary to make the foreign license valid for FAA purposes, but does require maintaining a current FAA medical.

FAA can decide on the rules for issuing an FAA Pilot certificate, and they can do it however they wish. In this case they are trying to make it easy on foreigners flying N-registered aircraft and potentially living in the US, not hard. Unless the foreign CAA screws things up in the manner described, the FAA requirement is to show evidence to FAA (once) that the pilot met the medical standards for the foreign license at the time of the FAA application, then after the FAA issues their ‘based on’ pilot certificate the requirement to maintain that FAA pilot certificate is to maintain a current FAA medical.

Ben wrote:

The aircraft was N reg and the (very experienced guy) pilot found to have an FAA 61.75 (based on) licence and FAA medical, he did not have a CAA medical. There was a big argument whether he flue legally or not and whether his FAA licence was / wasn’t valid. The CAA / insurance claimed that he wasn’t and used it in their campaign against N reg based in the UK. If my memory works, after few months they climbed down the tree and accepted that as far as the FAA is concerns all was ok because the pilot held a UK licence (it wasn’t revoked), FAA licence and medical.

The last sentence makes sense. Hopefully the CAA / Insurance learned the lesson.

I’ve had a few validations over the years (although never the 61.75; I hold standalone FAA and EASA licenses), but all the others stipulated that the validation was only valid as long as all the conditions for the underlying license were met. This, to me, always meant to include the medical, as without it you cannot exercise then privileges of the original license. IIRC CASA even spell this out on the validation paperwork.

Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:

Silvaire, do you know (as in legal evidence) of any issuing country where the licence is valid without a current medical issued by an AME designated by said country’s CAA?

That is not the requirement under FAA 61.75. What the rule says is that unless the foreign license requires a foreign medical stamp on the license to be valid, then the FAA will accept it in combination with an FAA medical as the basis for validity of the FAA 61.75 certificate.

Obviously most pilot licenses from most countries do not require a stamp on the license itself every time you get a medical, my own included.

I still haven’t seen any evidence to suggest FAA would invalidate an FAA 61.75 pilot certificate that was based on non-expiring UK license data sent to them from UK CAA say 30 years ago, just because EASA has now invented a new non-ICAO category of aircraft called ‘EASA Aircraft’ that no member country except European countries recognizes.

Noe wrote:

What I understood from him is I could go and fly N-reg straight away without having ever done a BFR.

This was debated on EuroGA a while ago and IIRC someone found a source stating that you need a BFR prior to exercising the privileges of a 61.75.

This is actually very clear in the FARs:

(c) Except as provided in paragraphs (d), (e), and (g) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft unless, since the beginning of the 24th calendar month before the month in which that pilot acts as pilot in command, that person has




1. Accomplished a flight review given in an aircraft for which that pilot is rated by an authorized instructor; and
2. A logbook endorsed from an authorized instructor who gave the review certifying that the person has satisfactorily completed the review.

(fixed layout)
So you cannot act as PIC unless you had a BFR in the last 24 calendar months

Which is another way of saying that if you re-apply for the 61.75 after every time you had your JAA medical back in the UK (which “my guy” did, along with the 2-yearly flight with an FI) then you never need the BFR.

Aviathor wrote:

If you fly on N-reg however, you need a BFR no matter what. He could have gotten into a lot of trouble had he had an incident or accident. Normally the airplane owner/operator will check that the pilot has a valid BFR.

What I remember the examiner who gave me my 61.75 telling me is that you only need a BFR 2 years after you get the 61.75. I found it slightly strange and I think asked him to confirm. What I understood from him is I could go and fly N-reg straight away without having ever done a BFR.