Page 2 of 2
Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 1:21 pm
Because I heard someone being prompted during an FAA Class 3 means everything. If that is the standard being applied by US AME's then the IAA are damn right not to accept them. Now if you are advocating something like a sports licence, and the restrictions that come with it well then I have no problem with a reduced medical requirement. While I agree that the medical is way overpriced, if you are telling me that it is merely an irrelevant money making scheme and the best judge of whether a pilot meets a minimum standard of health is in fact the pilot himself and not someone who has spent years in medical training then you are to be to be frank deluding yourself. The purpose of a medical is to ascertain whether or not an individual meets a minimum physical health standard in order to be granted a licence. I think that should be left up to a professional. As for judging yourself whether or not you are fit to fly on any particular day, that is the least I would expect from any pilot and stating that is not any revelation to any pilot amongst us. It's all part of the deal. To a pilot, it's stating the obvious.
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 10:41 pm
That often quoted 2 out of 3 rule has no basis in law, and is wrong as often as it is right.
It sounds good, but really is nothing more than a basis for making further enquiry.
For example, an FAA licence holder can legally take a G registered aircraft and fly it worldwide. This is perfectly legal, and exactly what the UK CAA intend, but fails the 2 out of 3 'rule'.
Equally, a JAR licence holder wishing to fly a N registered aircraft in the USA can not do so, even thought it would comply with the 2 out of 3 'rule'. They must get themselves an FAA licence.
It's a dangerous rule to put too much faith in, and I think it's largely ignored for good reason
Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 12:36 pm
I agree with you. My reason for inserting the rule was just to make Tiny aware of other rules that can come up and bit you. I have heard the French have used the 2 out of 3 rule with arriving light aircraft lawful or not.
I'll admit I don't comply with it and have never been stopped. Being aware of rules helps to mitigate the risk.
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 6:33 pm
The so-called "2 out of 3 rule" falls into the category of Great Aviation Myths of Our Time. Regarded as some kind of general rule, it is completely misleading
. You have to look at each relevant country's regulations, there is no general rule. France, referred to above by YoYo, certainly does not apply such a rule. Many countries do not permit PIC on an FAA licence in a domestically-registered light aircraft without getting your licence validated. Where the country of registration (such as the UK quoted above) validates an ICAO licence, you will not have a problem flying day-VFR around Europe.