Third class abroad

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Apparently, the FAA third is not valid abroad unless specifically allowed
by the coutry you're flying in.

An FAA Class 3 Medical is not issued in accordance with ICAO specifically
because the US filed differences with Annex 3. Therefore the medical is
only valid within the confines of the United States.

Doesn't matter what the reg if the airplane is, either..


Bertie

[Sylvain]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Apparently, the FAA third is not valid abroad unless specifically allowed
> by the coutry you're flying in.

Surprising. Any specifics? e.g., which country did not recognize the
FAA Class-III? in what circumstance? (I mean, flying a N- registered
aircraft or a locally registered aircraft)>? who made the call (local
aviation authority official, or some busy body imposing made up rules
on the spot -- that I have seen happen a few times :-) was it a
class-III per se, or a Class-II or better that had expired into a
Class-III? (this one can cause confusion as well, even though it
is spelled out on the piece of paper proper); was it an unrestricted
Class-III, or does it bear some kind of restriction?

--Sylvain

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Sylvain > wrote in
t:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Apparently, the FAA third is not valid abroad unless specifically
>> allowed by the coutry you're flying in.
>
> Surprising. Any specifics? e.g., which country did not recognize
> the FAA Class-III?

Almost all of them, I think.

in what circumstance? (I mean, flying a N-
> registered aircraft or a locally registered aircraft)>?

Both. your FAA licence is not valid anywhere outside the US without
express permission of the local authority.

who made the
> call (local aviation authority official, or some busy body imposing
> made up rules on the spot -- that I have seen happen a few times :-)
> was it a class-III per se, or a Class-II or better that had expired
> into a Class-III? (this one can cause confusion as well, even though
> it is spelled out on the piece of paper proper); was it an
> unrestricted Class-III, or does it bear some kind of restriction?

The FAA are responsible for this. When they degraded the class three
below international standards. It was a tradeoff. I think it's mostly
the time thing, but I think they lowered standards in other areas as
well. Lower eyesight, maybe I don't know. This allows a lot more people
to fly in the US and all anyone who wants to fly abroad has to do is get
a class 2, so it seems like a good idea to me.
I got the info from a friend of mine who's an examiner in Europe. I put
it to him that it would be legal to fly a US reg airplane with a
standard private anywhere in the world, and he told me that while this
used to be the case, it is no longer..


Bertie

[Peter Clark]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 09:16:31 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Sylvain > wrote in
t:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>> Apparently, the FAA third is not valid abroad unless specifically
>>> allowed by the coutry you're flying in.
>>
>> Surprising. Any specifics? e.g., which country did not recognize
>> the FAA Class-III?
>
>Almost all of them, I think.
>
>in what circumstance? (I mean, flying a N-
>> registered aircraft or a locally registered aircraft)>?
>
>Both. your FAA licence is not valid anywhere outside the US without
>express permission of the local authority.
>
> who made the
>> call (local aviation authority official, or some busy body imposing
>> made up rules on the spot -- that I have seen happen a few times :-)
>> was it a class-III per se, or a Class-II or better that had expired
>> into a Class-III? (this one can cause confusion as well, even though
>> it is spelled out on the piece of paper proper); was it an
>> unrestricted Class-III, or does it bear some kind of restriction?
>
>The FAA are responsible for this. When they degraded the class three
>below international standards. It was a tradeoff. I think it's mostly
>the time thing, but I think they lowered standards in other areas as
>well. Lower eyesight, maybe I don't know. This allows a lot more people
>to fly in the US and all anyone who wants to fly abroad has to do is get
>a class 2, so it seems like a good idea to me.
>I got the info from a friend of mine who's an examiner in Europe. I put
>it to him that it would be legal to fly a US reg airplane with a
>standard private anywhere in the world, and he told me that while this
>used to be the case, it is no longer..

In all honesty, I know a number of people who would really like to see
the exact regulatory reasoning with citations as to why a pilot with
an FAA pilot certificate and a valid 3rd class medical flying an N
registered aircraft isn't legal outside of the US any longer,
including the AME who just did my 2nd class medical last week who is
also a pilot and knows nothing about this subject we chatted
specifically about during the visit.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Peter Clark > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 09:16:31 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>Sylvain > wrote in
t:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>
>>>> Apparently, the FAA third is not valid abroad unless specifically
>>>> allowed by the coutry you're flying in.
>>>
>>> Surprising. Any specifics? e.g., which country did not recognize
>>> the FAA Class-III?
>>
>>Almost all of them, I think.
>>
>>in what circumstance? (I mean, flying a N-
>>> registered aircraft or a locally registered aircraft)>?
>>
>>Both. your FAA licence is not valid anywhere outside the US without
>>express permission of the local authority.
>>
>> who made the
>>> call (local aviation authority official, or some busy body imposing
>>> made up rules on the spot -- that I have seen happen a few times :-)
>>> was it a class-III per se, or a Class-II or better that had expired
>>> into a Class-III? (this one can cause confusion as well, even
though
>>> it is spelled out on the piece of paper proper); was it an
>>> unrestricted Class-III, or does it bear some kind of restriction?
>>
>>The FAA are responsible for this. When they degraded the class three
>>below international standards. It was a tradeoff. I think it's mostly
>>the time thing, but I think they lowered standards in other areas as
>>well. Lower eyesight, maybe I don't know. This allows a lot more
people
>>to fly in the US and all anyone who wants to fly abroad has to do is
get
>>a class 2, so it seems like a good idea to me.
>>I got the info from a friend of mine who's an examiner in Europe. I
put
>>it to him that it would be legal to fly a US reg airplane with a
>>standard private anywhere in the world, and he told me that while this
>>used to be the case, it is no longer..
>
> In all honesty, I know a number of people who would really like to see
> the exact regulatory reasoning with citations as to why a pilot with
> an FAA pilot certificate and a valid 3rd class medical flying an N
> registered aircraft isn't legal outside of the US any longer,


It's simple. ICAO have international agreements on what constitutes the
minimum standard that a pilot may operate in any of the member's
countrie's. The FAA have opted out of keeping the 3rd class to that
standard. ICAO haven't changed the rules, th eFAA have only elected to
lower the standards in order to allow a larger number of applicants into
the club and also to allow the certificate to last longer.


> including the AME who just did my 2nd class medical last week who is
> also a pilot and knows nothing about this subject we chatted
> specifically about during the visit.
>
I'm not an expert on it, but I do have a furrin friend who is and I cut
and pasted exactly what he told me in my previous post. I looked at the
ICAO site, but I got bored wading throug the gobblydegook.


Bertie

[Sylvain]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> countrie's. The FAA have opted out of keeping the 3rd class to that
> standard. ICAO haven't changed the rules, th eFAA have only elected to
> lower the standards in order to allow a larger number of applicants into
> the club and also to allow the certificate to last longer.

Actually, the new duration of the FAA Class-III matches the new duration
of the JAR Class-II (which is just a fancy new name for their old Class-III,
they just removed their old Class-II); i.e., five years it is if you are
younger than 40. Actually, it used to be the case for some national
pre-JAR medical certificates (like the British CAA Class-III before it was
replaced by the JAR Class-II);

I am a bit surprised by your conclusion since I have both a JAR Class-II
(well, I have to renew the dang thing soon which means a trip to Canada,
the closest place with a British AME -- nope, JAR does not mean that
any JAR AME can do it surprisingly enough), and a FAA medical as
well (a Class-II, but then, the only difference with the Class-III
is that I have to do it more often, everything else being exactly
the same);

Note that this is a little pet peeve of mine, since I fly with a SODA,
and have paid particularly close attention to these issues over the
years; I did however met with my share of people who wanted to enforce
their own interpretation of the rules but that's a different story :-)

Well, I'll ask the question to my AMEs (both the FAA one --
since I have the renew this one as well soon -- and the JAR one), they
ought to know, and will report on this if you guys are interested.

--Sylvain

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Sylvain > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> countrie's. The FAA have opted out of keeping the 3rd class to that
>> standard. ICAO haven't changed the rules, th eFAA have only elected
>> to lower the standards in order to allow a larger number of
>> applicants into the club and also to allow the certificate to last
>> longer.
>
> Actually, the new duration of the FAA Class-III matches the new
> duration of the JAR Class-II (which is just a fancy new name for their
> old Class-III, they just removed their old Class-II); i.e., five
> years it is if you are younger than 40. Actually, it used to be the
> case for some national pre-JAR medical certificates (like the British
> CAA Class-III before it was replaced by the JAR Class-II);

Ah, OK. Didn't know that. I have a JAR 1 and they're a year now.
>
> I am a bit surprised by your conclusion since I have both a JAR
> Class-II (well, I have to renew the dang thing soon which means a
> trip to Canada, the closest place with a British AME -- nope, JAR
> does not mean that any JAR AME can do it surprisingly enough), and a
> FAA medical as well (a Class-II, but then, the only difference with
> the Class-III is that I have to do it more often, everything else
> being exactly the same);
>
> Note that this is a little pet peeve of mine, since I fly with a
> SODA, and have paid particularly close attention to these issues over
> the years; I did however met with my share of people who wanted to
> enforce their own interpretation of the rules but that's a different
> story :-)
>
> Well, I'll ask the question to my AMEs (both the FAA one --
> since I have the renew this one as well soon -- and the JAR one),
> they ought to know, and will report on this if you guys are
> interested.

Well, it is something a lot of people are going to need to know about,
but how they're going to find out definitively, I have no idea. It
doesn't really matter to me since I have to have class ones no matter
what, but it's a bit surprising that the FAA hasn't made it clear..


Bertie

[Mike[_22_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Clark > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 09:16:31 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Sylvain > wrote in
t:
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Apparently, the FAA third is not valid abroad unless specifically
>>>>> allowed by the coutry you're flying in.
>>>>
>>>> Surprising. Any specifics? e.g., which country did not recognize
>>>> the FAA Class-III?
>>>
>>>Almost all of them, I think.
>>>
>>>in what circumstance? (I mean, flying a N-
>>>> registered aircraft or a locally registered aircraft)>?
>>>
>>>Both. your FAA licence is not valid anywhere outside the US without
>>>express permission of the local authority.
>>>
>>> who made the
>>>> call (local aviation authority official, or some busy body imposing
>>>> made up rules on the spot -- that I have seen happen a few times :-)
>>>> was it a class-III per se, or a Class-II or better that had expired
>>>> into a Class-III? (this one can cause confusion as well, even
> though
>>>> it is spelled out on the piece of paper proper); was it an
>>>> unrestricted Class-III, or does it bear some kind of restriction?
>>>
>>>The FAA are responsible for this. When they degraded the class three
>>>below international standards. It was a tradeoff. I think it's mostly
>>>the time thing, but I think they lowered standards in other areas as
>>>well. Lower eyesight, maybe I don't know. This allows a lot more
> people
>>>to fly in the US and all anyone who wants to fly abroad has to do is
> get
>>>a class 2, so it seems like a good idea to me.
>>>I got the info from a friend of mine who's an examiner in Europe. I
> put
>>>it to him that it would be legal to fly a US reg airplane with a
>>>standard private anywhere in the world, and he told me that while this
>>>used to be the case, it is no longer..
>>
>> In all honesty, I know a number of people who would really like to see
>> the exact regulatory reasoning with citations as to why a pilot with
>> an FAA pilot certificate and a valid 3rd class medical flying an N
>> registered aircraft isn't legal outside of the US any longer,
>
>
> It's simple. ICAO have international agreements on what constitutes the
> minimum standard that a pilot may operate in any of the member's
> countrie's. The FAA have opted out of keeping the 3rd class to that
> standard. ICAO haven't changed the rules, th eFAA have only elected to
> lower the standards in order to allow a larger number of applicants into
> the club and also to allow the certificate to last longer.

In fact, the reverse is true. The FAA opted in to bringing their medical
duration lengths to the ICAO standard.

ICAO changed the medical duration standards in 2005, and the FAA rule change
in June of this year mirrored those standards. In fact, in part of the
reasoning behind the FAA's rule change they cited the ICAO standards and
noted there had been no adverse impact to safety by the member states that
adopted those standards.

I'm not sure what you mean my "international agreements". ICAO writes the
standards, and member states may or may not follow them. The recent trend
among most countries, including the US, is to align themselves to ICAO
standards.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 15, 4:43*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Apparently, the FAA third is not valid abroad unless specifically allowed
> by the coutry you're flying in.
>
> An FAA Class 3 Medical is not issued in accordance with ICAO specifically
> because the US filed differences with Annex 3. Therefore the medical is
> only valid within the confines of the United States.
>
> Doesn't matter what the reg if the airplane is, either..

I guess it depends on the country. ICAO only recognizes class 3
medicals for certain ATC controllers. Private Pilots are requird to
have at least a class 2. Not sure what countries require the strict
ICAO medical requirements though.

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On Aug 15, 4:43*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Apparently, the FAA third is not valid abroad unless specifically
>> allowed by the coutry you're flying in.
>>
>> An FAA Class 3 Medical is not issued in accordance with ICAO
>> specifically because the US filed differences with Annex 3. Therefore
>> the medical is only valid within the confines of the United States.
>>
>> Doesn't matter what the reg if the airplane is, either..
>
> I guess it depends on the country. ICAO only recognizes class 3
> medicals for certain ATC controllers. Private Pilots are requird to
> have at least a class 2. Not sure what countries require the strict
> ICAO medical requirements though.

Dunno. I'm far from expert on this. I was only repeating what I'd been
told. I'll have to ask this guy for some more details when I talk to him
next. He was talking about flying in JAR land, BTW. Don't know if that
makes any difference, but I'll find out.
I wouldn't be surprised if Canada, for instance, still accepted the FAA 3rd
.. Seems like it's something that will have to be checked out before you
went aviating outside the US< though.

[Dakota]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> Dunno. I'm far from expert on this. I was only repeating what I'd been
> told.

As usual.

[Dakota]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, it is something a lot of people are going to need to know about,
> but how they're going to find out definitively, I have no idea. It
> doesn't really matter to me since I have to have class ones no matter
> what, but it's a bit surprising that the FAA hasn't made it clear..
>
>
> Bertie

Odd. Having no knowledge of something that doesn't pertain to you, has never
stopped you from commenting from a position of authority before.

Check with MX.

[Dakota]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>>
> I'm not an expert on it, but I do have a furrin friend who is and I cut
> and pasted exactly what he told me in my previous post. I looked at the
> ICAO site, but I got bored wading throug the gobblydegook.
>
>
> Bertie

Sure Buttlipp, that's what Mx always says.

[Dakota]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> The FAA are responsible for this. When they degraded the class three
> below international standards. It was a tradeoff. I think it's mostly
> the time thing, but I think they lowered standards in other areas as
> well. Lower eyesight, maybe I don't know. This allows a lot more people
> to fly in the US and all anyone who wants to fly abroad has to do is get
> a class 2, so it seems like a good idea to me.
> I got the info from a friend of mine who's an examiner in Europe. I put
> it to him that it would be legal to fly a US reg airplane with a
> standard private anywhere in the world, and he told me that while this
> used to be the case, it is no longer..
>
>
> Bertie

And you say a voice in your ear, that you call a friend, told you to say
this?

That's Anthony's line.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Dakota" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:wu4qk.21387$LF2.3228
@newsfe09.iad:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Dunno. I'm far from expert on this. I was only repeating what I'd been
>> told.
>
> As usual.
>
>
>

nope, I'm usually right. Not that you could tell the difference, wannabe
boi.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Dakota" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Well, it is something a lot of people are going to need to know
>> about, but how they're going to find out definitively, I have no
>> idea. It doesn't really matter to me since I have to have class ones
>> no matter what, but it's a bit surprising that the FAA hasn't made it
>> clear..
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Odd. Having no knowledge of something that doesn't pertain to you, has
> never stopped you from commenting from a position of authority before.


Actaully, it has. Often.

>
> Check with MX.


Yeh,


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Dakota" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:YB4qk.21393$LF2.18578
@newsfe09.iad:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>> I'm not an expert on it, but I do have a furrin friend who is and I cut
>> and pasted exactly what he told me in my previous post. I looked at the
>> ICAO site, but I got bored wading throug the gobblydegook.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Sure Buttlipp, that's what Mx always says.
>
>
>

No it isn't.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Dakota" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:rH4qk.21399$LF2.14362
@newsfe09.iad:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> The FAA are responsible for this. When they degraded the class three
>> below international standards. It was a tradeoff. I think it's mostly
>> the time thing, but I think they lowered standards in other areas as
>> well. Lower eyesight, maybe I don't know. This allows a lot more
people
>> to fly in the US and all anyone who wants to fly abroad has to do is
get
>> a class 2, so it seems like a good idea to me.
>> I got the info from a friend of mine who's an examiner in Europe. I
put
>> it to him that it would be legal to fly a US reg airplane with a
>> standard private anywhere in the world, and he told me that while
this
>> used to be the case, it is no longer..
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> And you say a voice in your ear, that you call a friend, told you to
say
> this?
>
> That's Anthony's line.
>

Yeh, obviously.


You so got me pegged there.


Bertie
>
>
>
>

[DanO]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> nope, I'm usually right. Not that you could tell the difference, wannabe
> boi.
>
>
> Bertie

Right, and if we don't believe you, just ask ya. Uh?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"DanO" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:x55qk.21791$LF2.10296
@newsfe09.iad:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> nope, I'm usually right. Not that you could tell the difference, wannabe
>> boi.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Right, and if we don't believe you, just ask ya. Uh?
>
>
>

Of course

Or anyone who has a clue...



Bertie

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 17, 5:34*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote :

> Dunno. I'm far from expert on this. I was only repeating what I'd been
> told. I'll have to ask this guy for some more details when I talk to him
> next. He was talking about flying in JAR land, BTW. Don't know if that
> makes any difference, but I'll find out.
> I wouldn't be surprised if Canada, for instance, still accepted the FAA 3rd
> . Seems like it's something that will have to be checked out before you
> went aviating outside the US< though.

I've never had any problems with my 3rd class medical in Canada. I've
mostly not had problems in Mexico too although they seemed confused by
the concept that the 2nd class medical becaming the 3rd class.
However, from my reading of the ICAO medical requirements, I believe
Canada, Mexico, and the US are simply waving the 2nd class private
pilot medical. I wonder if pilots in Europe can fly on a 3rd class
medical.

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On Aug 17, 5:34*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote
>> innews:c3304365-5460-4ab8-a3c7-
> :
>
>> Dunno. I'm far from expert on this. I was only repeating what I'd
>> been told. I'll have to ask this guy for some more details when I
>> talk to him next. He was talking about flying in JAR land, BTW. Don't
>> know if that makes any difference, but I'll find out.
>> I wouldn't be surprised if Canada, for instance, still accepted the
>> FAA 3
> rd
>> . Seems like it's something that will have to be checked out before
>> you went aviating outside the US< though.
>
> I've never had any problems with my 3rd class medical in Canada. I've
> mostly not had problems in Mexico too although they seemed confused by
> the concept that the 2nd class medical becaming the 3rd class.
> However, from my reading of the ICAO medical requirements, I believe
> Canada, Mexico, and the US are simply waving the 2nd class private
> pilot medical. I wonder if pilots in Europe can fly on a 3rd class
> medical.
>

Wouldn't be a bit surprised if that's the case in Canada. AFAIK all this is
pretty recent. I will be in the UK tomorrow and I will see if I can give
the CAA a buzz and see what the dealie is straight from the horse's mouth.


Bertie

[5 by 5]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>>
>
> Wouldn't be a bit surprised if that's the case in Canada. AFAIK all this
> is
> pretty recent. I will be in the UK tomorrow and I will see if I can give
> the CAA a buzz and see what the dealie is straight from the horse's mouth.
>
>
> Bertie

Nothing would surprise you Buttlipp, you're clueless.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2008-08-15 16:43:08 -0700, Bertie the Bunyip > said:

> Apparently, the FAA third is not valid abroad unless specifically allowed
> by the coutry you're flying in.
>
> An FAA Class 3 Medical is not issued in accordance with ICAO specifically
> because the US filed differences with Annex 3. Therefore the medical is
> only valid within the confines of the United States.
>
> Doesn't matter what the reg if the airplane is, either..
>
>
> Bertie

And yet pilots with third class medicals fly to other countries all the
time. What does the Baja Bush Pilots have to say about this? Why
haven't they made an issue of it?
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[The Bunyip Slayer]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:200808191315018930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> On 2008-08-15 16:43:08 -0700, Bertie the Bunyip > said:
>
>> Apparently, the FAA third is not valid abroad unless specifically allowed
>> by the coutry you're flying in.
>>
>> An FAA Class 3 Medical is not issued in accordance with ICAO specifically
>> because the US filed differences with Annex 3. Therefore the medical is
>> only valid within the confines of the United States.
>>
>> Doesn't matter what the reg if the airplane is, either..
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> And yet pilots with third class medicals fly to other countries all the
> time. What does the Baja Bush Pilots have to say about this? Why haven't
> they made an issue of it?
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor
>

Good job CJ. You just make the top of the next list.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"5 by 5" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>
>> Wouldn't be a bit surprised if that's the case in Canada. AFAIK all
>> this is
>> pretty recent. I will be in the UK tomorrow and I will see if I can
>> give the CAA a buzz and see what the dealie is straight from the
>> horse's mouth.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Nothing would surprise you Buttlipp, you're clueless.


Not true. I'm surprised you're as big a fjukktard as you are.

I would have thought after getting the CNOTM last onth you'd know better
than to try it again..

But hey, I get up every day in hope of surprises such as that!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

C J Campbell > wrote in
news:200808191315018930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:

> On 2008-08-15 16:43:08 -0700, Bertie the Bunyip > said:
>
>> Apparently, the FAA third is not valid abroad unless specifically
>> allowed by the coutry you're flying in.
>>
>> An FAA Class 3 Medical is not issued in accordance with ICAO
>> specifically because the US filed differences with Annex 3. Therefore
>> the medical is only valid within the confines of the United States.
>>
>> Doesn't matter what the reg if the airplane is, either..
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> And yet pilots with third class medicals fly to other countries all
> the time. What does the Baja Bush Pilots have to say about this? Why
> haven't they made an issue of it?

Dunno. I'll find out, but In any case, this is a new thing afaik.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"The Bunyip Slayer" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> news:200808191315018930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
>> On 2008-08-15 16:43:08 -0700, Bertie the Bunyip > said:
>>
>>> Apparently, the FAA third is not valid abroad unless specifically
>>> allowed by the coutry you're flying in.
>>>
>>> An FAA Class 3 Medical is not issued in accordance with ICAO
>>> specifically because the US filed differences with Annex 3.
>>> Therefore the medical is only valid within the confines of the
>>> United States.
>>>
>>> Doesn't matter what the reg if the airplane is, either..
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> And yet pilots with third class medicals fly to other countries all
>> the time. What does the Baja Bush Pilots have to say about this? Why
>> haven't they made an issue of it?
>> --
>> Waddling Eagle
>> World Famous Flight Instructor
>>
>
> Good job CJ. You just make the top of the next list.
>
>
>

Bwawhahwhahhw!


Please keep using the Bunyip Slayer monkier, fjukkwit.

It adds spice.



Bertie

[The Bunyip Slayer]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>C J Campbell > wrote in
> news:200808191315018930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:
>
>> On 2008-08-15 16:43:08 -0700, Bertie the Bunyip > said:
>>
>>> Apparently, the FAA third is not valid abroad unless specifically
>>> allowed by the coutry you're flying in.
>>>
>>> An FAA Class 3 Medical is not issued in accordance with ICAO
>>> specifically because the US filed differences with Annex 3. Therefore
>>> the medical is only valid within the confines of the United States.
>>>
>>> Doesn't matter what the reg if the airplane is, either..
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> And yet pilots with third class medicals fly to other countries all
>> the time. What does the Baja Bush Pilots have to say about this? Why
>> haven't they made an issue of it?
>
> Dunno. I'll find out, but In any case, this is a new thing afaik.
>
>
> Bertie

Yeah but you don't know ****. Ask someone, that's what your little brother
MX does.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2008-08-19 13:24:24 -0700, "The Bunyip Slayer" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> said:

>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> news:200808191315018930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
>> On 2008-08-15 16:43:08 -0700, Bertie the Bunyip > said:
>>
>>> Apparently, the FAA third is not valid abroad unless specifically allowed
>>> by the coutry you're flying in.
>>>
>>> An FAA Class 3 Medical is not issued in accordance with ICAO specifically
>>> because the US filed differences with Annex 3. Therefore the medical is
>>> only valid within the confines of the United States.
>>>
>>> Doesn't matter what the reg if the airplane is, either..
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> And yet pilots with third class medicals fly to other countries all the
>> time. What does the Baja Bush Pilots have to say about this? Why haven't
>> they made an issue of it?
>> --
>> Waddling Eagle
>> World Famous Flight Instructor
>>
>
> Good job CJ. You just make the top of the next list.

Eh, no doubt. I'm on a lot of lists. And a lot of folks are on mine.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"The Bunyip Slayer" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>C J Campbell > wrote in
>> news:200808191315018930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:
>>
>>> On 2008-08-15 16:43:08 -0700, Bertie the Bunyip > said:
>>>
>>>> Apparently, the FAA third is not valid abroad unless specifically
>>>> allowed by the coutry you're flying in.
>>>>
>>>> An FAA Class 3 Medical is not issued in accordance with ICAO
>>>> specifically because the US filed differences with Annex 3.
>>>> Therefore the medical is only valid within the confines of the
>>>> United States.
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't matter what the reg if the airplane is, either..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> And yet pilots with third class medicals fly to other countries all
>>> the time. What does the Baja Bush Pilots have to say about this? Why
>>> haven't they made an issue of it?
>>
>> Dunno. I'll find out, but In any case, this is a new thing afaik.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Yeah but you don't know ****. Ask someone, that's what your little
> brother MX does.


No, he doesn't, fjukkwit.


Let's see you poast something on topic. Something that isn't going to
get soemone killed, preferably.


Bertie

[The Bunyip Slayer]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "The Bunyip Slayer" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>C J Campbell > wrote in
>>> news:200808191315018930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:
>>>
>>>> On 2008-08-15 16:43:08 -0700, Bertie the Bunyip > said:
>>>>
>>>>> Apparently, the FAA third is not valid abroad unless specifically
>>>>> allowed by the coutry you're flying in.
>>>>>
>>>>> An FAA Class 3 Medical is not issued in accordance with ICAO
>>>>> specifically because the US filed differences with Annex 3.
>>>>> Therefore the medical is only valid within the confines of the
>>>>> United States.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't matter what the reg if the airplane is, either..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>> And yet pilots with third class medicals fly to other countries all
>>>> the time. What does the Baja Bush Pilots have to say about this? Why
>>>> haven't they made an issue of it?
>>>
>>> Dunno. I'll find out, but In any case, this is a new thing afaik.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Yeah but you don't know ****. Ask someone, that's what your little
>> brother MX does.
>
>
> No, he doesn't, fjukkwit.
>
>
> Let's see you poast something on topic. Something that isn't going to
> get soemone killed, preferably.
>
>
> Bertie

Reference anything I have ever posted that would get someone killed, nimrod.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"The Bunyip Slayer" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "The Bunyip Slayer" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>C J Campbell > wrote in
>>>> news:200808191315018930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2008-08-15 16:43:08 -0700, Bertie the Bunyip > said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Apparently, the FAA third is not valid abroad unless specifically
>>>>>> allowed by the coutry you're flying in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An FAA Class 3 Medical is not issued in accordance with ICAO
>>>>>> specifically because the US filed differences with Annex 3.
>>>>>> Therefore the medical is only valid within the confines of the
>>>>>> United States.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn't matter what the reg if the airplane is, either..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet pilots with third class medicals fly to other countries
>>>>> all the time. What does the Baja Bush Pilots have to say about
>>>>> this? Why haven't they made an issue of it?
>>>>
>>>> Dunno. I'll find out, but In any case, this is a new thing afaik.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Yeah but you don't know ****. Ask someone, that's what your little
>>> brother MX does.
>>
>>
>> No, he doesn't, fjukkwit.
>>
>>
>> Let's see you poast something on topic. Something that isn't going to
>> get soemone killed, preferably.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Reference anything I have ever posted that would get someone killed,
> nimrod.


Learn to read fjukkwad.

Besides, i nearly die laughing at some of your better stuff.

Like this one, fer instance!


Bwawhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwh!




Bertie

[The Bunyip Slayer]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
>>
>> Reference anything I have ever posted that would get someone killed,
>> nimrod.
>
>
> Learn to read fjukkwad.
>
> Besides, i nearly die laughing at some of your better stuff.
>
> Like this one, fer instance!
>
>
> Bwawhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwh!
>
>
>
>
> Bertie

Yeah, I knew you couldn't.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"The Bunyip Slayer" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:VxGqk.33802
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>>
>>> Reference anything I have ever posted that would get someone killed,
>>> nimrod.
>>
>>
>> Learn to read fjukkwad.
>>
>> Besides, i nearly die laughing at some of your better stuff.
>>
>> Like this one, fer instance!
>>
>>
>> Bwawhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwh!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Yeah, I knew you couldn't



Never siad you did in the first place, you paranoid fjukktard.

Thus the comment about learning how to read.

Fjukkkwit.



Bertie
>
>
>

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 19, 1:15*pm, C J Campbell >
wrote:
> On 2008-08-15 16:43:08 -0700, Bertie the Bunyip > said:

> And yet pilots with third class medicals fly to other countries all the
> time. What does the Baja Bush Pilots have to say about this? Why
> haven't they made an issue of it?

Because Mexico and Canada apparently allow private pilots to fly on a
class 3 medical. However, if you read the ICAO rules the class 3
medical is only required for certain ATC jobs. Any country is free to
require a class 2 medical for private pilots under ICAO.

-Robert