:::Thanks Skeet Shooter.  Not having a copy of Forever Flying I am indebted to you for helping me out. 

 :::I agree with you that having an Australian medical would not persuade the US authorities to issue Hoover with a US medical, and having an Australian pilot licence would not persuade the US authorities to issue him with a US licence.  However, that is not what the Wikipedia article is talking about.  In Bob Hoover it says: 
 :::Meanwhile, Hoover was granted a pilot's licence, and medical certificate, by Australia's aviation authorities, enabling him to fly in any part of the world other than the United States. 

 :::Those of us who are familiar with the Convention on International Civil Aviation, its Annex 1, and international recognition of pilot licences, will know that this statement doesn’t ring true.   An Australian licence allows its holder to fly an Australian-registered aircraft anywhere in the world, including the USA; but it doesn’t allow the holder to fly an aircraft registered in any country other than Australia unless the state of registry has validated the pilot licence in some way.  One of the following is at work here: 
 :::* Hoover was attempting to say his Australian licence didn’t allow him to fly N-registered aircraft (in the USA or anywhere else), or 
 :::* Hoover was attempting to say the Australian licence didn’t convince the US authorities to issue him with a US licence, or 
 :::* there is some essential background information that is missing from the account of events in Bob Hoover. 
 :::Does the information in Forever Flying allow the statement about Hoover’s Australian licence to be polished to the point that it is an accurate reflection of the facts related to international recognition of pilot licences? 

 :::I see that the positive spin on the dead-stick landing at Torrance comes from Hoover himself.  The error on the part of the Wiki editor has been to violate WP:NPOV by conveying as fact something that is clearly Hoover’s opinion about his own performance.  I would accept something like the following as a reasonable and neutral statement for Wikipedia: 
 :::Shortly before the revocation, Hoover experienced an engine failure off the coast of California.  He returned to Torrance, California and carried out a dead-stick landing.  Hoover considered his successful handling of this difficult emergency should have convinced the FAA that his capabilities were as good as ever. (Citation Forever Flying, page 280) 

 :::What do you think of this approach?  Thanks for your assistance.