Ted wrote:
Its not, there is no night rating, its normally part of your private unless you did not receive instruction. Its NOT normally tested as part of your checkride
It’s same in EASA land, there IS night training but NO night exam (although it’s part of syllabus and some would call it Exercise 20 but only when talking about “FI/NQ restriction” to teach at night), the only difference it’s not part of EASA PPL unlike FAA PPL, but it’s the case for any ICAO PPL as listed by Qalupalik for standard in ICAO Annex 1, para 2.3.2.2 “Before exercising the privileges at night, the licence holder shall have received dual instruction in aircraft within the appropriate category of aircraft in night flying, including take-off, landing and navigation.”
can you actually libel an inanimate object like an aircraft?
It is potential market value loss due to the negative association, which cannot be removed from a printed newspaper. This is why e.g. owners don’t want to discuss mishaps openly… so much can be found online (and, on balance, I think this is correct, because a seller should not be concealing stuff, yet they pretty routinely do exactly that).
Have you written to the paper and asked them to change it?
They have, roughly speaking, 5 days to take it down, or be prepared to defend it in a court. In this case they obviously cannot defend it 
Dickheads…
Ibra wrote:
It’s same in EASA land, there IS night training but NO night exam (although it’s part of syllabus and some would call it Exercise 20 but only when talking about “FI/NQ restriction” to teach at night), the only difference it’s not part of EASA PPL unlike FAA PPL, but it’s the case for any ICAO PPL as listed by Qalupalik for standard in ICAO Annex 1, para 2.3.2.2 “Before exercising the privileges at night, the licence holder shall have received dual instruction in aircraft within the appropriate category of aircraft in night flying, including take-off, landing and navigation.”
Didn’t know that, when I got my 61.75 i flew at night multi turbine IFR under part 91 for a short while before getting my regular ATP, for a while my underlying license would not have allowed that, (I skipped the NVFR test by doing an instrument rating) but It was valid under the FAA system and in the USA, which I confirmed at the FSDO at the time. I had certainly received dual instruction in all the relevant things that the FAA were concerned about.
It also pretty obvious that while he may have been legal at night (from an FAA perspective) there there are other things more relevant in this particular situation, e.g. had he completed 6 approaches in the last 6mths or done a instrument proficiency check with a FAA instructor instead (i.e. CFII)…
The FAA has never said AFAIK that other countries can’t make there own requirements when operating in there own airspace.
Ted wrote:
Didn’t know that, when I got my 61.75 i flew at night multi turbine IFR under part 91
While FAA does not distinguish IR by SEIR & MEIR (or SEP/IR, SET/IR, B747/IR), to exercise IFR privileges on ME you will need to fly an asymmetric approach & missed training with CFI-I/MEI, this is “another ICAO standard”
Ted wrote:
I had certainly received dual instruction in all the relevant things that the FAA were concerned about.
That is all what FAA cares about, for case of PA46T or MET/IR flown at night: they would be happy if you have dual training (they won’t care about underlying license examinations as long as your FAA61.75 has IR, SEL, MEL with asymmetric multi-engine flying on instruments and nigh training hours)
However, flying your non-TR MET at night with EASA PPL being day only and SE/IR in PA28 and MEP in DA42 would not fly high with FAA, at least no one will rent you one during a checkout 
Ibra wrote:
While FAA does not distinguish IR by SEIR & MEIR (or SEP/IR, SET/IR, B747/IR)
If you apply for an instrument rating, either normally or via 61.75 and you are multengine rated and you your have not done the checkride in the ME, then your certificate should say “Multiengine Limited to VFR Only.” If you apply for a type rating under 61.75 or normally it should say similarly unless you meet the FAA instrument rating, 61.75 or otherwise.
Ted wrote:
If you apply for an instrument rating, either normally or via 61.75 and you are multengine rated and you your have not done the checkride in the ME, then your certificate should say “Multiengine Limited to VFR Only.”
That was my understanding but I know two people in UK who did not have that restriction on their FAA61.75 initial issue
Plus because there is no “SEIR renewal/MEIR renewal” later on, no one would even notice
Ibra wrote:
I know two people in UK
I am sure they are not the only two, but what do you think the FSDO would do if you brought it their attention that you had never been tested in a ME aircraft when you did your instrument ride, once of course you realised?
From the link peter posted the pilot thought (he says something via text message) that he needed to complete some night training to continue flying at night… Then again he thought perhaps he needed an IMC rating to continue flying around europe… using his 61.75
Ted wrote:
that he needed to complete some night training to continue flying at night… Then again he thought perhaps he needed an IMC rating to continue flying around europe… using his 61.75
LOL, isn’t that the right way to “go modular” first fly illegally to build experience and latter on do what you think is the required training
@Ted and @Ibra, it’s not 100% clear to me what you guys are discussing here, but for the benefit of others:
- holding and being current in an FAA IR does NOT absolve you from the night currency requirements (three takeoffs and landings in preceding 90 days)
- the night currency requirement does NOT carry over from SEP to MEP or vice versa
- neither the commercial nor the MEP IR checkride involve a night element. The preconditions for taking these rides, however, do.
- on the CPL/ME/IR ride you fly one asymmetric approach under the hood to minima
