bookworm wrote:
It confirms that a 61.75 (strangely not described as that in the text) allows a pilot to fly an aircraft that would require a type rating on the underlying licence by meeting only the FAA requirements even if they do not hold the type rating on the underlying licence.
Thank you. And they do reference 61.75(e) in the footnote, which should clear any doubt.
The closest interpretation is in the opinion given on 22 Mar 2021 to Andrew Krausz by Rebecca B MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations:
The Grossman opinion is perhaps more helpful. It confirms that a 61.75 (strangely not described as that in the text) allows a pilot to fly an aircraft that would require a type rating on the underlying licence by meeting only the FAA requirements even if they do not hold the type rating on the underlying licence.
Still not exactly what you need, but close.
Am I right to assume that a pilot can fly on 61.75 license in the UK using a Pilot Medical Declaration?
Qalupalik wrote:
The night operations example was about the least helpful example imaginable because there is nothing written on a Part-FCL PPL indicating the absence of a night rating, eg taking this interpretation literally means the restricted US private pilot certificate is not compliant with ICAO Annex 1 (requirement for dual night flying instruction before exercising privileges at night).
I think it is very helpful, it makes sense from a USA perspective. After all the 61.75 IS a form of a USA license, it may not be ICAO Annex 1 (requirement for dual night flying instruction before exercising privileges at night) compliant as a result, however the FAA could easily make it ICAO compliant by putting the necessary restriction ON the 61.75 but have either chosen not too or they don’t realise… Of course from the other side of the fence it makes no sense at all. 
Of course IMHO you would have to be very stupid to ignore how your national CAA might view this if you never had any of the appropriate dual training.
Going forward it’s 24 miles (nautical) water crossings for me 
That’s interesting indeed.
Does the FAA define the boundary as the 3mile or 12 mile one, or as the airspace boundary?
France to Germany, there is no issue with this, but UK to France there could be a problem unless it was the 12 mile one and one flew Dover to France
Ibra wrote:
So you will need an FAA PPL even if you hold a French PPL and UK PPL, one is valid to fly the aircraft in Cherbourg and the other in Bournemouth?
Peter wrote:
My view is that the FAA wording doesn’t say you “cannot cross a border”.
At some point on that route the aircraft will not be in the airspace above the territorial waters of any state, conservatively taking the limit as 12 miles, so 61.3(a)(1)(vii) will not apply and a US pilot certificate will be needed.
tmo wrote:
The q is: with a current FAA Flight Review, does the SEP(L) rating on the EASA license need to be valid, or not. IOW, does one need both a FAA Flight Review and an EASA one, or just the FAA one?
The requirement for the flight review or substitute activity was confirmed in the interpretation given on 04 Apr 2013 to John D Collins by Mark W Bury, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel for International Law, Legislation and Regulations Division. The interpretation is supported by 14 CFR 61.2(b) which applies equally to your question on the exercising of IR privileges.
—
§61.2 Exercise of Privilege.
..
(b) Currency. No person may:
(1) Exercise privileges of an airman certificate, rating, endorsement, or
authorization issued under this part unless that person meets the
appropriate airman and medical recency requirements of this part,
specific to the operation or activity.
—
Needing to maintain the validity of a foreign rating will depend on whether FAA regards the rating expiration date endorsed in the foreign licence or certificate of revalidation as a limitation or restriction for the purpose of 14 CFR 61.75(e)(3) or 61.2(a)(4). You could request an opinion from the Office of the Chief Counsel for the FAA. The rule in FCL.040 (exercise of the privileges of licences) does not apply when exercising the privileges of a restricted US private pilot certificate.
The closest interpretation is in the opinion given on 22 Mar 2012 to Andrew Krausz by Rebecca B MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations:
While 14 C.F.R. 61.75 does incorporate the limitations and restriction
“on the person’s US certificate and foreign pilot license,” (emphasis
added) that language refers to the scope of the authority reflected by
the certificate itself. In other words, the pilot is subject to the
restrictions and limitations that appear on the face of the US
certificate or foreign pilot license. The language does not include
the entirety of regulatory requirements of the foreign State since the
holder of the §61.75 certificate is bound by the US regulatory
requirements to exercise the privileges of the US certificate. The FAA
views that language as addressing the limitations of the sort FAA
uses, e.g., “not valid for night operation,” where the individual has
not completed the night training requirements.
The night operations example was about the least helpful example imaginable because there is nothing written on a Part-FCL PPL indicating the absence of a night rating, eg taking this interpretation literally means the restricted US private pilot certificate is not compliant with ICAO Annex 1 (requirement for dual night flying instruction before exercising privileges at night).
Peter wrote:
I am sure nearly everybody flying an N-reg in Europe has either got a 61.75 or a standalone FAA PPL.Being limited to one’s own borders is pretty useless, in Europe – unless you get the N-reg plane more or less given to you and you just want to mess around a bit.
Yes I agree on touring aircraft it’s just useless, hopefully getting my standalone CPL soon in the US when things are back on the line, I flew few N-reg vintages in France, obviously for these 100km away from home base is already a lot
Probably not everybody’s taste, my parking neighbours had a decent touring Rockwell, he never went outside the UK as far as I remember, I recall he said he went to LFAT once in 2008 or 2010 something?
I am sure nearly everybody flying an N-reg in Europe has either got a 61.75 or a standalone FAA PPL.
Being limited to one’s own borders is pretty useless, in Europe – unless you get the N-reg plane more or less given to you and you just want to mess around a bit.
The advantage of a standalone FAA PPL is that nobody can take it away from you and you just need a BFR to make it valid. The disadvantage of the 61.75 is that it needs periodic updates if the underlying license changes (address, etc) but it has a great advantage for some that you don’t need an FAA medical, which is much harder to get than an EASA medical in certain scenarios.
Peter wrote:
Normally, of course, it is rare in Europe for someone to hold 2 or more European licenses concurrently. Under EASA this is not possible.
Yes I agree does not apply much to EASA land, maybe unless you can have EASA CPL in France and EASA PPL in Belgium?
Without too much criticising BASA agreement (load of pages without anything new ), they had zillions of items missed or overlooked but there was one single big item: “allowing flying N-reg on one EASA licence across the whole EASA land”, well you can’t have load of EASA licences according to FCL but you need load fo EASA licences according to FAR, I imagine that big inconsistency does explain why some (not everybody) have opted to get an FAA PPL, but this may not be very obvious?
