I don’t know if this is a regular distinction, but US pilot certificates do not expire. However, they may be revoked by the FAA as an administrative matter. Although my CFI certificate expires, it is not free standing and may only be used in conjunction with my Commercial Pilot Certificate that does not expire. My understanding is that other countries may have an expiration date on their Licenses.
The UK licence never expired, it was for life – JAR had other ideas, and EASA is back to the status quo.
My other licences from other countries are also for life, so that would seem to be the common theme.
BTW my other licences are licences, so I wonder whether it is just the FAA who refer to a licence as a certificate?
Having cleared up the point about certifcates and licences;
The FAA say
(c) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless -
(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.
and note, use the word certificate.
A legal definition is given here
https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/airmans-certificate/
although I am not certain of the underlying source.
However that would seem to add credance that every intention is the safety pilot is FAA certifcated and that an ICAO licence would not qualify.
IFuji_Abound wrote:
The FAA say(c) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless -
(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.
I can’t imagine FAA using anything else but their own terminology in any case. I’d be inclined to interpret the rule more broadly, but unless FAA clarifies the above, there’s no way to know. As in many things international, FAA may have no interest in clarifying the issue.
The FAA use of the term Certificate derives from the legal sensitivity of the Federal Government licensing anything, in the legal sense of the word, regardless of the FAA role in aviation, interstate commerce etc. More frequently, anything called a license in the US is issued by a US state.
§61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.
(a) Required pilot certificate for operating a civil aircraft of the United States. No person may serve as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil aircraft of the United States, unless that person:
(1) Has in the person’s physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft when exercising the privileges of that pilot certificate or authorization—
(i) A pilot certificate issued under this part and in accordance with §61.19;
…
(v) When operating an aircraft within a foreign country, a pilot license issued by that country may be used.
§91.109
…
(c) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless -
(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.
It would seem rather odd if someone meeting 61.3(a)(1)(v) were entitled to be a required pilot flight crewmember, including pilot in command, but not a safety pilot.
If I could use another example, I imagine most FAA pilots based in Europe apply 91.169 IFR alternate requirements (600-2/800/2) in the obvious way. Yet 91.169(c) actually says:
(1) If an instrument approach procedure has been published in part 97 of this chapter, or a special instrument approach procedure has been issued by the Administrator to the operator, for that airport, the following minima:
(i)For aircraft other than helicopters: The alternate airport minima specified in that procedure, or if none are specified the following standard approach minima:
(A)For a precision approach procedure. Ceiling 600 feet and visibility 2 statute miles.
(B)For a nonprecision approach procedure. Ceiling 800 feet and visibility 2 statute miles.
…
(2) If no instrument approach procedure has been published in part 97 of this chapter and no special instrument approach procedure has been issued by the Administrator to the operator, for the alternate airport, the ceiling and visibility minima are those allowing descent from the MEA, approach, and landing under basic VFR.
and
§ 97.1 Applicability.
(a) This part prescribes standard instrument approach procedures to civil airports in the United States and the weather minimums that apply to landings under IFR at those airports.
Read literally, unless you can reach an alternate in the US, your alternate minima are VFR, not 600-2/800-2.
I’ve had to think about what you mean @bookworm longer than I’d like to admit. For the benefit of others who may be equally slow, I think the gist of that is in the “published in Part 97 of this chapter”, which is not the case outside of the US and where it should read “published by the competent authority” or some such if you were to take it literally.
Bookworm makes an excellent point: outside US airspace, an N-reg can be flown on papers issued by the country which owns the airspace (the classic 61.3 concession) and it would be bizzare if the safety pilot was not able to use the same concession.
That is not quite the same thing as suggesting that the safety pilot can have any ICAO PPL, but in most real world circumstances it is the same thing.
I think Bookworm has identified a key concession, and it would indeed seem odd were this not the intention at least.
I think bookworm’s post is consistent with what several of us have said. The safety pilot must be legally able to take over flying the plane.
