Charlie wrote:
The night part is especially interesting – do you have the citation for that?
But before anyone takes off at night, without appropriate training don’t forget 91.13 – Careless or reckless operation might apply!
Nothing stopping you doing an IPC or BFR at night with an FAA instructor…
Same goes for flying a new “type” that is not an new type under the FAA regime, it can be a BFR if you want it to be.
This is of course not necessarily how your “home” CAA might see it.
Charlie wrote:
of the EASA license
on the licence. See interpretation to Krausz.
You might find this Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) and Final Rule documents helpful in understanding the intent of the 61.75 rule as the FAA explains its rational. See NPRM search on 61.75 to get to the relevant text. Here is the Final Rule
Charlie wrote:
The night part is especially interesting – do you have the citation for that?
I don’t think it’s a citation that is key to it, although it certainly clarifies the FAA position. It’s really just a logic chain. The key is that an EASA (or UK) licence without a night rating added to it doesn’t say anything about day/night and gives no clue that it isn’t valid for night. One needs to be familiar with EASA (or UK) licensing details and know that the basic licence doesn’t include night privileges.
If it said “Limitations: daytime only” on the licence then that limitation would carry over to the 61.75. But it doesn’t, so it doesn’t.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Everything I’ve read on how the FAA interprets the 61.75 says that there has to be an explicit restriction on the license itself. Not having a SEP on the license – or having an expired SEP is not in itself a restriction – it is a lack of endorsement which is not the same thing. Compare that the FAA has said explicitly that you can fly night VFR on a 61.75 according to FAA rules even if you don’t have NQ on your EASA license.
Exactly. The 61.75 is an FAA licence issued on the basis of holding a foreign licence, it is not a ‘validation’ or anything like that – regardless of the view any other national authority might take. The FAA requirements (on top of medical and ELP) for issuing a 61.75 are simply that the foreign licence is a full ICAO one and that it remains valid. Since most are non-expiring, remaining valid is rarely a problem. The FAA regs say nothing about any requirement for ratings to remain valid (or even exist) and nothing along the lines of “what the foreign licence doesn’t cover, the FAA licence also doesn’t cover”. Once you have that 61.75 you have an FAA licence, only the FAA can decide what it does or doesn’t cover, and the views of another CAA (or EASA) are irrelevant unless they introduce special legislation digging into the detail and explicitly imposing certain restrictions on FAA licences gained via the 61.75 route being used in their territory.
The CAA’s argument on Ibbotson’s rating expiry was demonstrably wrong. His FAA licence was valid to fly the aircraft, albeit not commercially, assuming he was up-to-date with a biennial. My assumption is that the defence barrister chose not to challenge this because nit-picking over licence technicalities when the whole operation was so obviously fundamentally illegal (no CPL, no AOC and so obviously performed for reward) wouldn’t have played well to the jury. The defence was trying to argue that the illegality didn’t per se endanger the aircraft, rather than trying to argue they were legal.
@Graham has again described the situation accurately and succinctly. Take note that word license has a specific meaning in the US, that the Federal Government in particular is fairly limited in its authority to license anything, and therefore that US pilots earn certificates, they do not e.g. obtain licenses from an authority displaying or condoning rent seeking behavior.
Good point. For FAA licence in my post, read FAA certificate.
