Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Does the FAA Foreign Pilot Exam IR, or the 61.75 PPL, require continuous UK/EASA IR, or continuous UK/EASA PPL Class Rating validity?

Good point. For FAA licence in my post, read FAA certificate.

EGLM & EGTN

@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.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 30 Nov 21:05

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.

EGLM & EGTN

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

KUZA, United States

Charlie wrote:

of the EASA license

on the licence. See interpretation to Krausz.

London, United Kingdom

Charlie wrote:

The night part is especially interesting – do you have the citation for that?

Here

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.

Last Edited by Ted at 27 Nov 18:36
Ted
United Kingdom

I also don’t suppose whether anyone knows if you need to have the underlying type rating? For helicopters this is particularly relevant where UK / EASA you need a type rating for each one, but for FAA it’s a blanket rotorcraft approval up to c.5800kg

I recall a debate from somewhere many years ago, re the PA46, which can be flown on a 61.75 PPL but which in Euroland needs a Class Rating, and the TP version needs the HPA.

Once the EASA FCL N-reg attack came in about 10 years ago, the local CAA here ruled that your dual papers do need the CR/HPA. But the 61.75 PPL still needs nothing extra. You can fly a TBM on it…

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

As an example of what’s legally possible, my father learned to fly elsewhere, came to the US permanently afterward, then flew in the US for 20 years on a 61.75 and never gave another thought to his non-expiring foreign license (that was what was printed on it), or to his foreign ratings or foreign medical currency – that was all history. The only thing that matters is the ratings earned that would be relevant to FAA regulations and any restrictions printed on the foreign license at the time the 61.75 based FAA Pilot Certificate is issued. The concept of rating expiry does not exist in the US and any FAA ratings subsequently earned are printed on a new replacement FAA pilot certificate.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 27 Nov 17:53

that there has to be an explicit restriction on the license itself

Maybe some refer to “implicit restrictions”?

Ok, let say it’s the case then how come you can fly IFR on FAA61.75 with “FAA IR test passed” when you don’t have an EASA IR or it has expired, your underlying licence is still “restricted to VFR only”, can you fly IFR on your FAA?

Here is another stretch of imagination, say you have FAA61.75 based on FCL PPL with no equivalent “FAA ratings” (say EASA PPL done in TMG then applied to 61.75), you go to US and get SEL & MEL with “US test passed”, can you fly single and twin pistons on your FAA?

At some point one has to stop taking the most restrictive view of FAR & FCL intersections? just decide at any “time t” what he is flying on and comply with it’s underlying rules? you may swap between FAR & FCL past SS+30min or on VFR/IFR transition or cross borders but you have to be “fully legal” at any given time within the system you are flying on…

Sometimes the laws and the rules are just too permissive

Last Edited by Ibra at 27 Nov 17:53
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

I also don’t suppose whether anyone knows if you need to have the underlying type rating? For helicopters this is particularly relevant where UK / EASA you need a type rating for each one, but for FAA it’s a blanket rotorcraft approval up to c.5800kg

We're glad you're here
Oxford EGTK
26 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top