61.75 without going to US [Archive]

markfly

3rd Jul 2009, 20:28

Is it possible to obtain the 61.75 certificate in Europe? I am a UK ppl (A) holder and need to obtain this, but I want to avoid the expense of going to the US for it.

...was my question. Yes it is, is the answer :ok:as I have a temporary one now and will have the official doc in 120 days. This applies to new apps and english profciency endorsements. See the rest of this thread, but I contacted Adam House, met him at East Midlans airport. I gave him the forms, ID eveidence, licence and medicals and £375 :eek: (the FAA fee) and came away with it in 10 minutes. There were a number of people doing the same thing and he does this regularly. Saved me the hassle of going to NY!

Air Soul

3rd Jul 2009, 21:05

Tom Hughston

Return Home (http://www.rnav.us/index.html)

KR

AS

B2N2

4th Jul 2009, 14:09

Remember that you still need to do a Flight review with a US certificated instructor before you can exercise the privileges of a US airmen certificate.

AC-DC

4th Jul 2009, 14:43

You need tosend the required forms to the CAA and the FAA. Once the FAA reply you can contct Tom Hughston or Adam House. Adam can be contacted via the FAA office at LHR as he is a FAA employee. Tom is out of the game at the moment and is not working.

S-Works

4th Jul 2009, 15:24

If Adam is an FAA employee how come he is taking money for the issue of the 61.75 certs?

md 600 driver

4th Jul 2009, 17:06

ac=dc

why would you need to see adam house ? if its only a flight review any FAA CFI will do surely, not a examiner [DPE]

IO540

4th Jul 2009, 18:25

Any FAA CFI can do a BFR.

Getting the 61.75 piggyback FAA PPL issued without going to the USA is a different matter.

AC-DC

4th Jul 2009, 20:16

Bose X
I don't know why he takes money, maybe has to pay some bills? :). The cheque that I wrote was payable to the FAA, also, during our chat he said so.

MD 600 Driver
As IO540 said.

Oldpilot55

5th Jul 2009, 07:00

How much was it? The website is not the cklearest and I gave up searching for it.

echobeach

5th Jul 2009, 07:30

I have just done all this without leaving UK and I am waiting to do my BFR.

It is possible to get the 'piggy back' FAA PPL without leaving the UK, issued on the basis of the validity and ratings of you JAA PPL.

I must say that with the help of PPrune etc I have found the whole process straightforward and I now have the FAA temp airman certficate and am looking for a convenient time to do the flight review.

It does seem to make sense to do this in the UK as the meeting to validate your licence takes 15 minutes and unless you were planning to do some flying straight after BFR in US it seems reasonable to save yourself the trip.

Once you have been through the steps outlined above the key is to make an appt to see Adam House. He is the FAA man in the UK and can do what you would otherwise do in New York. In fact it was the New York FSDO that suggested I see him rather than travel to US when I was making my appointment with them on the phone.

Steps to complete

Form to CAA to validate your JAA PPL for FAA
Check that FAA have received your form - you will get a letter from them you need to keep original
Check that your nominated FSDO has received letter (New York if you dont want to leave UK)
Check that they have it on file in New York office (a few phone calls)
Make appt to see Adam House (you need to be time and geographically flexible in UK)
Complete paper work AH (he will send a check list to you) and pay fee.
Leave with temp airman certificate.
Arrange BFR and validate your FAA PPL

All achievable without leaving UK.

englishal

5th Jul 2009, 12:56

How much was the fee out of interest?

Cusco

5th Jul 2009, 13:12

I have just has my 61.75 renewed (paper cert replaced with plastic cert and English proficiency added) along the lines of echobeach except I did not use Adam House but a US DPE who flew over from Florida (but taking her info from NY Int FSDO) for ten days in early May and based herself at Denham.

Although I didn't need a BFR (current from Instrument IPC last year) she did carry out a number of flight tests as well as issue initial and renewal 61.75s.

I haven't yet received my plastic cert, but it is recorded as having been issued on FAA website, so I guess it's in the post........

And a bloody sight cheaper than the ridiculous palaver of travelling to USA just to demonstrate the use of my mother tongue.........

Cusco

markfly

5th Jul 2009, 13:15

Thanks :ok:

This is all very useful. I have already had my licence verified by the CAA to the FAA in New York and was all set to go to NY next Friday. I found a refrence to Adams mobile number 07764470019 and I have left a message for him to call me. I wil update this with how I get on as I am sure many people mistakenly believe they have to go to the US too.

echobeach

5th Jul 2009, 13:28

The fee was €300 for doing this in uk with AH.

S-Works

5th Jul 2009, 14:05

And you paid that fee to the FAA for an exercise that is free of charge when done in FSDO? I am just curious to who you were actually paying for this. If he is an FAA employee and doing it in this capacity then I am wondering why he is taking payment for this service. If he is freelance then he sets his price for the market.

Cusco

5th Jul 2009, 15:39

I was frankly quite happy to shell out a fistful of fresh greenbacks for the convenience on not having to travel to USA.

Some of the loot was, I understand, to cover costs of the office set up of the outfit at Denham: dunno who the rest went to- I guess the DPE.

Right now I have no plans/wish to travel to USA for any reason, least of all to waste my time solely to demonstrate that I can speak English.

So : job well done: I understand from others that these DPE visits may become a regular feature but I have no further details of this.

Cusco

Oldpilot55

5th Jul 2009, 15:50

I can see why they chose not to publish the figure on their web site.

Mike Cross

5th Jul 2009, 16:01

More definitive info from FAA here. (http://www.joinaopa.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=347&start=18)

These two documents give you chapter and verse
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/ND/8710_3E-C01.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/ND/8710_3E-C21.pdf

MarkerInbound

5th Jul 2009, 18:51

And you find in CFR 187 the FAA has a formula to figure the cost of an inspector:

Appendix A to this part prescribes the methodology for computation of fees for certification services performed outside the United States.

d) In order to recover overhead costs attributable to the budget, all costs other than direct inspector transportation and subsistence, overtime, and Sunday/holiday costs, are assigned to the number of inspector positions. An hourly cost per inspector is developed by dividing the annual Flight Standards Operations Budget, excluding the items enumerated above, by the number of aviation safety inspections (OMB position series 1825) on board at the beginning of the fiscal year, to determine the annual cost of an aviation safety inspector. This annual cost of an aviation safety inspector is divided by 2,087 hours, which is the annual paid hours of a U.S. Federal Government employee. This result in the hourly government paid cost of an aviation safety inspector.

(e) To ensure that the hourly inspector cost represents a billing rate that ensures full recovery of costs, the hourly cost per inspector must be multiplied by an indirect work factor to determine the hourly inspector billing rate. This is necessary for the following reasons:
(1) Inspectors spend a significant amount of time in indirect work to support their inspection activities, much of which cannot be allocated to any one client.
(2) Not all 2,087 annual paid hours are available as work hours because training, providing technical assistance, leave, and other indirect work activities reduce the work time that may be directly billed. Consequently, the hourly cost per inspector must be adjusted upwards by an indirect work factor. The calculation of an indirect work factor is discussed in paragraph (f) of this appendix.
(f)(1) The indirect work factor is determined using the following formula:
http://rgl.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY/RGFAR.NSF/0/5f4106eb855d8c5b8625717f006a8baa/SectionRule/0.DD8!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif
where:
a=indirect work rate, and b=leave usage (total leave hours divided by total hours available for work.

SergeD

5th Jul 2009, 21:52

Been reading the AOPA website. (which Mike Cross sent above)

It talks about "Tom Hughston". Did he get got some pilot into trouble? (http://www.businessair.us/FAQ.html)The story behind it was a email sent by him to aa lot of people, (some on here!) and now everywhere on internet, too copied to the British CAA. "The person in question knows that his instrument rating was issued on false pretenses."

IO540

6th Jul 2009, 07:39

The above posted URL is mis-informed.

Q: You say on your website that instruction for the award of an FAA instrument rating given by a UK IMC instructor is invalid. I know someone who received such training and found an FAA DPE in Arizona that excepted it. He now has the FAA instrument rating. In fact, he is a major contributor on several websites in the UK offering advice on the subject. So who's correct here.
A: The person in question knows that his instrument rating was issued on false pretenses. Although the DPE in Arizona didn't realize that instruction toward an FAA IR from a UK IMC instructor is invalid, I did! What normally happens in these cases is that the applicants logbook gets audited and he instantly loses the rating and/or license.
The fact is, If an IMC instructor isn't allowed to instruct for the award of his own country's instrument rating then he certainly isn't allowed to instruct for any ICAO Instrument rating!!

The pilot concerned was and is 100% legit. He met the FAA IR dual training requirements with approx 25hrs done with an FAA CFII in Arizona. No UK based IMCR training time was used towards his IR.

The widely distributed email mentioned above was mis-informed too.

Justiciar

6th Jul 2009, 07:48

Can anyone give a definitive answer to the question of how you add the english language proficiency endorsement to a piggy back FAA PPL (the new plastic card one)? I got mine about four years ago and of course it is absent the endorsement. Speaking to someone recently the procedure he outlined seemed to amount to the fresh issue under 61.75. The cost quoted was quite high and it is almost worth getting a stand alone FAA PPL instead.

Cusco

6th Jul 2009, 08:57

Yes you get a re-issued plastic certificate but you keep your original number.

I followed the path outlined by echobeach (posting 8.30 yesterday) except I used a visiting DPE who came to Denham for a few days.

You could use Adam House but I think visiting DPE was cheaper.

PM sent

Cusco

Mike Cross

6th Jul 2009, 09:04

The FAA can give you the definitive answer
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/media/2008/info08012.pdf

Re Tom Hughston

For the avoidance of doubt:-
I've never met or corresponded with Tom and have no axe to grind either way.

Any Googling on this subject will turn up lots of stuff. Here's a short history of my own involvement.

AOPA UK made enquiries some months ago of the FAA Head Office and were given information which it published in good faith. That information stated that a personal vist to a FSDO was required. Tom and his suporters objected strongly to what AOPA published but did not provide any definitive information to support their contention that 61.75's and English Proficiency endorsements could be obtained through DPE's (Designated Pilot Examiners).

I researched the situation and found the references that I have referred to on this thread. The information was then posted on the AOPA UK thread at AOPA UK • View topic - FAA throws a spanner in the works (http://www.joinaopa.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=347)

If the information regarding Tom not operating at present is correct then it may be that he's fallen foul of the restrictions contained in Art 140 of the ANO
Restriction on aerial photography, aerial survey and aerial work in aircraft registered elsewhere than in the United Kingdom
140 (1) An aircraft registered in a Contracting State other than the United Kingdom, or in a foreign country, shall not fly over the United Kingdom for the purpose of aerial photography or aerial survey (whether or not valuable consideration is given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight) or for the purpose of any other form of aerial work except with the permission of the Secretary of State granted under this article to the operator or the charterer of the aircraft and in accordance with any conditions to which such permission may be subject.
(2) Without prejudice to article 93 or to paragraph (1), any breach by a person to whom a permission has been granted under this article of any condition to which that permission was subject shall constitute a contravention of this article.

And of course to do it in a G-Reg would require the appropriate JAA or CAA license to be held.

S-Works

6th Jul 2009, 12:28

The above posted URL is mis-informed.
Q: You say on your website that instruction for the award of an FAA instrument rating given by a UK IMC instructor is invalid. I know someone who received such training and found an FAA DPE in Arizona that excepted it. He now has the FAA instrument rating. In fact, he is a major contributor on several websites in the UK offering advice on the subject. So who's correct here.
A: The person in question knows that his instrument rating was issued on false pretenses. Although the DPE in Arizona didn't realize that instruction toward an FAA IR from a UK IMC instructor is invalid, I did! What normally happens in these cases is that the applicants logbook gets audited and he instantly loses the rating and/or license.
The fact is, If an IMC instructor isn't allowed to instruct for the award of his own country's instrument rating then he certainly isn't allowed to instruct for any ICAO Instrument rating!!
The pilot concerned was and is 100% legit. He met the FAA IR dual training requirements with approx 25hrs done with an FAA CFII in Arizona. No UK based IMCR training time was used towards his IR.

The widely distributed email mentioned above was mis-informed too.

I am curious Peter, if you did not use IMC time towards your IR why are you so vociferous about how it can be used? Did not your own website and a number of 'articles' you wrote extol the very virtues of this method?

FAA PPL/IR (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/faa-pplir/index.html)

Don't you think you should have practiced what you preached? Just wondering as I know how keen you are on stamping out bull**** on internet forums.

englishal

6th Jul 2009, 12:52

You can use IMC time, in the same way as you can use Safety Pilot time. There are core requirements which must be met - i.e. 15 hrs with an APPROVED instructor - which means FAA CFII or IR rated IRI abroard. You must also meet some other CFII requirements too. But other than that, how the balance of your hours are made up, who cares.

Regarding Bullsh*t on these forums, you are right Bose, there is lots going around and lots of misinformation.

S-Works

6th Jul 2009, 13:13

I am just curious, who are we to believe, the postings of internet experts or the writings of an FAA authorized DPE who seems to have made his interpretation quite clear. So which opinion is bull****? Is yours or his bull****, where is your evidence? Or is it just hearsay that is being propagated?

I just wonder at times about these. Especially when some people could be seen as getting on there soapbox about bull**** it is important to make sure they have all the facts and clearly argue the case. In this case if you are so certain that the DPE is incorrect you have stated it is your duty to expose him. Do you want the NY FSDO contact details?

Just playing devils advocate here as I am pretty neutral on the whole subject of what can and can't be allowed.

IO540

6th Jul 2009, 13:45

In all FAA IR cases I know of, mine included, the previous IMCR training had been accepted by the US based school and its US based DPE without any problem, but in all cases I know of it turned out to be irrelevant for logbook filling purposes because more than 15hrs were subsequently flown with the US based FAA CFII in order to reach the checkride standard.

It is virtually impossible for an IMCR holder to reach the FAA IR checkride standard without flying at least 15 additional hours with the eventual instructor (who for equally practical reasons will be an FAA CFII) so this whole question is moot for the purpose of debating the legality of somebody's logbook.

This kind of thing (the FARs are silent on this specific issue) is well within the discretion of the individual DPE anyway.

The real benefit of using the IMCR towards the FAA IR is that the minimum dual instrument time is indeed just 15hrs i.e. the FAA IR works largely on the principle of "demonstrated competence". So an IMCR holder who is already very good can go to the USA and knock off the FAA IR in perhaps an extra 15-25hrs. Whereas if you did the JAA IR you would have to sit there for 50/55hrs no matter how good you were, but a previous ICAO IR reduces this to 15hrs. This is why the IMCR -> FAA IR -> JAA IR remains a reasonable route.

Justiciar

6th Jul 2009, 14:26

Don't the FAA regulations specify:

A total of 40 hours of actual or simulated instrument time ....

of which 15 have to be with an instructor, ie the balance of 25 hours is flight time not instructional time?

I am not sure how it advances the argument to use an insulting tone. Clearly Mr H has his own particular view of the regulations; other persons here disagree with his interpretation as a result of their own contrary experiences. Can anyone quote an example of an individual who has been stripped of his IR by having IFR time flown using an IMCR being disallowed?

mm_flynn

6th Jul 2009, 14:45

I think Tom's basic contention that the 15 hours must be with a 'proper IR instructor' is reasonable, but not explicit. 3 of those hours explicitly must be with an FAA CFII, so as IO says it is only a question of those 12 hours.

I doubt there is a single IMCr holder who could get to check ride standards (in foreign airspace) in less than 12 hours. So Tom's FAQ is likely to be correct in its answer -
"IMCr training can not be counted towards the dual hours requirement of the FAA IR",

but it is answering the wrong question, the question asked should be,

"does my IMCR training and Instrument time (as in flight by sole reference to instruments) count towards the 40 hours total Instrument time?"

and the answer to this question is clearly, "Yes".

Justiciar

6th Jul 2009, 15:02

The impression I and many others got was that Mr. H's post was alleging not just that IMCR instruction time does not count but that IMCR flying time under IFR does not count. The latter is clearly wrong; the former would appear to be correct but irrelevant as anyone doing an FAA IR gets over 15 hours anyway from the instructor at the FTO, as has been pointed out here already. He appears to have used this point of view as a means of attacking publically someone who quite legitimately holds an FAA IR.

IO540

6th Jul 2009, 15:07

Justiciar -

of which 15 have to be with an instructor, ie the balance of 25 hours is flight time not instructional time?Correct.

mm_flynn -

the 15 hours must be with a 'proper IR instructor' That's a perfectly fair personal interpretation - as are others.

The FARs are silent on this weird combination of US and non-US instrument privileges...

One soon gets into debating the meaning of "authorised instructor" which has never been settled by the FAA in the context of a non-FAA instrument qualification (like the UK or Australian sub-ICAO one). Some commentators have interpreted this as "ICAO IR instructor" (presumably because the FAA IR is an ICAO IR) but the FARs don't say this, either.

I have no idea if Australian pilots have forums too ;) but if they have, this is sure to be a topic on there too, for those going to the USA to do the FAA IR.

Anyway, this one is definitely within the discretion of the individual DPE doing that specific checkride. As are a pile of other things.

englishal

6th Jul 2009, 15:09

Don't the FAA regulations specify:

Quote:
A total of 40 hours of actual or simulated instrument time ....
of which 15 have to be with an instructor, ie the balance of 25 hours is flight time not instructional time?

They do, which is why I find

I am just curious, who are we to believe, the postings of internet experts or the writings of an FAA authorized DPE

So funny :) I read the FARS and have a copy of the FAR AIM and it is not "my view". Maybe you should read it too bose to stop you sprouting so much bullsh*t ;)

With regards to DPEs - well sometimes their view is also open to interpretation, I grant you - I suppose whatever suits them best and makes their life easy. The one who has the final say is the FSDO which supervises them and I'm sure that if anyone writes to the FSDO and asks the specific question, they will get the specific answer.

You don't have to worry about shopping me to the FAA though Bose, my IR is FAA born and bread - I never did do an IMCr first so did all 45 hrs or so with an FAA CFII....

S-Works

6th Jul 2009, 16:03

So funny I read the FARS and have a copy of the FAR AIM and it is not "my view". Maybe you should read it too bose to stop you sprouting so much bullsh*t

I think you need to read my posts again Al, I have not expressed an opinion either way, it is you that has expressed a strong opinion on interpretation. I am merely comparing your opinion and IO's opinion against the opinion of the DPE and as a bystander trying to work out who is spinning the bull****.

So I ask again who is correct, one of you must be, which means the rest are wrong and spreading bull****........

Fuji Abound

6th Jul 2009, 16:23

So I ask again who is correct, one of you must be, which means the rest are wrong and spreading bull****........

I think this is all a bit silly - especially having read the thread on the dark side on the same topic.

It is clear this is quite a technical discussion with the law not being entirely clear. The droves of lawyers we have each side of the Pond is testimony to the lack of legislative clarity, and it certainly does not mean when one lawyer takes a different view from the other "bull****" is involved.

In the context of this thread quite a different matter from those who like to embelish their hours or their Sky God status which justifiably would befit the previous label.

I remember a similiar discussion about the IMC rating and whether or not the minima were recommended or compulsory. The CAA's interpretation is that they are recommendations but I know of some who take the alternative view. Ultimately if anyone was ever interested it would be for the Courts to decide and, even then, a lower Court might take a different view from a higher Court.

Tom has expressed one view and I0 and alternative. IO has justified his view on this thread. So far as I can see Tom has not commented and nor have the FAA. The debate is interesting and I guess we can each take a view if we were judge and jury on the verdict we would give. :)

englishal

6th Jul 2009, 16:44

So I ask again who is correct, one of you must be, which means the rest are wrong and spreading bull****........
The FARs allow for "safety pilot" time to count, so there is no earthly reason why IMC training time wouldn't count...is there...how could it not?

What's your view Bose?

IO540

6th Jul 2009, 17:02

It is clear this is quite a technical discussion with the law not being entirely clear.

Correct - this is within the discretion of the US DPE.

There are a number of these areas, potentially applicable to foreign candidates going to the USA to do the FAA stuff.

It isn't a correct v. wrong situation.

The FAA FAQ (which used to be on their website till 2004; I have a copy if anybody wants one) which was written by John Lynch who wrote much of the FAR/AIM (not to be confused with Robert Lynch who works at the NY IFO) deals with some of these areas but not others, but in any case is not binding on any DPE or FAA staff examiner.

S-Works

7th Jul 2009, 07:42

Quote:
So I ask again who is correct, one of you must be, which means the rest are wrong and spreading bull****........
The FARs allow for "safety pilot" time to count, so there is no earthly reason why IMC training time wouldn't count...is there...how could it not?

What's your view Bose?

I don't have a view.

Fuji Abound

7th Jul 2009, 08:14

I don't have a view.

Why do I think that is unlikely. :)

Not having a view, and not having a view you wish to share, I suspect are two very different things. :) :)

mm_flynn

7th Jul 2009, 11:25

So I ask again who is correct, one of you must be, which means the rest are wrong and spreading bull****........
Ignoring the various personal attacks made, alleged, or perceived ... I don't think anyone is 'wrong' - some of the views have been presented in a way people may interpret overly broadly.

The Instrument time accumulated in IMCr training and IMCr operation clearly counts as Instrument time, as does any other flight time by sole reference to instruments - which is the main substance of the question. So IO, Al, et al. are not wrong.

Tom clearly believes, and as a DPE is entitled in undertaking his roll to enforce his view, that training by a sub-Icao IR instructor doesn't count as dual training towards an FAA IR. As Tom's belief is translated into his action, he is not wrong either.

There appears to be no evidence that the FAA Chief Council has been asked to or has issued an opinion in this regard - so the grey shade remains!

Tom's FAQ does not put forward any view or comment that Instrument Time accumulated by non-ICAO compliant licence holders does not count as logable instrument time. If it did, then there would be a clear contradiction and someone would be wrong.

IO540

7th Jul 2009, 12:36

training by a sub-Icao IR instructor doesn't count as dual training towards an FAA IR

This is half the problem here - this assumption is not always right, and therefore an allegation that somebody else has a dodgy license is not likely to be correct.

And doing one's IMCR with an IR holding instructor meets the strictest possible interpretation of the FARs re "authorised instuctor" and the other stuff (haven't got the FAR/AIM to hand) authorising training outside the USA.

englishal

7th Jul 2009, 13:36

I think that is the key...

If one wants to use any flight instruction carried out towards the IMCr for the FAA IR then to be safe they should use a JAA FI who holds an IR and is authorised to teach the JAA IR (or only count that time towards the FI time) - so in otherwords if you used a JAA IRI then the FAA would not complain - I have no doubt about this.

What TH is complaining about is people who have done their training with a NON-IR'd non IRI JAA instructor. I can see his point that the FAA may complain about this - the instructor was not authorised to teach for an IR.

However to say that "IMC time doesn't count" is simply wrong because any time spent under the hood counts towards the total instrument time, it may not count towards the "Instructor time" but that is a different matter.

Realistically most people going to the USA will need 15 hrs or so with an FAA CFII to get up to scratch and meet the other requirements (like cross country flight "under ATC controlled routing")......