EASA PPLH -> FAA PPLH: 14 CFR 61.75 vs 61.56

[Reely340]

In plain english: is completing an FAA biennial flight review according to 14 CFR 61.56 required to be able to exercise the privileges of an airman's PPL license issued under 14 CFR 61.75 ?

section 61.75 describes the ruling for a piggyback FAA license "based on a foreign PPL"; (EASA PPL(H) and its rating are eligible)
section 61.56 among other things mandates a flight review "every 24 months"

YES would mean I'd have to do my annual prof. check in EASA land + a FAA light review (1h ground, 1h in flight) every two years. :\

NO means the FAA license issued under sect. 61.75 is a true piggy back, whose validity is directly synchronized to the EASA license's, it is just paperwork.:E

Anyone here got himself a FAA license under sect. 61.75 recently (EASA time)?
Those sections are really good at hyperlinking to each other.

[Gordy]

If you are exercising the privileges of your FAA certificate regardless of how it was obtained then you need to meet the requirements of FAR 61.56. Therefore, yes you would need to accomplish a flight review or complete an FAA wings phase.

[Reely340]

If you are exercising the privileges of your FAA certificate regardless of how it was obtained then you need to meet the requirements of FAR 61.56. Therefore, yes you would need to accomplish a flight review or complete an FAA wings phase.Thx for the fast response!

Can this FAA compatible flight review be done in europe, too?

Can it be done in advance, e.g. before picking up a fresh FAA piggy back license?

Generally speacking is an FAA "certified" flight review an indepnedend entity of its own,
e.g. one can do a flight review regardless of wether he already has an FAA license,
as a valid (max 24 months old) review is not a requirement for issuance of the license but for acting as PIC?

Background: If I do my annual EASA prof. check with an examiner who is a FAA "BFR" conductor as well, I'd have the BFR "for free". :E

[B2N2]

The Flight review required by 61.56 can be done anywhere outside of the USA and also does NOT need to be conducted in a N-reg.
All that is required is a minimum of 1 hr ground review and a minimum of 1 hr flight by a FAA authorized instructor.
It can be done before or after the issuance of your piggy back.

[Gordy]

a fresh FAA piggy back license

What do you mean by this? You only ever have one license.

[Reely340]

The Flight review required by 61.56 can be done anywhere outside of the USA and also does NOT need to be conducted in a N-reg.
All that is required is a minimum of 1 hr ground review and a minimum of 1 hr flight by a FAA authorized instructor.
It can be done before or after the issuance of your piggy back.Great news, thx a lot.

So if I happen to find a local FAA CFI that advertizes BFRs on say B206 and R22
would he be eligible to do my BFR in an HU269 (my type rating),
e.g. must the FAA CFI have a type rating for the helicopter type he conducts a BFR in?

At face value thsi might sound a bit counter intuitive, but he's not training me, only verifyng my piloting skills in a similar aircraft, albeit different type.

[GoodGrief]

There are no type ratings below 12500lbs.
A BFR is not type specific. Do it in an R22 and it counts for all other type you fly.

[Reely340]

There are no type ratings below 12500lbs.
A BFR is not type specific. Do it in an R22 and it counts for all other type you fly.Hmm. 14 CFR sec 61.56 (b) (1) FAR Part 61 Sec. 61.56 effective as of 11/15/2013 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFar.nsf/FARSBySectLookup/61.56) reads
Accomplished a flight review given in an aircraft for which that pilot is rated by an authorized instructorso the BFR must be done in a helo I have a TR for. Being only TRed for HU269 I can't do a BFR in an R22.

I assume the FAA CFI must be a helicopter CFI, but the question is:
has the FAA CFI have to have a TR for my type?

[rotorfan]

Good Grief offered the proper explanation in answering your question.

When the FAA uses the word "rated", it does not refer to a specific type of aircraft, as "you're rated in the H-269". A rating is a class of aircraft within a category. On my Private (FAA) certificate, it shows Airplane-Single Engine Land and Rotorcraft-Helicopter. On the day when I passed my heli checkride, I was then legal to move from the R22 I trained in to a B407. Practically, it wouldn't happen because no 407 owner would loan me the ship, nor would an insurer cover me. But, the Helicopter rating authorizes it. There is also no distinction made for number of engines, unlike fixed-wing ops.

As GG explained, type ratings don't apply until aircraft weight of 12500 pounds (or turbojet-powered in the stuck-wing world). A helicopter CFI offering flight reviews for 206 and 22, in your example, wouldn't be type-rated in those aircraft because there is no type rating. He or she could conduct your flight review in the 269. However, if the CFI has no experience in that type, they very well may decline. I would think no instructor would be willing to give a flight review in a type where they aren't comfortable with doing autos, because they have no way to know if you're going to be competent at autos, either. Insurance might have a say in the matter, too.

As GG said, you could do a flight review in an R22, and you would be legal to fly the 269. Of course, if you'd never flown the 22, this would be rather pointless. You wouldn't be competent after an hour or two, and it wouldn't do anything to check your competence in the 269. Because I'm fixed and rotary, I would do my flight review in an R44, and it would cover me for both operations. Part 61 just says you must accomplish a flight review in an aircraft for which you are rated. There are FAA regs that apply to legality but not necessarily safety, like the currency vs. proficiency argument.

Note that the term Biennial Flight Review is not used now, merely Flight Review. In the case of a pilot like myself that might fly Robbies, we also must abide by SFAR Part 73, specifically written for Robinsons, which calls for a Flight Review in a Robbie on an annual basis.

Gordy mentioned Wings (a pilot proficiency program) would substitute for a flight review. It certainly should, as it is actual training, not just a review, and is far better at keeping up your skills. Note that your comment about an hour of ground and an hour of flight is merely guidance for the instructor, not a goal. They can choose more if you're not doing well. The CFI won't want to sign off on a pilot that is deficient enough to be unsafe. Lastly, earning a certificate or rating automatically resets the flight review clock.

[Reely340]

Good Grief offered the proper explanation in answering your question.

When the FAA uses the word "rated", it does not refer to a specific type of aircraft, as "you're rated in the H-269". A rating is a class of aircraft within a category. On my Private (FAA) certificate, it shows Airplane-Single Engine Land and Rotorcraft-Helicopter. On the day when I passed my heli checkride, I was then legal to move from the R22 I trained in to a B407. Practically, it wouldn't happen because no 407 owner would loan me the ship, nor would an insurer cover me. But, the Helicopter rating authorizes it. There is also no distinction made for number of engines, unlike fixed-wing ops.Absolutely amazing ! :eek:

I was assuming the "no rating below 12500 lbs" was referring to the CFI not the (FAA) PIC.
So pepole with big pockets can legally fly any helo type they can afford, after finishing basic training, as long as they find/manage to pay for insurance.
Very american, as long as someone will pay for the damage anything goes.
And on a technical note quite praticable, I have ferried an EC120 as de facto PIC ("trainee") once, not so different from the S300C ;)



As GG explained, type ratings don't apply until aircraft weight of 12500 pounds (or turbojet-powered in the stuck-wing world). A helicopter CFI offering flight reviews for 206 and 22, in your example, wouldn't be type-rated in those aircraft because there is no type rating. He or she could conduct your flight review in the 269. However, if the CFI has no experience in that type, they very well may decline. I would think no instructor would be willing to give a flight review in a type where they aren't comfortable with doing autos, because they have no way to know if you're going to be competent at autos, either. Insurance might have a say in the matter, too. So as he ain't FAA type rated for a helo type below 12500 because there is no such thing in FAA land,
she'd perfectly suited to sign off my BFR should she decide so. As long as an FAA CFI has a class rating of helicopter I could do my BFR with him.


As GG said, you could do a flight review in an R22, and you would be legal to fly the 269. Of course, if you'd never flown the 22, this would be rather pointless. You wouldn't be competent after an hour or two, and it wouldn't do anything to check your competence in the 269. Because I'm fixed and rotary, I would do my flight review in an R44, and it would cover me for both operations. Part 61 just says you must accomplish a flight review in an aircraft for which you are rated. There are FAA regs that apply to legality but not necessarily safety, like the currency vs. proficiency argument. so there is no complicated annual prof. check, rolling through ones TRs, like under EASA regime, any one single BFR does the trick for all classes one is certified. :eek:
Way less hassle under FAA rules and much cheaper,too!

Thx for explaining that in such detail, and apologies to GG for questioning his excellent, highly condensed previous explanation,
I'm certainly spolied by EASA's habit of making everything super complex.

[rotorfan]

Glad it helps, Reely. The FAA is a large government bureaucracy and has problems like most, but sometimes they do things that make you look twice, because you expect something to be more complicated than it is.

The idea of the flight review isn't just to see if you can handle the controls. It's more about seeing if you know airspace types and weather requirements, read the symbols on a chart, understand PIC if more than one pilot aboard, etc. The instructor has wide latitude on what to test you on. You can see that the items above would not be specific to a given aircraft type. I can't really imagine how cumbersome it would be, and expensive, to do an annual review for any airframe you're qualified in. I've long been a renter (SFH) pilot, so might fly a half-dozen different planks or helis in a year. I could not afford to retest in each.

[B2N2]

It would behove you to do the flight review in the most complex machine you're rated in and not the simplest.
It's also a safety and practice event.
It would always irk me for people to show up to do a review in a C152 while they're ME rated.
You own your own twin but you're to cheap to do your review in one?
Ugh....