Originally Posted by
Gustosomerset
Reely - your summary of the 61.75 certificate regulations as 'Darwin sorting out the gene pool' is, IMHO, unimprovable. The fact that so few people appear to understand them only lends weight to your definition.
In answer to your other question: "Is that section saying that piggy back FAA lic w/o BFR + EASA lic + medical is not sufficient to fly N-reg aircraft ?", in my understanding, the answer is, yes, it is not sufficient (if you are hoping to fly the N reg aircraft on the validity of your FAA 61.75 certificate).Or to put it as a string of TLAs (three later acronyms) if you prefer: 61.75 lic (FAA 'piggy back' certificate) without BFR (valid 24 month Bi-annual flight review and logbook endorsement) plus EASA lic (EASA 'foreign' license) + medical (EASA approved medical) = PYL (Pushing Your Luck).
Although the 61.75 certificate is very permissive in terms of the aircraft it allows you to fly, the requirement for the periodic flight review and logbook endorsement is mandatory to preserve its validity, whatever the validity of the EASA license and medical on which it is based.
Thx for the fast response. Your answer is what I had presumed: an FAA piggy back lic has its own renewal scheme, namely the BFR. Nice, simple and relatively cheap.
The final question is what happenes when
after acquiring a piggy back lic and maintaining a recent enough BFR
all my EASA TRs have expired, from FAA's point of view? The EASA lic is valid indefinitely, albeit als TRs have expired.
FAA won't care, as long as the BFR is younger than 24 Months, is that true?