Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Originally Posted by ChickenHouse
A FAA 61.75 based on foreign license is not compatible with a 3rd class Medical, as the US easy access medical is non-ICAO standard, the pilot needs a valid ICAO medical on hisherit original license to fly.
(4) Holds a medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter or a medical license issued by the country that issued the person's foreign pilot license;
Certain other countries have expressed doubts about the FAA Class 3 medical, including our own beloved CAA, but the position I quote above is the US position in law.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Originally Posted by ChickenHouse
Sometimes they grant fast track evaluation on first validation if your ICAO license already has additional ratings, i.e. IR, but this is not for sure.
.
.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,277
Originally Posted by 2Donkeys
Not correct, I'm afraid. A part 61.75 licence is valid either on the basis of a valid medical supporting the underlying licence, or on the basis of an appropriate US medical (which for private pilot purposes includes the Class 3). Check out 61.75(b)(4)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Originally Posted by ChickenHouse
Now we come to penny-pickin'. The 61.75 license may be valid on the basis of a 3rd class medical - if ever anybody issues that on such constellation -, but as the underlying foreign license has to be valid to execute the rights on the 61.75 and I never heard of any foreign license granted execution rights on the basis of the non-ICAO US 3rd class medical, you need the appropriate medical of the underlying license to render that valid.
When a pilot is flying outside the US, in reliance on his 61.75 licence (such as a pilot on a UK PPL and FAA 61.75 flying an N-reg outside the UK) the same principle applies. The underlying UK PPL is not rendered invalid by reason of the absence of a UK medical. If the pilot has the correct FAA medical, then he has a valid licence.
Where that pilot seeks to do something which relies on his UK licence (such as exercising the privileges of an IMC rating whilst in UK airspace), then his UK licence needs to be valid, up to and including his UK medical.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 712
2Donkeys has it correct as easily verified by actually reading the CFRs.
To reiterate:
If you have an ICAO IR you only need pass the FAA IFP knowledge test to get the IR on your FAA piggyback certificate when first issued.
The medical can be either FAA or from the country that issued the licence on which your piggyback licence is based.
Chickenhouse:
The CFRs state the 61.75 certificate is valid based on either the FAA medical or the foreign medical. There is no "penny pinching". The regulation is clear enough and 2Donkeys already quoted it.
Also, the FAA medical is not "non-ICAO". It is ICAO compliant. ICAO does not issue medicals they only publish Standards and Recommended Practices. Filing a difference to a SARP with ICAO does not make something non-ICAO, merely non-standard.
To reiterate:
If you have an ICAO IR you only need pass the FAA IFP knowledge test to get the IR on your FAA piggyback certificate when first issued.
The medical can be either FAA or from the country that issued the licence on which your piggyback licence is based.
Chickenhouse:
Now we come to penny-pickin'. The 61.75 license may be valid on the basis of a 3rd class medical - if ever anybody issues that on such constellation -, but as the underlying foreign license has to be valid to execute the rights on the 61.75 and I never heard of any foreign license granted execution rights on the basis of the non-ICAO US 3rd class medical, you need the appropriate medical of the underlying license to render that valid.
Also, the FAA medical is not "non-ICAO". It is ICAO compliant. ICAO does not issue medicals they only publish Standards and Recommended Practices. Filing a difference to a SARP with ICAO does not make something non-ICAO, merely non-standard.
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Bremen
Posts: 6
Licence
As has been quoted by others here, DI essentially had a US piggyback FAA 61.75 PPL no IR. This is normally gained for the purpose of holiday flying in the US or hour building there. According to airmen registry he also had an FAA Class 2 medical. Whether or not an FAA Commercial was pending update online, and was he flying with a FAA CPL temporary airmen certificate ? has not been addressed, my guess would be that he probably only held a 61.75 PPL and his UK licence. Therefore no requirement for FAA written exams for the issue of an FAA PPL and therefore it’s possible there was little to no knowledge of FAA regulations.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 64
Originally Posted by cessnapete
I have had a 61.75 for many years. Commercial Pilot, Single, MEP, Instrument Airplane. (I took the written IR exams in Frankfurt FAA office)
(No EASA IR)
(No EASA IR)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 48
61.75 - continued
Originally Posted by ChickenHouse
Absolutely correct! An FAA PLL 61.75 is a license on its own and handled as such. .
If a 61.75 issued PPL is subject to the limitation and restriction of the foreign licence then it is clearly not a licence on its own. (The 61.75 licence is not even valid unless the foreign licence is in the possession of the pilot.)
Can someone please point me to an example image of a UK PPL with no night rating. I was unable to find one.
Last edited by EXDAC; 6th Feb 2019 at 14:21. Reason: change spacing to get rid of silly "emoticon"
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,038
What is obvious from the last few posts, there seems to be quite a few pilots out there who don't understand the privileges of the licence they have, and thats from some posting on here, I can now only imagine how many there actually might be out there.
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Bremen
Posts: 6
Validation
A 61.75 piggyback FAA PPL would probably be better described as a licence validation, rather than a licence in it’s own right
Originally Posted by EXDAC
I don't understand how that position can be reconciled with 61.75 (e) Operating privileges and limitations. A person who receives a U.S. private pilot certificate that has been issued under the provisions of this section: ( 3) Is subject to the limitations and restrictions on the person's U.S. certificate and foreign pilot license when exercising the privileges of that U.S. pilot certificate in an aircraft of U.S. registry operating within or outside the United States; and
If a 61.75 issued PPL is subject to the limitation and restriction of the foreign licence then it is clearly not a licence on its own. (The 61.75 licence is not even valid unless the foreign licence is in the possession of the pilot.)
Can someone please point me to an example image of a UK PPL with no night rating. I was unable to find one.
If a 61.75 issued PPL is subject to the limitation and restriction of the foreign licence then it is clearly not a licence on its own. (The 61.75 licence is not even valid unless the foreign licence is in the possession of the pilot.)
Can someone please point me to an example image of a UK PPL with no night rating. I was unable to find one.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 875
Can someone please point me to an example image of a UK PPL with no night rating. I was unable to find one.
I no longer have an image of my old JAA licence but can confirm that it had no such rating / privilege. I did a separate night rating before going to the US to do the IR I referred to in my earlier post.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,277
AFAIK there is no set handling by EASA on how to document a night rating, correct? Some countries put *Night* in Section XII of Part.FCL licenses, some put *no Night* if not, some document nothing at all in the license, some do for PPL, but do not when *IR* is added - a mess.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 559
It seems to me that it is very difficult to get an FAA second-class medical certificate if you are colour blind and whatever UK ratings/licence were held, can I suggest the colour blindness is a red(?) herring?
The first of potentially many legal actions is threatened.‘It is understood Nantes are threatening legal action if they do not receive a payment within 10 days. BBC have attempted to speak to Nantes for a comment.’
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 947
Originally Posted by runway30
...can I suggest the colour blindness is a red(?) herring?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 64
It seems to me that it is very difficult to get an FAA second-class medical certificate if you are colour blind and whatever UK ratings/licence were held, can I suggest the colour blindness is a red(?) herring?
Nope, there is no such as a 61.75 CPL. The 61.75 purely gives PPL privileges based on whatever the underlying licence states. This is made VERY clear by the FSDO when collecting the certificate. You can add ratings to it. I hold both a 61.75 and full FAA CPL/IR and I added ratings to the 61.75 before realising I was building it on a house of cards and went for the full certificate.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 559
Originally Posted by what next
I wouldn't say so because if his alleged colour vision deficiency is a fact, then it would have prevented him from holding both the night and instrument ratings. Anywhere, UK, EASA and FAA. Unless he got an excemption of some kind (I once had a student who fought battles with the authorities for five years before he eventually got his night rating because of colour vision issues).
