Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 59
Posts: 1,345
"This accident, like so many before it, was caused by the pilot’s decision to undertake the flight in which the likelihood of encountering instrument conditions existed, in the mistaken belief that he could cope with en route instrument weather conditions, without having the necessary familiarization with the instruments in the aircraft and without being properly certificated to fly solely by instruments."
Civil Aeronautics Board Aircraft Accident Report on the "Buddy Holly" accident, released on September 23, 1959.
Useful site: https://lessonslearned.faa.gov/index.cfm
Civil Aeronautics Board Aircraft Accident Report on the "Buddy Holly" accident, released on September 23, 1959.
Useful site: https://lessonslearned.faa.gov/index.cfm
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 843
I don't see anything in 61.75 that would allow an instrument rating to be added
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
A licence issued under 61.75 is a perfectly valid licence in its own right. Where a 61.75 licence holder passes a US IR Check Ride and completes the US IR written, the 61.75 will be endorsed with the phrase "INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE U.S. TEST PASSED".
Where the 61.75 licence holder has an ICAO instrument rating on his underlying licence, he can also validate that onto his he US licence by passing a cut-down version of the US IR written aimed at foreign pilots (known as the IFP). Whilst there is a little inconsistency on licence endorsements, the standard licence endorsement goes along the lines INSTRUMENT FOREIGN PILOT TEST PASSED
Where the 61.75 licence holder has an ICAO instrument rating on his underlying licence, he can also validate that onto his he US licence by passing a cut-down version of the US IR written aimed at foreign pilots (known as the IFP). Whilst there is a little inconsistency on licence endorsements, the standard licence endorsement goes along the lines INSTRUMENT FOREIGN PILOT TEST PASSED
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,219
Originally Posted by 2Donkeys
A licence issued under 61.75 is a perfectly valid licence in its own right. Where a 61.75 licence holder passes a US IR Check Ride and completes the US IR written, the 61.75 will be endorsed with the phrase "INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE U.S. TEST PASSED".
Where the 61.75 licence holder has an ICAO instrument rating on his underlying licence, he can also validate that onto his he US licence by passing a cut-down version of the US IR written aimed at foreign pilots (known as the IFP). Whilst there is a little inconsistency on licence endorsements, the standard licence endorsement goes along the lines INSTRUMENT FOREIGN PILOT TEST PASSED
Where the 61.75 licence holder has an ICAO instrument rating on his underlying licence, he can also validate that onto his he US licence by passing a cut-down version of the US IR written aimed at foreign pilots (known as the IFP). Whilst there is a little inconsistency on licence endorsements, the standard licence endorsement goes along the lines INSTRUMENT FOREIGN PILOT TEST PASSED
If you validate an ICAO license to get an FAA 61.75 license, the only thing granted is PPL rights.
You add additional ratings and endorsements on the FAA 61.75 as if it would be a new license.
Experience from you foreign license will be evaluated and you may get easier access or waivers of exams for certain parts, i.e. for an ICAO IR to do a fast track FAA IR test.
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.
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.
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: 1,219
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: 638
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: 7,202
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: 46
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 13:21. Reason: change spacing to get rid of silly "emoticon"
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,032
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: 843
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: 1,219
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.
