Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Warks
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co...lford-15785933
prosecution alleges he was “running an illegal commercial flight”
prosecution alleges he was “running an illegal commercial flight”
If it is allowed then what would be the path to get the UK day only restriction removed, remembering that there is no FAA night rating?
Don't be fooled. The CAA enforcement system is an empty fraud. No more, no less.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Transcript of the Maximiliano Duarte interview.‘There is a great truth behind this tragedy and there is a culprit. Because Emiliano never decided to get on this plane. These are obligations that a professional player must accept. The representative ? He is the manager, totally. We forced Emi to take this plane at night. He had sent a very clear audio message on this subject. He wanted to spend the night there, rest quietly and leave the next day after having lunch properly to get in shape when arriving. I do not want to say more for now. We have an agreement between friends, relatives. As soon as everything is a little clearer, we will talk, "he explained.’
If it is allowed then what would be the path to get the UK day only restriction removed, remembering that there is no FAA night rating?
It came to my attention that a helicopter owner was offering sight seeing trips and there was a fare charged. The aircraft was a vintage piston single and flights were operated out of and over an urban area. This was shortly after the Glasgow helicopter crash. I contacted the CAA via their website and received a call a few days later asking for more details. I never heard anything officially, but the flights stopped. So perhaps if we report issues, there will be action. I think in the light of this accident, the CAA should be taking proactive action looking into some of these flights. It wouldn’t be hard to ask some questions of Air Traffic at certain airfields to get an idea of who to look at more closely.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blackfriar
The UK CAA do take action to discourage dubious public transport flights but must use their resources carefully, the result of this is that the inspectors turn up at places that are likely to be hot spots for this sort of activity.
I have been ramp checked twice on the Isle of Man during the TT races, these checks clearly looked like them going through the motions while waiting for their real targets to show up.
It is hardly surprising that they can’t show up at Nantes on a January day in the hope of catching one person with the resouces available to them but I suspect that there is more intelligence targeted activity than you might think. It is also likely that a word or to with people who have one foot ether side of the line stops illegal activity without going to court.
The trouble is there are always a few chancers who will step up when there is a few quid to be made and those who will cut corners on equipment and pilot training to increase that Proffit. Unfortunately the well meaning cost sharing legislation has further blurred the lines of these activities making the job of the CAA harder.
I have been ramp checked twice on the Isle of Man during the TT races, these checks clearly looked like them going through the motions while waiting for their real targets to show up.
It is hardly surprising that they can’t show up at Nantes on a January day in the hope of catching one person with the resouces available to them but I suspect that there is more intelligence targeted activity than you might think. It is also likely that a word or to with people who have one foot ether side of the line stops illegal activity without going to court.
The trouble is there are always a few chancers who will step up when there is a few quid to be made and those who will cut corners on equipment and pilot training to increase that Proffit. Unfortunately the well meaning cost sharing legislation has further blurred the lines of these activities making the job of the CAA harder.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(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
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is also not strictly correct. There is a specific process for endorsing a foreign ICAO IR onto a US 61.75 licence. It is the Instrument Foreign Pilot exam. The process does not vary and there is no 'sometimes' or 'fast track' about it. 61.75(d) sets out the process and requirements.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.