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)


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.

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.

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.

A pilot flying on the strength of his 61.75 has the choice of which medical is valid from an FAA standpoint. 61.75(b)(4) could not be more transparent and requires no interpretation.

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.

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.

Licence
 

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)

You can't be a Commercial Pilot on a 61.75.......

61.75 - continued
 

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.

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.

Validation
 

Yes you can, I have one, but with all the restrictions on it you can't do much.

But true, they do not issue it anymore.

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.

The first of potentially many legal actions is threatened.

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).

No it's not. You are just restricted to DAY VFR jus the same as a Class 2 in the UK is restricted. It is a fact that the pilot was unable to fly at night due to colour blindness.

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.