What do I need to fly a turbine?

[flyinbeaver]

I hold a CAA PPL, and an FAA Private Pilot Certificate which piggy-backs on my UK licence. I'm told that the FAA certificate is only valid for anything that can legally fly on my UK licence, but I can't find where that is written so I don't know if thats true or not.

If I want to fly an N reg turbine in the UK, anyone know what additional licence / letter of authority I need? If I had a "stand alone" FAA Pilots certificate, I guess I would be okay, but my CAA licence is SEP, the P being piston so I guess that means it isn't valid for a turbine variant of an aircraft I already have experience of?

The guys who fly JPs seem to get some sort of letter of authority. Can I get something similar? If so, any idea how? If I wanted to fly to France, would that still be valid?

Thanks in advance to anyone who knows their way around the minefield that is aircrew licencing!:sad:

[BackPacker]

I'm told that the FAA certificate is only valid for anything that can legally fly on my UK licence,

Initially that's true, but AFAIK you can add ratings and such to the FAA PPL, even if it's a piggyback. But you're building a house of cards which can be brought down by something as simple as a license number change of the underlying CAA CPL.

Flying a turbine is going to cost you big money in any case. Why not set aside some of that money, take a commercial flight to the US and get a standalone FAA CPL there? With your current experience that should maybe be a weeks work. This will avoid a significant portion of the minefields.

Your SEP license indeed doesn't cover turbines. You either need a SET rating or a type rating, depending on the aircraft you want to fly.

[flyinbeaver]

Thanks Backpacker. I had thought of doing that because I think it makes the insurance a little cheaper too (every little helps!) but I wanted to check out the options and see if there was a paperwork route that worked.

Now all I need to find is somewhere sunny that I can do a CPL

[IO540]

It is believed that if you have a UK PPL without say a PA46 Type Rating, and get an FAA piggyback PPL, you cannot fly an N-reg PA46, even though if you had a standalone FAA PPL then you could fly the PA46.

It kind of makes sense :confused:

Piggybacks are a hassle - as any of the hundreds of European holders will tell you, scrambling around to get the ICAO English Language statement added onto theirs...

I don't know what is involved in getting a PA46 TR here in the UK ... probably a lot more than it takes to go to the USA and do a PPL checkride :)

[ab33t]

There is a little statement on the back of the FAA pigyback licence that states all restrictions of foreign licence apply , now how about that for a can of worms.....

[Genghis the Engineer]

There is a little statement on the back of the FAA pigyback licence that states all restrictions of foreign licence apply , now how about that for a can of worms.....

Very necessary when the FAA PPL includes night training, but in JAAland a night qualification is separate.

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

It is believed that if you have a UK PPL without say a PA46 Type Rating, and get an FAA piggyback PPL, you cannot fly an N-reg PA46, even though if you had a standalone FAA PPL then you could fly the PA46.

It kind of makes sense :confused:

Piggybacks are a hassle - as any of the hundreds of European holders will tell you, scrambling around to get the ICAO English Language statement added onto theirs...

I don't know what is involved in getting a PA46 TR here in the UK ... probably a lot more than it takes to go to the USA and do a PPL checkride :)

There are special rules on the PA46 for JAA licences at-least - see here (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=175&pagetype=90&pageid=4461), page 2, which also explains how to get a single engine turbine rating on your JAA PPL.

G

[IO540]

Interesting GTE :ok:

So no need to sit the 14 ATPL exams to fly a piston PA46 on a UK PPL.

But the Meridian, and presumably the Jetprop too, needs the ATPL exams.

So much better to get the standalone FAA PPL. Then one can fly the TP versions.

Why does the CAA require this ludicrous level of theoretical knowledge? The management of a JP is by all accounts easier than the management of the PA46 piston engine which from the # of in-flight issues seems to be hanging in there by the skin of its teeth.

[lotusexige]

Given that to make use of a tutbine aircraft rather than just fly it an IR is need a full FAA licence and IR would seem to make the most sense.
I would suspect that at the end of the day keeping the insurance company happy may be the decideing factor.

[IO540]

The Lasors extract, if I read it right, says than an IR is not enough for a PA46 TP unless you have also done the ATPL exams.

I agree an FAA PPL/IR is the minimum worthwhile level. A friend of mine flies a JP.

[IO540]

But those are trivial relative to sitting 14 ATP exams, no? :)

Makes me smile to see the "CFI" requirement. In the UK, a "CFI" is basically anybody who has made themselves relatively senior at the flying school. But the CAA loves this stuff.

[Big Pistons Forever]

IO540

In the US a "CFI" is a Certified Flight Instructor, that is someone who has a flight instructor rating on their license. Commonweath nations tend to all use "QFI" or Qualified Flight Instructor to describe this kind of individual and "CFI" is used to describe the QFI who holds the Chief Flying Instructor position......it is often a source of confusion here in Canada since we are next door to the Americans.

[IO540]

Yes, here AIUI a "CFI" is basically a self-appointed title. You could be a one-man flight training outfit and then you are of course a "CFI". In a bigger business, the CFI will be the one who has been hanging around the longest. It has no legal meaning I know of.

The FAA CFI/CFII I know about. These are specific ratings.

Back to a Jetprop - there may be an interesting twist here. These could never be G-reg and AFAIK still cannot be. But a lot (10-20?) were registered in Europe over the years, in (IIRC) Belgium or Netherlands or something like that. These are now JAA/EASA-reg and can presumably be flown on JAA licenses. I wonder if that country where they are registered also has the same ATPL-exam requirement to fly a JP? I find it hard to believe that all those pilots would have sat the 14 ATP exams just to fly a JP, when they could all have gone the FAA route.

Of course, most JPs in Europe are under the FAA system anyway...

[BackPacker]

I know a PA46 w/JetProp conversion on the Dutch register.

The (four) people that are now licensed to fly this aircraft all have JAA ATPLs, I think. CPLs at the very least. The main problem was the lack of JAA examiners on type. Only three or so people in the whole of Europe had JAA instructor/examiner authorities for this type, and two of them were unavailable. The third gave the TR course (in his own aircraft) but thereby was automatically disqualified from proctoring the exam. Eventually the Dutch authorities decided that the best cause of action was to put the examinee up front, the instructor in the RHS as safety pilot, and a non-TR JAA examiner in the back to proctor the exam.

If anyone is seriously interested in finding out more about this aircraft and the way the paperwork was handled, send me a PM and I can get you in touch with the owners/pilots.

[BillieBob]

But the Meridian, and presumably the Jetprop too, needs the ATPL exams.No, it doesn't. The ATPL exams are not a pre-requisite for any SPA class or type rating; if the aircraft is designated as HPA, then the requirement is to complete an approved HPA course or have passed the ATPL exams. Neither is there a pre-requisite for an IR for any SPA class or type rating, although it's difficult to see the point of an HPA type rating without one.These could never be G-reg and AFAIK still cannot be.Why not? The PA46DLX appears as a type in the EASA type rating endorsement list and so there is no reason why it should not be put on the UK register. Neither is there any problem with endorsing the type rating on a JAA licence provided, of course, that you can find a TRTO that holds approval to conduct the course.

[IO540]

Maybe it is possible today but it appears to be widely known that the UK CAA refused to do it.

I never looked into it myself since I can't afford a Jetprop :)

Edit: it is of course definitely possible now, post Sep 2008, under EASA, because any EU certification acceptance is grandfathered all over the EU.

[Grassfield]

I've got the same type of question, but not entirely.

I have a JAA CPL/IR and I want to fly a N-reg turbine (single engine) plane. So from what I understand the whole route getting a ´piggy back´ Private + Instrument FAA license is not really an option since I cannot fly the turbine on my underlying JAA license.

BAsed on this I'm left with two options:

1) Get the above (´piggy back´FAA) AND a SET (Single Engine Turbine) rating in JAA environment. I assume I could then fly turbine since my underlying JAA license allows this (with the SET rating) and I have the ´piggy back´ Private+Instrument. The issue with this is I would guess that the SET standalone is not enough as I probably also need a typerating on the aircraft. For a PA46 I believe it would be relatively easy as there are quite a number of those flying in Europe BUT if I want to fly e.g. a turbine conversion like the P210 Silver Eagle how do I get a type rating on that (but do I need a TR for these?) since these are most likely N-reg and I don't have the FAA piggy back yet. In addition if doing a SET rating on e.g. PA46 I would have paid extra for the SET rating since I would need proper training (TR ?)) on e.g. P210 Silver Eagle anyway.

2) Get a standalone full privileges FAA private + instrument (e.g. through fixing theoretical exams at Flight Safety in Paris and then practical check rides in the US) and then voila, I wouldn´t need the SET rating issue in JAA land given the beauty of the FAA license.

Which option would you choose and Why?

Grateful for any insights on this.

/Grass field

[IO540]

If you have the time to go standalone FAA then do that, because it will give you a separate set of papers which will always be yours, regardless of what happens in Europe.

Too many people have had too much hassle with piggyback stuff. It was popular in the goode olde days when you could pick it up at the London Heathrow FAA office, quite a few years ago. Today, it is a house of cards.

[Grassfield]

What´s your estimate of the time needed in the US assuming good weather there and that I´m current in flying SE IFR?

Costwise, are there any obvious differences? Of course the devil is in the detail, but I guess going to the US would require a few extra hours of training and chek outs before the actual check rides but on the other hand I don´t need to spend time on a SET rating in JAA land which I guess is EXPENSIVE...

[BackPacker]

Costwise, are there any obvious differences?

You're going to fly a turbine privately and you're worried about the cost of obtaining the TR?:confused:

[Flyin'Dutch']

I would be very interested to see anywhere in the FARs that you can not fly a PA46 on an FAA license [sic] issued in accordance with FAR 61.75 (aka piggyback licence)

[IO540]

FD - it appears to be because the underlying (JAA) license needs a TR. The 61.75 cannot do something the underlying one doesn't support.

Grassfield - if I understand you correctly, you need to do both an FAA PPL and an FAA IR. You need the FAA PPL to be worldwide-legal in an N-reg TP (below 12500lb), and if you fly IFR outside the country which issued your JAA PPL/IR (Sweden I assume) then you also need an FAA IR because (I can't recall the FAR reference but could dig it out) if you fly IFR, the IR has to be on the same certificate on which you are then flying, and (ref 61.3) once outside Sweden you cannot be flying on your JAA PPL. Not many JAA IR holders know this... And the FAA has definitely clarified the 61.3 v. JAA business; it is being strictly interpreted on the word "issued"; I have the refs if you need them.

The time to do a standalone FAA PPL/IR, assuming a current JAA PPL/CPL/IR holder, and assuming you get the medical and the 2 exams done separately, should be about 2 weeks. If you are really good it should take only days, but even a week is tight when it comes to getting used to a different plane, etc, etc. My IR took 2 weeks (in Arizona) and I already knew the ropes. If you can get an FAA CPL, go for that rather than a PPL.

[S-Works]

I would be very interested to see anywhere in the FARs that you can not fly a PA46 on an FAA license [sic] issued in accordance with FAR 61.75 (aka piggyback licence

It's printed right on the certificate itself. The underlying licence must be valid, the 61.75 infers no extra privileges that the underlying does not carry. Under JAA any TP is required to have a specific class or type rating.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I think it is impossible to fully answer the question without knowing what experience that the original poster, has. If he she just has a bare CAA PPL with a few VFR hours than they have alot more to think about than deciding how to arrange licensing as they will not have the skills to safely fly this aircraft regardless of what piece of paper they hold. In this case I would suggest going to one of the large established US schools and converting to a stand alone FAA PPL and then completeing a full FAA IR program would seem to be the most usefull way to proceed. They could then do the Flight Safety type rating course followed by a period of extensive mentoring by an expereinced pilot (probably 150 to 250 hrs would be required).

On the other hand if they allready have extensive expereince flying a pressurized aircraft in all weathers and at high altitudes than obviously things are different. I personally still think a stand alone license is still the best way to go as it removes any ambiguity. The problem is with a piggy back you have to conform to the regulations of both the piggyback state and the underlying issuing state. It is hard enough staying compliant with one state's regulations why add the burden of another set of rules to worry about ?

[Grassfield]

Sorry for late reply. Work committments etc...

First of all, Backpacker, I´m not really worried but just thought it would be money down the drain compared to actually spending that money on training on the model actually intended to fly...

IO, I agree the cleanest way (and as you say probably the only allowed way) is to get both FAA PPL + FAA IR to seriously be able to fly across Europe. I´m not trying to outsmart the ´system´ by having different pieces of the puzzle and hoping that it works overall anyway. Full FAA rights (PPL+IR) and/or Full JAA rights (PPL+IR)! As a general comment, it is quite interesting (and misleading) in my own experience that as soon as one starts talking about flying N-reg everyone says: oh it´s so easy just do a ´piggy back´, it´s just paperwork... well.. not quite... :rolleyes:

Regarding the time needed, thanks for your estimate, IO. I guess: 1w could work if one is really proficient, on the ball and has a bit of luck with weather availability of aircraft/instructors/examiners, but for safety and Murphy's law allow for up to 2 weeks.

IO, how much extra time on place would one require for the FAA CPL vs. the PPL. I know, not possible to answer precisely. But at least ball park, do I need an extra week for CPL vs. PPL there or more a day or two to prove that one is competent to fly to higher standards (precision, procedures, etc)?

The issue though is that I think for personal reasons 2w is going to be challenging being 'away' from family/work. Would it be possible to actually do any of the standalone FAA PPL and FAA IR licenses in Europe? Otherwise I´ll just do it on two separate occasions (~1w each).

Big Pistons, I got a couple of hundred hours( >600) and CPL/IR and regularly fly SE IFR (non-pressurized but with OX) in Europe. So what I´m realistically aiming for based on the discussions in the thread is to go to the states (after having done theoretical exams at Flight safety in London or Paris) and do the extra training they deem necessary and then do the practical flight exams. This is for the licenses only. Getting comfortable and proficient on flying (SE) turbine is of course a different story and I evidently would allow for the necessary time on a separate training. Any views of how much time one needs? As a comparison how much time does a SET class rating in Europe on e.g. PA46T take?

Thanks for all your helpful answers so far. I hope I can get some clarification on the outstanding ones.

Cheers,

GF

[IO540]

how much extra time on place would one require for the FAA CPL vs. the PPL

Well......... it depends on how much you do before you go there.

The CPL involves more theory, so more revision for the exam. But you will be doing that in the UK, right? So that doesn't count.

The CPL involves more maneuvers (chandelles, etc). But you can practice these here in the UK, flying solo, until you get sick of them. I was doing hundreds of lazy eights all the way down the south coast until I was getting them perfect :) I was lucky to be able to do my CPL checkride in the UK, in my own plane, a month or two before the visiting examiners were permanently blocked by the NY IFO.

If you get prepared in this way before going to the USA, the extra time is negligible. The CPL checkride doesn't take any longer.

The time in the USA depends partly on your ability to adjust to (potentially) different aircraft types, different "English accents" ;), different ways of doing things. Here, I fly a nice TB20 but did the IR in an old PA28-161 which is a completely different animal and the only good thing I could say about it is that it flies slowly so you have more time to plan :) It was totally unsuitable for any kind of real IFR but was OK for the nonstop VOR/LOC/GS-banging which the FAA IR involved. I reckon I wasted 3 days (6 hours) getting up to speed on it. The radio might take you a day or two to suss; the small-airport controllers don't speak Queen's English out there. This is why pilots have tried to do checkrides in Europe, in their own plane, paying vast amounts of money for it, but hey this is another story :) The good thing about the US route is that it is well organised, well defined, cheap, you go there, get your head down, and just get on with it.

[421C]

I would be very interested to see anywhere in the FARs that you can not fly a PA46 on an FAA license [sic] issued in accordance with FAR 61.75 (aka piggyback licence
It's printed right on the certificate itself. The underlying licence must be valid, the 61.75 infers no extra privileges that the underlying does not carry. Under JAA any TP is required to have a specific class or type rating


Bose,
I am not sure I agree. This question relates to a number of regulatory points, not all of which may be as directly linked as you suggest.

The 61.75 is issued on the basis of a valid non-US PPL. Valid means "not expired". The privileges carried over on to the US certificate are under the US classifications - ie. ASEL rather than SEP.

It is a separate issue that, under the certification rules in Europe, a particular airplane on the JAA register carries the requirement for a TR. But the certification is different in the US.

I guess what I am saying is that the requirement for a TR is not a property of the underlying non-US licence. Has the UK filed a difference with ICAO that the PPL may not fly a turbine aircraft? No (AFAIK). It's not a licence property, it's a feature of the JAA aircraft Class and Type list.

I am not advising anyone on anything, and have no idea whether the points above are valid or not, only saying that, to me, it's not obvious.

brgds
421C

[Grassfield]

Thanks for your input IO, I take your point in that extra time for the practical part for the CPL final training and checkride is limited assuming one is current and comfortable at throwing the lazy eights, chandelles, low flight, etc. Main difference is the theoretical. Good point also on potential extra time spent on getting ´familiarised´on other aircraft over there when one is pressed on time.

Just of curiosity which organization did you use do actually do the FAA checkride in Europe? I´ve come across some places in Europe on the net that offer the training part but only one place that seem to offer full FAA training and checkride in Europe - Orbifly. Did you use them?

421C, I´m not sure if you´re opening a can of worms here now implying that it may be possible to fly the PA46 on a piggyback FAA PPL...? You say "it´s not obvious´ - but are you seriously implying it could be done? :confused:

[englishal]

The privileges carried over on to the US certificate are under the US classifications - ie. ASEL rather than SEP.
But it also says "all limitations on the foreign license apply". If a JAA PPL limits one to "SEP" then the FAA one will limit the pilot to "SEP"....If a JAA PPL with ME rating limits one to MEP then one cannot fly a B200 turboprop without a TR, which you could do with the FAA certificate.

[421C]

You say "it´s not obvious´ - but are you seriously implying it could be done?
No, I'm saying it's not obvious it can't be done.


But it also says "all limitations on the foreign license apply". If a JAA PPL limits one to "SEP" then the FAA one will limit the pilot to "SEP


A JAA PPL doesn't limit one to SEP. A JAA SEP Class Rating limits you to SEP.
But an FAA ASEL Class Rating includes Single-Engine Turboprops, just as a AMEL includes Twin Turboporps. And the 61.75 is awarded an FAA Class Rating under Priviliges seperate from the Limitations comment about the foreign license. The 61.75 doesn't say "all limitations of the foreign class rating apply".

I repeat, however, this is just a forum discussion and ignore these points for any other purpose.

Of course to operate a pressurised aircraft with a ceiling above 25000' on an FAA Certificate you need a high altitude endorsement.

brgds
421C

[S-Works]

I am working on guidance from the UK CAA that says you can't do it which is based on discussion between them and the FAA. If you want clarification on an individual basis you will need to seek opinion from both.

[421C]

Bose,

I've got little doubt the CAA don't think it can be done. There's a surprise! It's the CAA and the JAA system that escalated light aircraft like the PA46 into the realm of Type Ratings. It's ridiculous. The Piston PA46 "Type Rating" is the silliest of all - the idea a 2t piston single needs a type rating. Therefore, the CAA's mindset is hardly likely to be open to the concept. The idea that a 300kt 5.7t B200 could be flown on a Multi-Engine Class Rating must be a scandalous heresy to them....but, errrrr, the thousands of King Airs in the US fleet are operated exactly like that, and, like most of the panoply of JAA regulatory escalation, I've never seen any evidece that the paperwork and restrictions and complexity bring a safety benefit.

However, I don't think the CAA's view is particularly important here. The PPL is an ICAO licence. If your's carries specific Limitations (eg. no night flying) then those carry over to the 61.75. The limitations of the Class Rating are a seperate matter. The 61.75 makes no specific provision for that.

Let's be clear about the spirit and intent of the 61.75 regulation. It gives you a US certificate predicated on an underlying one with no further testing or training. It, sensibly, carries over any Licence limitations - because if you have a particular limitation on your underlying PPL (like no Night flight, because no Night flight training was undertaken) then it makes sense for that limitation to be "carried over".

There is no analogous, inherent Licence limitation relating to light turbine aircraft in the JAA system. It's a Class Rating "limitation". When a 61.75 carries an ASEL Class Rating, 14 CFR does not specifiy how any limitations of the underlying Class Rating are carried over. It doesn't need to, because you must comply with the limitations of the FAA ASEL class rating - its currency requirements etc.

Ultimately, this feels to me like a question to the FAA senior legal office. If the CAA call a contact in the FAA and ask "hey, our PPL has a limitation which doesn't allow turbine aircraft to be flown, would this carry over to a 61.75?" then I can imagine someone in the FAA might say "yes, ok, the limitation carries over". But phrased another, and more accurate, way, I believe the correct answer should be different.

brgds
421C

[S-Works]

In interesting point. I know the answer I have had from Orlando FSDO is that a 61.75 does not allow you to override the limitations of an underlying licence and as far as they are concerned requiring a type rating for certain types is a limitation as far as JAA are concerned.

Perhaps it is worth you asking the question as you suggest of FAA Legal Council, you are a far better wordsmith than I.

[421C]

I can't say the question interests me enough. I can believe the answer from a FSDO would depend on how the question was put. If you put it as a Licence limitation, then what else are they going to say? If you put it as a Class Rating limitation, that's another matter. I don't know what the answer would be. It may well be that, because the underlying Class Rating is limited to Piston aircraft, this limitation is carried over to the ASEL Class Rating on the 61.75. The only point in this discussion I am convinced about is that it is not accurate to say the actual JAA Licence is limited to piston aircraft, it is the Class Rating.

Someone to whom it did matter, if based in Europe, should put it to the NY IFO initially. If there was something inherent in JAR-FCL that ommitted training relevant to flying a SET (or MET) that was included in the FAA PPL, then I could see it being a relevant "Licence limitation". But as we know, there is no such training difference, and I could imagine the FAA wouldn't care that a PA46 needed a Type Rating under the JAA.

brgds
421C