FAA 61.75 certificate

[Flyin'Dutch']

He had an FAA 61.75 certificate issued on the basis of his UK PPL / IR not realising that because he didn't have a standalone FAA cert, he also needed PA46 type on his UK licence.

What is the reference for that?

[Aerial Chauffeur]

What is the reference for that?

A 61.75 certificate is effectively a validation of the licence upon which it is based. It does NOT confer any new privileges. It merely allows you to exercise your existing ones in an 'N' reg. aircraft.

The ASEL class rating on a standalone FAA licence allows you to fly the PA46 (both the piston AND the turbine variants) whereas in JAA land, the PA46 requires a separate rating.

What appears to be an ASEL class rating on a 61.75 foreign based certificate would NOT allow you to fly an 'N' reg PA46 unless you already had the rating on the underlying foreign licence.

I know of a couple of people who didn't realise this and were flying illegally.

[421C]

A 61.75 certificate is effectively a validation of the licence upon which it is based. It does NOT confer any new privileges. It merely allows you to exercise your existing ones in an 'N' reg. aircraft.

Although I am probably wrong, I am personally not convinced of this.

Firstly, the 61.75 is a 61.75. It doesn't exactly fit the ICAO or common UK definition of "validation" (eg. a validation is generally time-limited) so there's no point in the logic of "it's effectively a validation therefore...."

Secondly, it is not quite right to say it does not confer any new privileges, since it obviously confers new privileges in respect of N-registered aircraft. The exact wording is "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".

I personally do not interpret the JAA type-specific class rating requirement for the PA46 as a "limitation" or "restriction" on a JAA PPL. The PA46 happens to appear as such on the EASA/JAA classification here:
http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/c/doc/List_of_Aeroplanes_class_and_TR_and_endorsement_list.pdf
But when you fly a US registered PA46, there is no such requirement.

It's also a matter of spirit and intent. IMHO 61.75 is worded to transfer a limitation inherent in a licence (like "no night flight") to the 61.75 certificate. I can not see any spirit or intent to transfer a silly JAA aircraft certification requirement. What about types not certified under JAA/EASA? Does that mean you can't fly them on a 61.75?

Having said all this, I think if one were flying an airplane where this question arises (ie. from the PA46 through to all the multi and single engine turboprops under 5.7t), the prudent thing would be to both get a stand-alone FAA certificate and to do the appropriate training in the US.

brgds
421C


PS. Please don't tell me about the UK CAA's view on this, since I don't think it has any bearing on it. Nor does an ad-hoc answer from an FAA source definitively resolve this kind of issue. I think it's a case law or FAA legal counsel office matter in interpreting 61.75.

[Aerial Chauffeur]

A standalone FAA licence IS as you say, the only safe option.

This makes interesting reading . . . .

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Nomad%20N22B,%20N6302W%2008-08.pdf

[421C]

Thanks AC, you are right. I wasn't aware of this.

On a purely abstract debating point, I am not totally convinced by the wording in the AAIB report.

Firstly, they have a habit of commenting on US regulations with some incredulity about how "standards" differ from Europe and implying that this is a safety risk. I think this is parochial and silly. Secondly, the account reads to me like the result of a couple of ad hoc queries to the FAA. Of course if you call someone in the FAA and say "hey, we have a licence limitation on our PPLs that says you can't fly an XYZ without a TR, does this carry over to a 61.75?" they will probably say "yep, I guess it does". This kind of issue gets resolved definitively in case law or by the FAA legal office, not by ad hoc queries.

I also think it is too strong to say that this kind of thing is "illegal". It is, at worst, a breach of a technicality of interpretation, which obviously could lead to certificate action and other penalties from the FAA, but is it "illegal"? I don't know. However, I know what you mean.

brgds
421C

[S-Works]

The BPA set up a working group as a result of this incident to review pilot licensing requirements which is ongoing.

[Aerial Chauffeur]

The BPA set up a working group as a result of this incident to review pilot licensing requirements which is ongoing.

I'm not sure that the BPA has any jurisdiction over pilot licensing. You are either qualified to fly something, or you're not.

The BPA has jurisdiction over determining who is or is not allowed to drop parachutists from an aircraft which they are otherwise qualified to fly.

[S-Works]

I was referring specifically to the requirements for parachute pilots to operate aircraft for the purpose of dropping parachutists under the auspices of the BPA.

The BPA has its own internal licensing and training requirements with a structure of Pilot Examiners and Chief Pilots who are responsible for the management of pilots involved in parachute operations.

The working groups has been reviewing these requirements.

[Flyin'Dutch']

AC

Think that 421C is right on the money.

[Aerial Chauffeur]

Think that 421C is right on the money.

I think that would depend on whether you regard a 61.75 certificate as a 'validation' or as a certificate in it's own right.

If it's a validation, then it merely validates in an 'N' reg what you can do in an aircraft registered in the state which issued your licence.

If it's a standalone certificate then potentially you could be right.

My argument would be that since it is only valid whilst the the components of the underlying licence are valid (licence, medical, class / type rating) then it is a validation.

[Flyin'Dutch']

My argument would be that since it is only valid whilst the the components of the underlying licence are valid (licence, medical, class / type rating) then it is a validation.

And that is where you then come in an interesting area of debate.

You CAN validate a license issued in accordance with §61.75 with either a medical which makes your underlying valid OR and FAA medical.

You MUST however have a BFR signed off in accordance with the FAA rules by an FAA Instructor.

Further interesting reading (especially for those who 'depend' on an FAA License issued in §61.75) by following this link; especially the bid where previous issueing ICAO Authorities are now defunct:

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/ND/8710_3E-C21.pdf

Enjoy

FD

For completeness, and antidote to insomnia, added in the wording of §61.75

As you see there are no references to type ratings etc etc etc.


§ 61.75 Private pilot certificate issued on the basis of a foreign pilot license.

top
(a) General. A person who holds a foreign pilot license at the private pilot level or higher that was issued by a contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation may apply for and be issued a U.S. private pilot certificate with the appropriate ratings if the foreign pilot license meets the requirements of this section.

(b) Certificate issued. A U.S. private pilot certificate issued under this section must specify the person's foreign license number and country of issuance. A person who holds a foreign pilot license issued by a contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation may be issued a U.S. private pilot certificate based on the foreign pilot license without any further showing of proficiency, provided the applicant:

(1) Meets the requirements of this section;

(2) Holds a foreign pilot license, at the private pilot license level or higher, that does not contain a limitation stating that the applicant has not met all of the standards of ICAO for that license;

(3) Does not hold a U.S. pilot certificate other than a U.S. student pilot certificate;

(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; and

(5) Is able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language. If the applicant is unable to meet one of these requirements due to medical reasons, then the Administrator may place such operating limitations on that applicant's pilot certificate as are necessary for the safe operation of the aircraft.

(c) Aircraft ratings issued. Aircraft ratings listed on a person's foreign pilot license, in addition to any issued after testing under the provisions of this part, may be placed on that person's U.S. pilot certificate for private pilot privileges only.

(d) Instrument ratings issued. A person who holds an instrument rating on the foreign pilot license issued by a contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation may be issued an instrument rating on a U.S. pilot certificate provided:

(1) The person's foreign pilot license authorizes instrument privileges;

(2) Within 24 months preceding the month in which the person applies for the instrument rating, the person passes the appropriate knowledge test; and

(3) The person is able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language. If the applicant is unable to meet one of these requirements due to medical reasons, then the Administrator may place such operating limitations on that applicant's pilot certificate as are necessary for the safe operation of the aircraft.

(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:

(1) May act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft of the United States in accordance with the pilot privileges authorized by this part and the limitations placed on that U.S. pilot certificate;

(2) Is limited to the privileges placed on the certificate by the Administrator;

(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

(f) Limitation on licenses used as the basis for a U.S. certificate. A person may use only one foreign pilot license as a basis for the issuance of a U.S. pilot certificate. The foreign pilot license and medical certification used as a basis for issuing a U.S. pilot certificate under this section must be written in English or accompanied by an English transcription that has been signed by an official or representative of the foreign aviation authority that issued the foreign pilot license.

(g) Limitation placed on a U.S. pilot certificate. A U.S. pilot certificate issued under this section can only be exercised when the pilot has the foreign pilot license, upon which the issuance of the U.S. pilot certificate was based, in the holder's possession or readily accessible in the aircraft.

[Doc. No. 25910, 62 FR 16298, Apr. 4, 1997, as amended by Amdt. 61–124, 74 FR 42556, Aug. 21, 2009]

[Aerial Chauffeur]

the FAA reg is pretty clear in that it does not confer any additional privileges to those already permitted on the foreign license

This is my understanding also.

Ultimately, the test comes if someone flying a PA46 on a 61.75 bends it. I'm not so sure that the insurance company would pay out.

[flybymike]

I note that even the AAIB has fallen into the "Biannual/Biennial trap"..

[Flyin'Dutch']

The CAA's view that in order to fly a G-reg PA46 one needs a TR is not a limitation of the licence and is very different from say the issue that if you hold a vanilla JAR licence issued by the CAA you can not fly on a §61.75 at night.

But really these things are all of no real life interest. As 421C says people can debate these things ad nauseam; ultimately it will depend on case law what the reality is.

Trouble is that people get too entrenched to see the bigger picture.

Getting a standalone FAA License is pretty straightforward for most people as is the notion that when you start flying something more serious it probably pays to get some type specific training.

Whether that needs to be a formal TR as mandated by the CAA is something one can debate but I would have thought that most folks flying a Nomad to carry a fairly large bunch of people about, would do so as a matter of course.

[englishal]

Seems pretty clear cut to me:

"All limitations on the foreign license apply"....

[IO540]

I would not fly an N-reg PA46 on a 61.75 piggyback PPL if my UK PPL did not have the PA46 rights.

I can see the debate both ways but doing this is just asking for attention or trouble, because common sense (FWIW) tells you that this is not legal.

Especially if as a result of "pilot forum self publicity", complete with pictures of me in the LHS, etc, etc, the whole world knew what I was doing :)

I can see why somebody might do it. Getting the UK entitlement is (or was) a fair bit of work ;)

The CAA is highly unlikely to test this in a court (they almost never prosecute on any kind of technicality like this; if they did then much of the Cirrus fleet would have been busted by now for not having, at some stage, an ADF/DME) but an insurer definitely would if facing a sizeable claim.

The AAIB has little credibility these days, IMHO, because of their stupid "politics of envy" swipes at N-reg aircraft, etc. Anybody who does that cannot possibly be objective and impartial in any other department. OTOH they are a lot less hard-hitting than they could be in some cases; perhaps legal threats prevent them expressing a view on e.g. dodgy maintenance, in a case where a big chunk of somebody's camshaft ought to have been found in the oil filter.

[S-Works]

I have always had doubts as to whether it was permitted or not. There is no restriction on the underlying licence as a TR is not a restriction. Nobody at either the CAA or the FAA ever gave a straight answer (which is why I flew on a full FAA certificate rather than a 61.75).

I still think it is clearly open for debate though.

[421C]

The comparison of not having TR is exactly the same as not having a night capability


I disagree. If you have a plain JAA PPL, you may never have done any night training or night solo (unlike the FAA PP Cert). Therefore, this is a licence restriction and carries over to the 61.75. There is absolutely zero difference in the training between an FAA PP Cert vs JAA PPL which has any relevance to flying a piston PA46.


How can anybody think that a validation confers additional privileges that were limitations on the Euro license. The FAA regs are clear and specific that all limitations and restrictions on the foreign license apply..
Of course it confers additional privileges. It confers many additional privileges of a US pilot certifcate holder in respect of US registered aircraft. A US registered PA46 has no "type rating" requirement, unlike a JAA registered one.


Whether that needs to be a formal TR as mandated by the CAA is something one can debate but I would have thought that most folks flying a Nomad to carry a fairly large bunch of people about, would do so as a matter of course

Why "as a matter of course"? What basis do the AAIB or CAA have to judge what is required to fly a Nomad, given there has never been on on the UK register? Now, as a matter of course, responsible pilots get appropriate training. But who says that has to be the JAA TR, with all the paraphenalia and bureacracy of a Type Rating for types which (in some cases) have been certified and operated for decades as aircraft not requiring a type rating. We have a European knee-jerk thing that any increment in regulation must be a good thing and improve safety. I don't believe it is. Most of the worlds fleet of sub-5.7t turboprops operate on the N-register perfectly safely.

However, there is a difference between the piston PA46 and the turboprops in terms of this discussion. The JAA Class Rating is "Single/Multi Engine Piston Land" unlike the FAA "Airplane Single/Multi Engine Land". Therefore, the restriction not to fly a turboprop is more clear than the issue of the PA46-310/350P.

I don't read the AAIB comments on N-reg aircraft as "politics of envy". They simply start from a fixed idea that more regulation must be a good thing and then comment in various disparaging ways on the US model.

However, as we have all agreed, the only sensible course would be to get a stand-alone FAA PP Cert. Whether one chose to also do a European TR or a US non-TR training course is another matter. There are plenty of excellent instructors and examiners in Europe, but for many of the relevant types there are no type-specific simulator resources in Europe and plenty in the US, so one might prefer a US course at somewhere like SimCom, FSI or CAE.

brgds
421C

[dublinpilot]

Of course if a pilot didn't want to do a type rating on their JAA licence for a PA46 to make sure all was perfectly clean, they could simply do a full FAA PPL (probably easier than the type rating for JAR).

I too can see the arguments both way. But so long as there was a reasonable argument that I would be illegal, I would not fly. I'd want to be 100% sure that I was legal.....I just don't need that hassle!

dp

[Fuji Abound]

421C

Strangely I find myself in total agreement with you (again!).

I really dont understand how it is possible to make this one so complicated. The legislation is crystal clear and there is very little wriggle room.

I have never understood how a distinction is drawn between types when it comes to light aircraft. In theory it would seem to be based on complexity of systems. However it seems just as daft that you could "leap" from a Warrior to a Cirrius to SET when in reality you woudl be daft to make either transition without additional training.

[421C]

What part of "All limitations and restrictions... apply" - is not clear?
The part about whether the type-specific class rating requirements for a PA46 on a JAA register are a licence limitation or restriction for the purposes of 61.75.

Was he licensed to fly the aircraft on his UK license - No.
But is he licensed to fly any N-register aircraft outside the UK on his UK license? No. So does this mean he can't on fly N-register aircraft on his 61.75? Obviously not. Likewise, he can't use his UK PPL without a JAA medical. But he can use a 61.75 with an FAA medical only.

..so, the logic of "he can't do it on his UK license therefore he can't do it on his 61.75" simply does not work in every case. What if it's a type not certified by the UK CAA or JAA? Obvioulsy he can't fly one of those on his UK licence, but who says he can't fly one on his 61.75? (an example, until last year, would have been the Cessna 400 Corvalis). What about type-specific restrictions and modifications? For example, with his UK licence he may not be able to fly various common US types on the UK register without UK specific-modifications (eg. to external lighting, low fuel annunciation, starter engaged annunciation). Does that mean he couldn't on the N-reg with a 61.75? Of course not, since these are Type Certificate restrictions rather than Licence restrictions.

A more obvious restriction is the one in which you can't fly on your JAA/CAA PPL unless your JAA/CAA Class Rating is current. This, AFAIK, does NOT transfer over to the 61.75 - ie. the JAA/CAA PPL must be valid but the class rating need not be current. So if the class rating doesn't need to be current at all, what does it matter whether it extends to a PA46 or not? You can't activate a 61.75 without a BFR. You take your 61.75 with "ASEL" on it and a CFI endorses you. You have previously got the complex and high perf endorsements. You then fly a PA46 on the N-register. It is far from clear to me you are in breach either with the letter or spirit of 61.75.
(As I've said before in this thread, this is a debate and not an attempt to persuade anyone. Quite the opposite, my advice would be NOT to depend upon the 61.75 in such circumstances and to get a standalone certificate).

brgds
Vasa

[KKoran]

I you really want to know the FAA's position on the matter, you should request a formal legal interpretation from them.

Office of the Chief Counsel
800 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20591

(202) 267-3222 Telephone
(202) 267-3227 FAX

[KKoran]

The report merely contains a recommendation that the FAA clarify the regulation. I wouldn't interpret that as saying they have requested an official FAA interpretation of the regulation, but rather they feel the FAA should rewrite the regulation.

I can't find any applicable interpretations on the FAA General Counsel's website (http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/).

[DLT1939]

A more obvious restriction is the one in which you can't fly on your JAA/CAA PPL unless your JAA/CAA Class Rating is current. This, AFAIK, does NOT transfer over to the 61.75 - ie. the JAA/CAA PPL must be valid but the class rating need not be current.

So you can legally fly an N-reg on your 61.75 without renewing/revalidating your SEP/MEP rating on your underlying CAA/JAA licence, provided your FAA BFR is current?

[travisholland]

The FAA has already rendered an opinion on this matter.

The difference is a privilege vs a limitation, and a key point is that the single engine PA46 and single engine turbines do not have a TYPE RATING under JAA/EASA rules. They have a CLASS RATING.

A Class Rating is a privilege not a limitation on a JAA/EASA license.

So the Nomad case does not apply to single engine aircraft.

The Class Rating privilege is a parallel structure to the 61.31 regulations under FAA regs, and the below reponse from FAA legal should really lay this issue to rest.

Please read the following:

Thanks
Travis Holland

----------------------------

At

http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0BxGoqFBIDWolNWU0OTJlOTUtMDY3Ni00Zjc1LWE4NjQtMGYwOWR kNmFlMDA5&hl=en&authkey=COLAp8kJ


is a [426 page!] document from the FAA of interpretation of pilot
licensing ("Part 61") FAA regulations.

This document is issued from FAA HQ to the regional offices to help
local inspectors with ambiguous areas.

-------------

Page 223 has a question that addresses this issue. It talks about
privileges and limitations conferred between FAA and national
licenses.

In Para 1, line 4, it specifically mentions an aircraft rating
requirement from the foreign state.

In Para 3, it specifically refers to situations where the limitations
are "silent" on the authorization to fly certain aircraft.

In Para 4, it goes on to say that when silent, the privileges can be
met with the requirements of either authority.

So in this case, the JAA license is clearly silent on this matter
(therefore P46T operation is a privilege, not a limitation) and the
privileges are satisfied with the FAA instructor endorsements on the
logbook of the pilot.


--------
QUESTION: The foreign State's civil aviation regulation DOES have a
regulatory equivalent to 14 CFR § 61.31. That is, the State does, for
example, require that a license holder have training in, and a
specific logbook or license endorsement (or rating) for, complex, high
performance, high altitude, or tailwheel aircraft. But, in this
scenario the pilot has not ever flown, nor logged time, in an aircraft
equivalent to one of those specified in § 61.31(e) – (g) and (i) the
pilot has never flown a complex, high performance, high altitude, or
tailwheel aircraft. His flying experience has been limited to non-§
61.31 aircraft (e.g. Cessna 152s, 172s, PA 28-150s, BE-23s, etc.).

ANSWER: Ref. § 61.31(e)(1), (f)(1), (g)(1) and (2), and (i)(1), as
appropriate; First of all as I stated in the introductory paragraphs
of my overall answers above, you have to look at the foreign pilot's
license to determine whether the foreign pilot can even qualify for
this additional operating privilege since his/her foreign pilot
license may have limitations/restrictions placed on the license that
may not authorize him/her to fly these additional aircraft.

But for the sake of simplifying this issue, lets just say the foreign
aviation authority has not placed any limitations/restrictions on the
foreign pilot license. Lets say the foreign pilot license is “silent”
on these additional aircraft training requirements as to
limitations/restrictions that have been placed on the foreign pilot
license. Let’s say there are no limitations/restrictions on the
foreign pilot license. Lets say the foreign aviation authority treats
these additional aircraft training requirements like the FAA does with
its pilot certification process in § 61.31.

Therefore, the foreign pilot must comply with the appropriate
additional aircraft training requirements for the aircraft that
foreign pilot wishes to exercise PIC privileges while exercising
his/her U.S. pilot certificate. Since the you stated in your question
that the foreign aviation authority has a regulatory equivalent to the
additional aircraft training requirements of 14 CFR § 61.31, the
foreign pilot may return home to his foreign country and receive the
additional aircraft training from his/her foreign “authorized
instructor” and this will qualify him/her to exercise those aircraft
operating privileges on both his foreign pilot license and his U.S.
pilot license. Or the foreign pilot can obtain the additional
aircraft training from a U.S. “authorized instructor” that will allow
him/her to have operating privileges for that kind of aircraft when
exercising his/her U.S. pilot certificate.
{Q&A-428}

[Flyin'Dutch']

421C wrote:

Why "as a matter of course"? What basis do the AAIB or CAA have to judge what is required to fly a Nomad, given there has never been on on the UK register? Now, as a matter of course, responsible pilots get appropriate training.

Hi 421C

You put more eloquently what I meant to say.

[tijl]

A requirement is not the same as a limitation "ON" the airman's license. I did discuss this with a FAA DPE and he believed that if you have a FAA license based on 61.75 you do not need a type rating when flying an N-reg. Even though you need one when you fly a G-reg.

Regards,
TV