Revalidating in USA

[Inverted pilot]

Ive gone un current and need to revalidate. Since I originally got my license. I understand things have changed and I need to apply to obtain forms from the CAA to fly in USA with my UK licence is this correct and who knows which forms I will require please?

[jack-daw]

It looks like nobody here wants to answer you - probably because the subject has been done to death.
One presumes you are talking about a 'piggy-back' license? Suggest search the forums for '61.75'.

[wb9999]

Do you have a JAR licence? If so, you can revalidate an an EASA approved training school in the US without worrying about anything FAA related - unless you intend to fly solo after revalidating. I don't think you need a visa as you are not undertaking a course of tuition.

But why go back to the US to do it? You can revalidate in the UK, and it will be a lot cheaper.

[Inverted pilot]

Im in the USA on work a lot. I enjoy flying in the states and want to fly solo once Iv'e revalidated. It looks like I will have my ticket back within the week here in the UK but I still want to fly in the USA when ever Im there. I guess thats the piggy back license your referring too ?

Just tried a search on this forum for 61.75 but came back with nothing of any help. Can someone point me to a specific thread if no one wants to answer this if its been done before?

[Mark 1]

Do you have a US airman's certificate? If not, then you need to obtain one by validating your foreign licence and booking a visit to a FSDO.

Once you have your certificate, you need a current medical (FAA or CAA) and a flight review with an instructor to go solo.

[Inverted pilot]

Thats the piece of info I needed. US airman's certificate. Would anyone know the form number I need to search for on the CAA site?

[MarkerInbound]

http://www.pprune.org/north-america/300434-jaa-caa-casa-icao-conversion-faa.html

[Mark 1]

SRG 1160 ......

[Ebbie 2003]

Google "FAA piggy back license" and you'll get the idea.

The best bet though it choose a big ish FBO/school that you plan to rent from and ask them to set you up a piggyback licence - big places will be used to it and will talk you though the process, forms and usually have someone at the FAA field office who can smooth the way (it's a morning's activity on a good day).

You'll need - you valid UK licence, valid UK medical and that's pretty much it.

When you have the piggyback to activate it you'll need a flight review (what used to be called a BFR) and hour of ground and an hour in the air - the former you'll need to be comfortable with US airspace etc and the latter will double for your renter check out, so it's not a great imposition - whole thing a day if set up in advance.

The piggy back is valid for life so long as your UK licence is valid (in UK BFR and have medical) - you can sub a US BFR and medical for the UK one if the UK rules make it difficult to obtain one.

Also you can piggy back only once - so if you have SEP and Rotary and piggy back one then you can't piggy back the other one.

[Mike Cross]

Not quite that simple. FSDO's are not necessarily on your doorstep (200 miles in my case) and FAA will need confirmation from CAA that your license is valid (it could have been revoked!).

Generally speaking there is a bit of variability between FSDO's and the people in Oklahoma City, sometimes the rules say one thing and the practice is different. In my case I was lucky and was able to meet the FAA person 30 miles away where he was getting ready to supervise a big airshow so it saved me a 400 mile round trip.

The "activation" bit is something of a red herring. The FBO will want it but opinion is divided as to whether or not it's a legal requirement. The enlightened say this is the FAA way of "rendering valid" a foreign license so if your UK license and medical are valid and you would be legal in the UK then the 61.75 makes you legal in the US. Others point to FAR's which conveniently require holders of certificates to have BFR's and medicals without differentiating between a standalone US Airman's certificate and a 61.75.

You'll find this useful
Airmen Certification - Verify the Authenticity of a Foreign License, Rating, or Medical Certification (http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/airmen_certification/foreign_license_verification/)

[Ebbie 2003]

Mike

Couple of points - does depend on where you're going but if the guy is currently in the UK he is 3000+ miles from a field office.

200 miles is not a long way to go - maybe the FBO will have an airplane and maybe the chap will want to get a check out and, who knows, maybe want some real experience of flying cross country - overall I would think that having the field office a couple of hundred miles always is a plus:)

No the activation is not a red herring - it is an absolute requirement - been there done that - everyone exercising the privileges of an FAA license MUST have a flight review from an FAA CFI within the previous two years - the EASA flight review does not satisfy that requirement.

In addition the originating licence MUST be valid i.e. not have been revoked or suspended, have the appropriate medical and flight review from the originating ICAO country - yes, even to fly in the US.

[Mike Cross]

But he has indicated that he wants to go fly in the US so a FSDO is probably his best bet and yes, he does need his license to be validated by CAA per the link I posted. He could use a European DPE but is probably going to find it a lot easier to do it in the US. I was just pointing out that it is not quite so easy and straightforward as you made out, particularly if he doesn't happen to be in the Sunshine State.

You may assert the BFR/Medical business,and I'd agree with you on the letter of the FAR's however my own flight school in the US is happy with my UK license and medical backed up by the 61.75. It's clear that the FAA's intention is that the 61.75 renders valid (in the ICAO SARPS sense of the term) the foreign license.

Oh and by the way, if he were to decide to get an FAA standalone he'd need TSA approval, fingerprints and all the rest of the malarkey, even though he's transitioning from one PPL to another and not extending his privileges.

I'm in the interesting position of having my 61.75 based on a CAA lifetime PPL so where does that leave me? I won't be able to fly an "EASA" aircraft in Europe, but it's an ICAO license that entitles me to fly one elsewhere. I can of course pay 45 quid to get a LAPL which will give me back the privileges they intend to take away. Hmmm..... now what does the S in EASA stand for?

[englishal]

It is kind of complicated deciphering rules and opinions. However as far as I can see, the 61.75 certificate is a certificate like any other FAA certificate, just with some extra limitations written on it. If you read the rules regarding the FAA certificate, then yes, someone does need a BFR and medical certificate to exercise the privileges and hence, in my opinion, having read the FARs from cover to cover, one must have a BFR and medical for it to be rendered valid.

[MarkerInbound]

I can't copy pages out of the FAA Flights Standards Information System on the iPad but in the section giving guidance on how to process 61.75 applications is a paragraph on explaining the regulations with the new holder of a 61.75. It says to tell them they need a FR before using their FAA cert and that it must be from a FAA CFI. Go about half way down the page to 5-603 I.

FSIMS Document Viewer (http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=8900.1,Vol.5,Ch2,Sec14)

While your UK medical is fine, I'd say the flight school doesn't have a clue.

[Ebbie 2003]

Mike

Your flight school were simply wrong - all FAA license holders must have a current US flight review in order to exercise the privileges of the license - particularly piggy backs (follow the logic - who needs it most, the guy with twenty years experience in the US or the newcomer from a foreign land?) - besides which there is no "letter" when it comes to the FARS, they say what they mean and they mean what they say - you may even have been flight reviewed without even realizing it, it's an informal chat for an hour or so and an hour in the air, possibly indistinguishable from an detailed pre-rental check out - the important thing is that your log is endorsed by the FAA CFI.

I've had several pilots piggy back to be able to fly my plane (US reg) in non-US airspace, getting to the field office in St Thomas is difficult for most (yes, US territory and so Barbadians need a visa) but the flight review is a must and can be carried out by the US FAA instructor living down here if not done up there.

One rather interesting point about licence shuffling - one can get an ICAO approved PPL here in 35 hours and then piggy back - you do earn it though - the qualifying cross countries are rather interesting 100 miles over open ocean to another island - I'l FAA all the way but I'm rather glad I didn't have that experience:)

[Ebbie 2003]

Englishgal's point - here's a weird one - the medical must be valid for the original licence - so UK licence UK medical - if the JAR standard (or what ever alphabetti spaghetti) Class 2 medical cannot be passed but the FAA Class 3 can, one simply can't just go get an FAA Class 3 and use that - the key is that the originating licence must be valid so if JAR have a current Class 2 medical and a JAR flight review in addition to the US one.

In those circumstances I do wonder if one can do a stand-alone FAA PPL get a Class 3 FAA medical and piggy-back a JAR - I assume there is some sort of reciprocal arrangement - no idea if there is - any one know the current rules on this issue (they do seem to change all the time)?

How does an FAA PPL holder legally fly in UK/EASA/JAR land?

[Mike Cross]

Well, in the UK you just get in and fly it. The relevant legislation is in Articles 61 and 62 of the Air Navigation Order. Broadly speaking if you are the holder of a valid license issued by the State of Registry of the a/c or if you are flying a UK reg and have a valid foreign license enabling you to fly the type then you are OK for Private Flights.

[Mark 1]

the medical must be valid for the original licence - so UK licence UK medical
Not the case.
The wording is FAR 61.75 is 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

You can read it here (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFar.nsf/FARSBySectLookup/61.75).

[englishal]

Yes but presumably if you failed your JAA Class 2 medical, then the JAA licence becomes rendered invalid. This in turn renders the FAA certificate invalid as it is only valid when the JAA licence is valid.

[wb9999]

Yes but presumably if you failed your JAA Class 2 medical, then the JAA licence becomes rendered invalid. This in turn renders the FAA certificate invalid as it is only valid when the JAA licence is valid.

That's my understanding. No EASA/JAR medical certificate = no valid EASA/JAR licence = no FAA piggyback licence.

[Mike Cross]

Lack of a medical does not render the license invalid, it simply prevents you from exercising the license privileges (Art 72B of the ANO).

Art 247 deals with extra-territorial effect of the Order and makes it clear that outside the UK it relates to flights by UK registered a/c and the crew thereof.

If the FAA is happy to accept an FAA medical to fly an N Reg in FAA land and outside of the jurisdiction of UK law and the UK courts then precisely what law is being broken?

[wb9999]

Mike, what wording is on the plastic airmen's certificate for piggyback licences?

I only have an old paper airman certificate, which is obviously no longer valid. The wording on that states
"Issued on the basis of and valid only when accompanied by United Kingdom Pilot License Number(s) PP/xxxxxx/A/. All limitations and restrictions of the United Kingdom Pilot License apply."

If the wording is the same on the plastic certificate, then you won't be able to use a EASA/JAR licence as a piggyback without a valid EASA medical, as you have restrictions on its use under the ANO - you are not entitled to exercise the privileges of the licence. And those restrictions will apply to the FAA licence.

[Mike Cross]

Well we're getting into severe pedantry here but my own plastic 61.75 is very near what your old paper one says with one word changed that word is ON insted of OF
Issued on the basis of and valid only when accompanied by United Kingdom Pilot License Number(s) PP/xxxxxx/A/. All limitations and restrictions on the United Kingdom Pilot License apply

In section XII of my CAA PPL under Remarks/Restrictions it says "No Entries"

As I said earlier the ANO has no effect in the US other than in the case of flights in a UK registered a/c.

The FAA's intent in FAR 61.75 is crystal clear, as pointed out by Mark 1
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 note the use of the word OR.

We'll have to agree to differ on this. Suffice it to say that if my UK medical certificate ran out while I was in the US I would have no qualms about flying using an FAA one.

[wb9999]

Mike, part-MED specifies "that for a licence to be valid the holder must also have a Medical Certificate appropriate to the licence", a minimum of class 2 is stated for PPL(A). So if you do not have an EASA medical certificate then an FAA piggyback license would not be valid on the basis that an EASA/JAR licence would not be valid.

[Mike Cross]

I hear what you say:)

[MarkerInbound]

If you go back to link I posted above, the FAA guidance covers this. Paragraph 5-597 E near the top. What they say is if the foreign licence has a medical endorsement on the license then you must have a current foreign medical to use your 61.75. They list several countries that do this, Canada, Germany, Kenya, Singapore, Austria and some others are listed. But if there is no medical endorsement on the license the FAA says a US medical is OK for a 61.75.

Most of this was written before JAR/ EASA so the question is, does EASA put a medical endorsement on your license?

[wb9999]

MarkerInbound, the link you posted states "the foreign pilot license must be valid". As I've already written, an EASA licence is only valid with a current medical certificate (Part-MED - EU law). I don't think you can get any clearer. The loopholes that people normally look for do not exist.

[Mark 1]

I have been flying on a 61.75 certificate, while living in the US for several years and have raised the point with both the local FSDO and a DPE while presenting the paperwork on my IR check ride.

They were both unequivocal on their interpretation of 61.75 in that a foreign medical was not required to meet the validity requirements of a foreign licence.

OK, I don't have anything in writing to back that up, but I certainly won't be taking a 5000 mile round trip to my nearest UK authorised AME (in Florida) to keep the UK medical running.

[MarkerInbound]

I'll admit I know nothing about your licensing system. Is that EASA requirement different from what JAA or the old CAA said?

[Mark 1]

part-MED specifies "that for a licence to be valid the holder must also have a Medical Certificate appropriate to the licence"

Can you point me to the specific reference for that quote?

My EASA licence does not state that. In section IX - Validity, it only states that a medical is required to exercise the privileges of the licence.

[wb9999]

Mark 1, part-FCL and part-MED are all detailed at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:311:0001:0193:EN:PDF.

MED.A.30 Medical certificates:
"...holders of a private pilot licence (PPL)... shall hold at least a Class 2 medical certificate"

Hence, no valid medical certificate means no valid licence. The quote in one of my previous posts was taken from the CAP804 (non-legal), but the above quoted paragraph is from part-MED (law).

[Mark 1]

It could be worded more clearly, but the point is that the licence itself remains valid unless suspended. revoked or expired.

To exercise the privileges then there must be a valid type/class rating and medical certificate. FCL.040 says as much. Your argument would similarly imply that the aircraft rating is also valid on the foreign licence.

Unless I see anything that explicitly says otherwise, I have no intention of getting an EASA medical to exercise the privileges of my US Airman's certificate.

I think this could go on ad nauseum, so I'll rest my case.

[Ebbie 2003]

Some parsing of the question and tendentious semantics here I think - a license is used to legally fly an airplane - I think that is the best definition of "valid" - OK play ducks and drakes with the medical requirements if you like but get ramp checked in the US with a piggyback and no medical from your originating ICAO state and you'll be getting a big fine, possibly some jail time, a life-time ban from the US and, if the check is following a accident, US level law suits coupled with invalid insurance.

The rules are very simple and are set out in the regulations with commendable clarity - no reason to be imputing ambiguity to them where there is none.

[Mark 1]

From the FAA's guidance notes Q&A:

Question 2: Is it permissible to be issued our U.S. pilot certificate on the basis of the person’s foreign pilot license by permitting the applicant to use a current FAA medical certificate if the applicant’s foreign medical license has expired?

Answer 2: Ref. § 61.75(b)(4); If the verification from the foreign civil aviation authority states that the foreign pilot license is valid, but the foreign medical license has expired then in accordance with § 61.75(b)(4), it is permissible to accept the FAA medical certificate as meeting the requirement for a current medical certificate. If the foreign civil aviation authority specifically states [emphasis added: it must state it on the foreign pilot license] that the foreign pilot license is not valid because the medical endorsement/license has expired, then a U.S. pilot certificate may not be issued to the applicant.

[wb9999]

Ebbie 2003, I agree. If an incident was to occur and the FAA were to verify with the UK CAA if the licence is still valid the response from the CAA would likely be "no". In CAP804 the CAA say that a person must have a current medical certificate for a licence to be valid, so I wouldn't be surprised if they applied this in foreign licence validation requests from the FAA.

It's a big risk to take.

Mark 1, MED.A.30 only mentions licences and licence holders, not ratings or privileges. A PPL licence holder must have a minimum class 2 medical. So a licence holder without is not complying with requirements to be a licence holder. I understand that to mean the licence would not be valid, and the CAA make clear in CAP804 that is their view also.

[Mike Cross]

:zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

It would be an FAA decision on prosecution and a US Court decision on whether or not an offence had been committed. They are not going to lose any sleep over convoluted arguments like that.

EASA and the EU are not states and have no legal jurisdiction, nor are they ICAO contracting states. EU States are required to enact EU law into their own national law. The extra-territorial effect of the UK legislation, to which I've already provided a reference, does not extend beyond UK reg aircraft so no offence will have been commtted under UK Law.

UK Law, reference again supplied, does NOT say that a license is invalid if it is not accompanied by a valid medical certificate. it says that the privileges cannot be exercised.

The US has decided that it will allow the holder of an FAA 61.75 Airman's certificate to exercise the privileges of THAT certificate subject to the foreign license being readily available in the aircraft and the existence of a valid medical certificate issued in accordance with Part 67 CFR OR one issued by the foreign state.

:ugh:

[wb9999]

Mike, EASA regulations are UK law and override the ANO. The ANO is a worthless law for flight crew licencing, unless you have a CAA national licence, so there's no point referring to it or quoting it. If you have a JAR or EASA licence then Part-FCL and Part-MED are the regs to know and comply with.

Nobody is saying that an offence is committed under UK law, so I'm not sure why you mention that. FAA 61.75 says that you must have a valid foreign licence, so the key point is whether a foreign licence is valid or not when using an FAA piggyback licence. EASA regs (remember, they are UK law), and the CAA's interpretation of them, say that a PPL licence holder must have a minimum Class 2 medical certificate for a licence to be valid. Which bit of that is ambiguous?

If an incident occurs, the FAA won't be the ones to determine if a foreign licence is valid or not. It could have been revoked or suspended since they initially verified it, so they'll go back to the issuing authority for confirmation. And what will the CAA's response be? If it's a no, then what happens to the FAA piggyback licence? How can you be certain that the CAA will say your licence is valid and, if not, that the FAA will still confirm your piggyback licence is valid? Prosecution or not, I am pretty sure the FAA will make sure you never fly in the US again if you get caught flying "illegally".

If someone at an FSDO tells you it would be legal to fly with an FAA medical instead of an EASA medical and then you should get that in writing. Because it won't be that FSDO that makes a decision on how to proceed if someone else says it's not legal.

[englishal]

it says that the privileges cannot be exercised.
Mike, I know you are bored of this topic ;)

But I think that if a person was ramp checked, they held an FAA 61.75 certificate AND US medical but no EASA medical.....then you'd be fine.

If one crashed into a school and killed a load of children and the US lawyers got involved, then I think they might argue that although the holder had a US medical, that they were not valid because the "privileges" of the EASA licence were nil due to the missing EASA medical and therefore you had no right to fly ("All limitations on the foreign license apply").

Remember, all this 61.75 stuff is written for any ICAO licence, not just EASA. It might be that some other ICAO state doesn't put any restriction anywhere but could for example just state "you must have a medical every two years which conforms to an ICAO medical").

I think this is something that can only be proved one way or the other in a court case, and I for one would not like to try it out. At least if one holds an EASA medical, and a BFR then one is 100% legit and there are no technicalities that a lawyer could use to fleece you.

[Mike Cross]

You might think that the US courts would accept such an argument, I don't concur. They are fiercely protective of their constitution and a suggestion that a bit of foreign regulation would take precedence over a US Federal Regulation, that a foreign medical should somehow be more important than an FAA one is not going to hold water.

wb9999 As stated earlier my 61.75 is based on a CAA lifetime license which is a UK license not an EASA one.

[wb9999]

So Mike, bearing in mind that the FAA require a valid foreign licence, if the FAA were to write to the CAA to ask them to re-verify your licence, would the CAA confirm it was a valid licence?

Because that is what would happen in Englishal's example.

wb9999 As stated earlier my 61.75 is based on a CAA lifetime license which is a UK license not an EASA one.

In which case, sections 72 and 72A of the ANO do apply to you, and are even clearer than part-MED. The "medical certificate forms part of the licence", to quote section 72A. If you're missing a medical certificate then your licence is not complete or rendered valid.