FAA vs. EASA, registration vs. territory: who's got to choose the applicable law?

[Reely340]

Assumption:
Someone has valid EASA PPL(H) with one single rating for a HU269
and an FAA PPL(H) piggy backed via 14 CFR §61.75

She did buy and properly insure an N-registered JetRanger.

According to an FAA inspector she can act as PIC in the USA on said Type, w/o any FAA madated prior training or checkflight.

Question: Can she do that in EASA Land, too?

AFAIK
a) the EASA lic permits one to fly any helo registered in an ICAO state in EASA territory as long as one has a current rating for the type,
regardless of the maintenance requirements of the registering ICAO state.
=> NO, appropriate rating is missing.

b) an FAA lic permits the holder to act a as pic on any helo, as long as he has completed a recent flight review (BFR), regardless of regsitration.
=> YES, license and BFR are ok, and it's even an N-registered a/c.

[B2N2]

Just off the cuff without looking anything up:
The 61.75 is not valid without also carrying the 'based on' EASA license on your person and it carries all the restrictions of the license.
So if the original carries limitations or restrictions they carry over.

Example:
EASA PPL without night Qualification, FAA 61.75 does not allow you night flight privileges.

ICAO license with a 2000 kg weight restriction, FAA 61.75 now carries the same weight restriction while an unrestricted FAA PPL allows 5600.


I venture to say the FAA inspector is wrong and needs to get back into FSIMS
http://fsims.faa.gov/PICResults.aspx?mode=SubjectCategories&area=05&subject=02&regulation=all

The above contains all the FAA guidance but it can be a little tricky to find.
As I'm on my phone I'll try and find it later.

[B2N2]

Dangit, I'm proud of myself. The FAA inspector is WRONG.
Found it :

E. Make and Model or No Passenger Limit. Some foreign CAAs (e.g., New Zealand and Australia) issue PPLs that limit the pilot to a specific make and model of aircraft or limit the pilot from carrying any passengers. Those persons must also comply with the make and model aircraft and passenger carrying restriction of their foreign pilot licenses when exercising the privileges of a § 61.75 U.S. pilot certificate (refer to § 61.75(e)(3)).

Here is the reference:
http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/8900.1/v05%20airman%20cert/chapter%2002/05_002_014rev1.htm

The easiest option for your friend is to take the written test, the required training and pass a checkride with a examiner for a "full" FAA PPL (H)
Otherwise a Jetranger "type" will need to be added to the EASA certificate.

[Reely340]

Excellent replay, thx a lot, sepecially for the references to the legal paragraphs!

So the basic concept is:
A full FAA PPLH has not restictions on type, doesn't know about the typerating concept.
A piggy back FAA PPLH (§61.75) has all the restrictions the foreign license is carrying. Meaning one has to check the piggy back FAA PPLH and all the limitations stated on the foreign lic. before beiang able to decide if someon may pilot ones a/c.

To aquire a full FAA PPLH:
a) written test, got it.
b) check ride, sounds like a BFR, as required by §61.75 lic, right?
c) required training, hm.
How much training is needed to be issued a "full FAA PPLH", if one already holds a §61.75 FAA PPLH ?

TIA

[B2N2]

The term type rating is only used in FAA land to denote an aircraft which is over 12,500lbs, a turbojet regardless of size or weight and anything the "Administrator" (FAA) has deemed so complex or dangerous to the uninitiated that it requires a type rating.

"Type rating" as in make & model doesn't exist in FAA land.

'Check ride' is FAA nomenclature for a flight test with an examiner.
It's not a check flight were a box is ticked by an instructor.

- written test
- Training as required to get an instructor sign off for the flight test
- practical test with examiner.

Since you're training for the issuance of a certificate or rating you will need an M1 visa also.
You will need to find a school which is certified by the FAA under Part 141 as they are the only ones that can issue the I20 visa application form.
Unless you're like a Green Card holder or dual citizen obviously.

[Reely340]

Thx for your link! After reading most of it I got referred to § 61.75(e)(3), which clearly states that the piggy back FAA lic. bears the same limitations as the foreign license, be they as uncommon for FAA land as they might be.

Regarding the "required training":
If one has "enough" recent flights in the logbook the instructor might as well decide one is immediately "ready for the flight test".
However, in case of an experience/skill history of a typical EASA PPLH w/o night rating (this is a separate voluntary training augmenting the PPL, over here), the instructor most probably would subject the applicant to the whole FAA night VFR training, I'd presume.

So for a holder of an EASA PPLH aquiring a full FAA PPLH would mean at least:
- written test
- training for night VFR (unless one holds an EASA night VFR rating, too)
- flight test
am I missing something?

[B2N2]

Look at 61.109(c) and there may be differences in the maneuver section of the Practical Test Standards.

https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/test_standards/media/FAA-S-8081-15a.pdf

I don't know about Helicopter but I know that fixed wing you'll be aksed to demonstrate ground reference maneuvers which are not taught in EASA- land. For fixed wing add 3-4.5 hrs to adequately train those.

Since you'll be asked to demonstrate navigation skills some XC instruction would be appropriate.
I'm guessing you'd be closer to 10-12 hrs before the practical test can be taken.

This is where it gets important you choose a school that has experience with foreign licenses and are familiar with the differences.
Don't go to one of these "Hi Y'all c'mon in" places as it could get frustrating if you fail a PTS task on a test which you didn't know about and the Instructor assumed you did as you already hold a PPL(H).

Now it's personal opinion time so be warned ;)

Since the subject in question has the funds to purchase a N-reg Jet Ranger I wouldn't skimp on training.
That's a serious machine.
I'd recommend to do all the required training and the exam flight on a Jet ranger.
And they go for $1000/hr.
Money doesn't buy you skill.
However money can buy you training which can get you the skill.
As a former flight instructor I've dealt with my share of affluent students and some we've had to turn away as they were simply not willing to undertake the required training in order to be safe, not just legal.
It always amuses me seeing somebody who is not willing to even spend 10% of the purchase price of their toy on training.
A miserable 10%...to keep them safe.

I'll just leave this here:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-14803595

[Reely340]

I'd just like to make sure that the aforementioned FAA inspector was not happy with the rating less system and he did not endorse flying w/o type relevant training (duh).
He said he's had his own share of helicopter SAR work rescuing affluent sail boat owners from high sea. While they could afford capable vessels they apparently had no idea how to operate them when the going got tough.
He told me that there are prof. check examiners(?) that have no experience on the a/c the applicant wants to conduct the check flight in: One guy fully shut down then engine of a squirrel midflight, right after instructing the applicant to demonstrate an autoratation. Both were very lucky to survive the botched landing, he said.
All in all a very pleasant visit to the FDSO, helpful and patient employees.

[rudestuff]

I wouldn't be so sure, there was a similar post recently about fixed-wing. The gist of it was that an EASA PPL holder got a 61.75 ticket, then bought an N-reg PA46 (which requires an EASA type rating, but not under FAA). The CAA argued that his underlying PPL would not allow him to fly a PA46, therefore his FAA ticket wouldn't let him. The FAA legal team came back and said they didn't consider the lack of a type rating as a limitation, since it didn't exist under their rules, and were quite happy for him to fly it on a 61.75. Using the same logic, a helicopter 61.75 should be legal to fly anything below 12,500lbs!

[B2N2]

I wouldn't be so sure, there was a similar post recently about fixed-wing. The gist of it was that an EASA PPL holder got a 61.75 ticket, then bought an N-reg PA46 (which requires an EASA type rating, but not under FAA). The CAA argued that his underlying PPL would not allow him to fly a PA46, therefore his FAA ticket wouldn't let him. The FAA legal team came back and said they didn't consider the lack of a type rating as a limitation, since it didn't exist under their rules, and were quite happy for him to fly it on a 61.75. Using the same logic, a helicopter 61.75 should be legal to fly anything below 12,500lbs!

Unless there is official guidance in the form of a ruling or an interpretation from FAA council that you can refer to....I wouldn't be too sure.
The writing is black and white and FAA inspectors have been known to make mistakes too.

[B2N2]

I've just come up with the answer as to why that could potentially have been allowed by the FAA;

The letter of the law says the limitations of the underlying certificate.
So the requirement to have a "type-rating" for a SE Turbo prop is not a limitation listed on the license. It gets a little convoluted but it may be the UK CAA would not allow you to fly a N-reg PA-46 in UK Airspace while the FAA would be perfectly happy to let you fly it in US Airspace as it is not a limitation listed on the license, rather a regulatory requirement.

Make sense?

In any case you want these opinions in writing as another FAA Inspector from another office may not be as aware.
Wouldn't be the first time.

[Reely340]

I think there are two separate topics:
1) Does the UK CAA have any jurisdiction over an N-reg a/c flown by an FAA-lic pilot?
On what grounds could the UK CAA prevent/sanction a flight in their airspace, that the FAA would deem perfelctly legal?

2) What exactly does the "limitations of underlying license" regualtion of the §61.75 lic rule pertain to?
Just the real intrinsic license limitations, like corrective glasses, co-pilot only, no night VFR, or does it include the various, time limited foreign type/class/weight/pax "ratings" as well?

Personally I think
ad 1) the UK CAA cannot interfere with what FAA allows their pilots to do with n-reg a/c, even in UK arispace.

ad 2) but the FAA does explain what § 61.75(e)(3) means:
Make and Model or No Passenger Limit.
Some foreign CAAs (e.g., New Zealand and Australia) issue PPLs that limit the pilot to a specific make and model of aircraft or limit the pilot from carrying any passengers. Those persons must also comply with the make and model aircraft and passenger carrying restriction of their foreign pilot licenses when exercising the privileges of a § 61.75 U.S. pilot certificate (refer to § 61.75(e)(3) (http://fsims.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFar.nsf/FARSBySectLookup/61.75)).

http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/8900.1/v05%20airman%20cert/chapter%2002/05_002_014rev1.htm


thus: the FAA indeed does mean "all the weird foreign rules that enhance or limit the rights of the pilot, as if he were flying at home", even if we might have a hard time finding out what he is entiteld to do back home.

So aforementioned flight would be illegal according to FAA views, regardless of the airspace it was conducted, meaning not even in US airspace would that flight have been legal.

[B2N2]

Yes the CAA does have jurisdiction and there has been precedence.
The FAA certificate is based on the underlying UK CAA certificate which means operating an N-reg still puts you under CAA authority.
They could do an emergency revocation which would make your FAA piggyback invalid.

The U.K. license would not read everything prohibited except the following but it does say Single Engine Piston but does not explicitly prohibit a SE turbine as it does not read SE Piston Only.

But these are the cases where it's just simpler to get an FAA stand alone certificate to avoid any legal interpretations down the road.

[hueyracer]

Ask yourself this:

Could i take a european registered aircraft, a european licensed pilot and go fly in the US, do what i want without the FAA interfering?
No, i cant..


Why should it work differently the other way around?

[Reely340]

Absolutely not, as far as rules of the air, TFRs, noise abatement etc. is concerned,
these rules are tied to the CAA overseeing the airspace utilized.

But can the FAA say we do not honour your EASA type rating of xyz to fly that EASA-reg a/c in our airspace? I think not.

If license country and a/c registration country match,
possibly differing licensing rules of the utilized abroad airspace don't apply:
To pilot an N-reg R22/44 with an FAA PPL one needs the SFAR 73 training completed (FAA has licensing requirement jurisdiction).
To pilot the same R22/44 but EASA-reged, using an EASA PPL one does not, even in US airspace, because the licensing jurisdition lies with EASA which has no "SFAR73", right?

https://www.icao.int/safety/airnavigation/Pages/peltrgFAQ.aspx#anchor08

There is some agreement among all ICAO member states to mutually honor foreigen privileges in ones local airspace, if the a/c is foreign registered, is there not?

[B2N2]

Ask yourself this:

Could i take a european registered aircraft, a european licensed pilot and go fly in the US, do what i want without the FAA interfering?
No, i cant..


Why should it work differently the other way around?

Yes you can actually.