N-registered business jet with EU licence?
 

An old colleague of mine did occasionally fly a Europe based, N-registered private biz-jet on a free-lance basis. It was a single pilot operation. I thought he had an FAA ATPL, but what he actually had was an EU ATPL and an FAA issued certificate called "Commercial Pilot (Foreign based)", with Single and Multi Engine ratings. In his EU license he, of course, did have the appropriate type rating etc.
I am pretty sure that he actually should have also held an actual FAA licence, with type rating and a valid check ride, and of course, an FAA medical, as well. If so, he was really lucky not to get ramp checked, he claimed to have flown the aircraft for several hundreds of hours around Europe, North America and Middle East.
Does anybody here have any comments on this, or am I wrong in my assumption?

The FAA stopped using commercial piggyback licences in about 1997 in think, so they're pretty rare. Assuming he did have one, it wouldn't have been issued on the basis of an EASA licence...

This is the "licence" I was referring to:
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....4fa9c678a8.jpg
Any comments on the use of this for Part 91 flying?

But it could be reissued based on the EASA licence doing the required paperwork

It may not have been issued on the basis of the EASA license, but it would have had to be updated to reflect the license number/format change.

Carrying both certificates would have been enough to legally fly the aircraft, “not for compensation or hire”.
The FAA interpretation of that is quite strict. However, enforcement most likely would have been up to other States, if he remained outside the US.

The other issue is the EASA license. With let's say a German license, the N-reg could be flown (for hire) in Germany, but not elsewhere in EASA territory. If I recall correctly, this is an FAA interpretation of EASA: Not one place, but a collective...

All too confusing, but I bet the insurers would have no problem figuring it out after an accident or incident!

As I see it, this individual had no FAA medical, no FAA check ride, no FAA type rating, no FAA Instrument Rating, and no real FAA license. And he was flying the thing in Europe, Canada, USA and Middle East. My understanding is that with the above "license" you can basically rent an airplane and fly it VFR for fun.

I hate to think what the insurers would have said in case of an accident.

To give an idea of the complexity of the perils of using a 61.75 certificate, refer to the 2012 Krausz FAA legal counsel opinion:
Krausz (2012)

And a couple of others:
Collins (2013)
Entwistle (2014)
Graziano (2014)
Grossman (2014)
Audoore (2015)

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...terpretations/

Thank you for this. Legal language is a bit difficult sometimes to interpret. Now a direct question: I posted the copy of my colleague's license above. That is all he has ever received from FAA. It is something you get if you walk into a FSDO in USA and show your European license. No type rating, IR or anything on it. Let us say he has been flying an N-registered CitationJet in Part 91 operation around the world with this license, plus an European license with the type rating, European medical etc. Was he OK doing that or not?

It used to be, walk in to the FSDO...
Now you need an appointment, or not, where in certain parts of the US that they delegate this duty to a DPE, who charges a $200 fee for the privilege!
The process also now requires a license verification letter from your NAA.

Once you receive your 61.75 certificate, you need a current Flight Review (see Collins, above) and medical (FAA or foreign will do) to act as PIC. FAA recency requirements also apply to carry passengers.
Despite it being “Foreign Based” certificate, it is a real license - US privileges apply. As long as the foreign license has not been “surrendered, suspended, revoked or expired”. This means that even if you are not 'EASA' current, or typed (eg PA-46, Single Engine Turbine, etc), you can still be legal to fly on FAA/N privileges. (There’s another opinion letter on this, still looking...)

If you have Instrument privileges on your foreign license, these can be added to the FAA certificate, upon passing an ‘Instrument for Foreign Pilots’ exam ($160). Complete this before applying for the 61.75 certificate, or arrange a second appointment or another $200 to a DPE.

When EASA licenses were introduced, all the license numbers changed. This immediately rendered all those 61.75 certificates invalid. For a short period, now expired, the FAA had an express re-issue program. Now you need another appointment.

With Brexit, new license numbers may feature again. And if you switched NAA, you’re out of luck. Only one State's foreign license can be used, ever [61.75(f)].

As for EASA aircraft, the jury is still out on that question. With an (ICAO compliant) UK national license (not for EASA aircraft types), can you fly an N-registered ‘EASA’ aircraft? The opinions in the previous post seem to suggest yes, but - I’m not a lawyer!

With regard to Type Ratings, any held on the foreign license will be transferred, or can later be transferred. In practise, these are worthless. For both the TSA & a major Part 142 school, they were not recognised as holding the qualification to permit an immediate check-ride. An approved course would be required.

A final word on the foreign-based certificate: if you first gain an original FAA certificate, you can no longer apply for a 61.75 certificate [61.75(b)(3)]. But you can do this the other way around. [For example: let’s say you complete the requirements for an initial issue of ASES (Seaplane), if you also hold SEL/MEL/IR on a foreign certificate, you can no longer apply for the foreign-based certificate. If however you apply initially for the foreign-based, and then gain an independent certificate, you may still update the foreign-based certificate and use those privileges in the US, or on N-registered aircraft.]

There is an option to add privileges as “US Test Passed” on a 61.75 certificate, but since this is only at the Private level, there is no real advantage.

If you were previously issued a Commercial (Foreign Based), it is normally re-issued at that level. But with the 'no compensation or hire' restriction, it is essentially a Private certificate.

As for answering your question, I'm not qualified to pass judgment, I find it hard enough to keep up with my own privileges! Hopefully there’s enough reference above to make an informed decision.

Good luck.

Referring to your original question, about operating under Part 91, this opinion has some similarities:
Wadsworth (2006)

However, there appears to be a degree of confusion - Part 91 refers to the rules under which the aircraft is operated. Part 61 would determine whether an airman has the appropriate certification.

Some more clarity on the acceptability of any non-FAA qualification to operate N-reg:

”EASA is not one big happy family...”
Condell (2009)

“...and neither was the JAA that preceded it...”
Speciale (2004)

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....62b5bfaa7.jpeg
“Not valid for the carriage of persons or property for compensation or hire”.

If you can prove he received compensation and this doesn’t need to have been monies...then he’s toast. Free hotel rooms, free dinners, free vacations it’s all “compensation” in the eyes of the regulatory overlords.
By why this passive aggressive attitude?
Report him to the CAA with appropriate evidence and let them take care of it.

* Don’t feel bad about it either. These people are the scourge of our industry taking jobs always from people that have gone through great expense and sacrifice to become the correctly certificated professionals they are.
Who knows, you may save a life....
https://news.sky.com/story/emiliano-...aller-12115260

[QUOTE=B2N2;10991267]

* Don’t feel bad about it either. These people are the scourge of our industry taking jobs always from people that have gone through great expense and sacrifice to become the correctly certificated professionals they are.
Who knows, you may save a life....


This is exactly my point. Well, the aircraft is gone, but at least I can possibly stop him (or someone else) doing it again. A pity I did not realize I could have checked his credentials on the FAA website when all of this was going on...

Also my take on it is that he didn't have the type rating on his FAA, even as a copied across "foreign based" rating. Therefore he was not rated to fly it outside the state of issue of his EASA licence.

Exactly......