Can and EASA checkride satisfy FAA 'Flight Review'
I'm an EASA and FAA Licence holder.
My FAA Cert needs a 'Bi-ennial Flight Review', and my IR needs an IPC. I work for an airline on my EASA cert so I'm doing regular proficency checks according to EASA, which meet all the requirements for the FAA Flight Review , except of course being signed off by an FAA CFI. Does anyone have any experience trying to convince any FSDO to allow an EASA LPC to satisfy FAA Flight Reviews etc? Slim chance I know...... Thanks |
I doubt it. 61.56d(1) refers to an "examiner" which 61.1 defines as "...any person who is authorized by the Administrator..". Also, 61.56i(1) would seem to apply if you're doing it in a sim.
Also, I doubt your FAA IR needs an IPC, as I would bet that your airline flying satisfies 61.57c. |
Just to clarify, the OP is asking about the exemption from the Flight Review (under 61.56(d)(1). To add to @Booglebox's answer:
61.1(b) defines: the "Authorised Instructor" as an FAA Flight Instructor... issued under Part 61, for the Review at 61.56(c) the Examiner to be "authorised... for an airman certificate or rating under this part", for the exemption. The key phrase here is "under this part" or "under Part 61". Some sections of Part 61 do not specify "under this part" , and in those cases, other (aeronautical) experience is usually allowable. If in doubt, you would need an opinion from FAA Legal Counsel, which takes typically a minimum of 6-9 months. Finally for Instrument experience, 61.57(c) requires the approaches to be both performed and logged. If you cannot document that you were continuously in compliance with para (c) since your last FAA certificate or rating check-ride, then I would suggest that the IPC is required. As a 61.75 certificate holder, you will never have demonstrated competence to the FAA, unless you have "US Test Passed". If you have a full Part 61 certificate, then the logging is required in a 6/12 month period. Also note, that while a 'Redbird' type SIM can be used to maintain recency, it cannot be used for the whole IPC, due the need to conduct a Circling Approach. |
The interpretation to Olson (2016) addresses the meaning of examiner.
Paragraph (e) of section 61.56 is an obvious workaround for the flight review: "A person who has, within the period specified in paragraph (c) of this section, satisfactorily accomplished one or more phases of an FAA-sponsored pilot proficiency award program need not accomplish the flight review required by this section." The FAA program for this is WINGS whose purpose as set out in AC 61-91J is: "The objective of the WINGS—Pilot Proficiency Program is to reduce the number of accidents in General Aviation (GA) by assisting airmen to find educational opportunities designed to help them apply the principles of risk assessment and risk management (RM). When properly applied, these principles will help mitigate accident causal factors associated with common pilot errors, lack of proficiency, and faulty knowledge. The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) purpose is to encourage the majority of GA pilots, through WINGS, to engage in ongoing, targeted flying tasks and learning activities keyed to identified risks and which are designed to mitigate those risks. The FAA continually collects and assesses its databases to identify the risks associated with GA flying and incorporates risk mitigation strategies into initial and ongoing pilot education." Crediting under WINGS requires completing a number of knowledge and flight tasks. The former can be done online through the FAA Safety Team website https://www.faasafety.gov/ Crediting of flight tasks may be done by any FAASTeam Program Manager (see Resources > Directory at that website). It will be at the FPM's discretion whether foreign tests/checks count for that purpose but I have found most FPMs are happy giving the credit. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:28. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.