ICAO Article 32 True or False

[cadaha]

Ok I'm studying for Air Law PPL exam and reading through the articles see article 32 and Licences of personel.

States - pilot shall hold licences issued by the state in wich the aircraft is registered.

OK that's the "staff answer" for the PPL exam but it makes me wonder if this is actualy practical for private flying.

So, what happens if you are a UK PPL and go to the USA on holiday. Whilst you are there you hire an aircraft (ovbiously need a check flight if you haven't used them before) to see the sites and decide that you want to pop over to Canada for the day.

You are on an international flight using a US registered Aircraft and your licence was issued in the UK. Is this legal according to ICAO???

Answers on a postcard

[Squadgy]

In the scenario you give you would not be flying on your UK issued PPL though, the FAA would issue a US licence on the basis of your UK ticket....

[cadaha]

Would that be issued as part of your check flight, and would this be the same for any ICAO member state that you visited. I would have thought with aviation that this would of course incur a cost to pilot (even though he/she is qualified, unless the a/c type was different to the one they have knowledge of).

[IO540]

The basic position of the pilot license country matching the one of the aircraft reg is what gives you worldwide (ICAO) privileges.

In practice, the is true only for private VFR flight. Anything commercial (and that includes offering flight training) is locally regulated, for domestic trade protection reasons.

There are also various concessions. The CAA automatically validates ICAO licenses so you can fly a G-reg, worldwide, on any ICAO PPL, VFR, without having to do anything. I am sure there are other such concessions but haven't bothered to research the subject.

One can go beyond this, with extra work (which might be just paperwork). One can get a piggyback license. Or with some paperwork and a little bit of flying and a checkride, one can get a whole standalone foreign license, making full use of one's previous UK PPL training.

Ratings are something else. To get worldwide IR privileges, the two countries must indeed match. I can think of one exception (Greece and FAA IR) but that's no use to anybody in the UK.

[Johnm]

The scenario you describe needs a US licence issued on the back of your JAA/PPL.

This is an administrative process that is described here

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?ca...87&groupid=612

You will of course need to pay the CAA a fee £16 when I did earlier this year.

[bookworm]

Ok I'm studying for Air Law PPL exam and reading through the articles see article 32 and Licences of personel.

States - pilot shall hold licences issued by the state in wich the aircraft is registered.

Your quote is incomplete. It says "issued or rendered valid by the state in which the aircraft is registered.

So for example the US renders your UK licence valid with the paperwork you do at the FSDO before they let you hire the aircraft.

[2Donkeys]

So for example the US renders your UK licence valid with the paperwork you do at the FSDO before they let you hire the aircraft.

Not really correct.

The FAA does not render CAA licences valid in any ICAO sense.

The holder of an ICAO PPL is deemed to meet the aeronautical experience requirements (with certain caveats) for the issue of a self-containd FAA Pilot Certificate under Part 61.75.

There are plenty of examples of countries that will simply render an ICAO licence valid (Bermuda would be one such), but the USA is not one.

2D

[IO540]

2D

The holder of an ICAO PPL is deemed to meet the aeronautical experience requirements (with certain caveats) for the issue of a self-containd FAA Pilot Certificate under Part 61.75.

I am reading 61.75 and it describes a piggyback license. This is probably just terminology but I wouldn't call it "self contained"; a standalone FAA PPL needs additional training over the UK PPL training, plus additional night requirements, plus a written, plus an oral plus a checkride.

Obviously you know this; I am writing this for the original poster.

[2Donkeys]

I am reading 61.75 and it describes a piggyback license

The term piggyback of "based-on" is commonly used. However, it has no particular meaning.

A part 61.75 licence is a fully valid FAA certificate the validity of which is dependant on an associated foreign licence. This does not diminish its standing as a licence in its own right - as evidenced by the requirement for holders to submit to BFRs, regardless of the validity of the associated licence.

This is entirely different from "rendering a foreign licence valid" as described by Bookworm.

This process typically involves the issue of a letter of validity to be carried with the original licence.

A fine point perhaps, but so is much of aviation process.

2D

[bookworm]

Rendering (a licence) valid. The action taken by a Contracting
State, as an alternative to issuing its own licence, in
accepting a licence issued by any other Contracting State as
the equivalent of its own licence.

When a Contracting State renders valid a licence
issued by another Contracting State, as an alternative to the
issuance of its own licence, it shall establish validity by
suitable authorization to be carried with the former licence
accepting it as the equivalent of the latter. The validity of the
authorization shall not extend beyond the period of validity of
the licence.

61.75(b) Certificate issued. A U.S. private pilot certificate that is issued under this section shall specify the person's foreign license number and country of issuance. ...

...
(e)(4) Shall not exercise the privileges of that U.S. private pilot certificate when the person's foreign pilot license has been revoked or suspended.


C'mon. It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck...

[2Donkeys]

The action taken by a Contracting
State, as an alternative to issuing its own licence

and

61.75(b) Certificate issued. A U.S. private pilot certificate that is issued...

c'mon.....

[bookworm]

It still quacks.

[2Donkeys]

Nice try. No banana.