Temporary FAA Licence based of JAA PPL

[DaveW]

Paris, no criticism of you intended by me, I assure you - I fully agree; one shouldn't expect to be educating people abut their own rules. I've never taken FARs to an FBO or FSDO (because I never thought about it) and always been more fortunate than some of you.

Having said that, if I'd read this thread beforehand I just might have printed out the relevant FARs in 18 point font and laid about them with a highlighter pen!

[Arrowflyer]

DaveW
Thanks for the clarification.
I am really confused because my CFI in the UK is also an FAA one and has told me that as long as the Uk license is valid, the FAA one is too.

I think I will go back to him and challenge the view. I wonder if anyone has a definitive statement from the FAA

[421C]

Originally Posted by Arrowflyer

I am really confused because my CFI in the UK is also an FAA one and has told me that as long as the Uk license is valid, the FAA one is too.

Your instructor is right. Your FAA license is valid as long as the UK one is, or is valid for life if it's a stand-alone FAA license.

But a valid license is a necessary but not sufficient condition for acting as PIC. This is the source of the confusion. The FAA don't say your license is not valid without a BFR. It is valid without one. You could use it to act as a non-PIC instructor or as a Safety Pilot. But you can't use a valid FAA license to act as PIC without a BFR.

FAR 61.56 is a 100% definitive statement. It doesn't get more definitive than that. It is clearer when you see how it applies to stand-alone FAA licenses, which are equally as valid as your UK-derived FAA license without a BFR, but can't be used for PIC privileges.

Another example is the 90 day rule. This is a further layer of requirement. The valid license and BFR are necessary but not sufficient conditions to carry passengers. Your FAA license being valid because your CAA one is doesn't absolve you of the need for 90 day currency, any more than it absolves you of the need for the BFR.

DaveW - great post BTW -

Given the provenance of the quote (i.e. the FARs) "Authorized" obviously means "authorised by the FAA", which your UK instructor who flew with you for your JAA "biennial" won't be in 99.9% of cases. In the final 0.1%, he/she needs to sign your logbook with the relevant FAA wording and CFI number

FAR61.41 explains the Authorised Instructor definition. Any ICAO instructor is authorised to give instruction towards the requirements of FAR 61 but an FAA instructor is needed for all the endorsements (including the BFR) and some specific recent training (eg. 3hrs in last 60days before the Instrument checkride IIRC)

regards
421C

[Speedbird48]

FAA Validation.

Ok Guys,

One more time slowly!!

If you have an FAA private certificate issued on the basis of your UK private license it is valid as long as all the parts of your UK one are current and valid.

This has been said many times. Please drill into this subject here in prune.

Any other questions?? PM me.

Sorry guys am I missing something here?? Or, was it a bad night??

Regards.

[Speedbird48]

FAA Validations.

Thanks 421C,

Very well put.

Much better than my posts. I will now go and fly!!

Regards.

[englishal]

I wonder if anyone has a definitive statement from the FAA

The examiner wouldn't take me on my IR check ride first time due to no BFR logged at the time........

You need a BFR.....

[Speedbird48]

FAA Validation.

Hi Englishal,

He was quite correct. Fortunatly it was a Designee Examiner as an FAA Inspector would have done the same thing and then gone looking for the instructor that signed you off as being quaified for the check ride.

It is a matter of the rules. Either they apply or they don't!!

There are many frustrations with the way different FSDO's apply the rules and even different inspectors and supervisors within those FISDO's. I have been under the ARB/CAA rules, giving my age away, and your rules are very cut and dried. Ours allow some discretion or latitude. All you have to do is find an inspector that will work with you. Much easier said than done. There are discretionary inspectors and those that walk on a razor blade and to them it is only Black and White similar to the UK.

The question then is which one is correct and that gives rise to the frustrations??

Regards.

[Keef]

I have rented in the USA many times over the past 20 years or so. Every FBO I used insisted on a checkout before letting me go off in their aircraft, and I don't blame them for that. I always asked them to make that checkout into a biennial if the time was getting close. It avoided any argument later.

When I converted more recently to a full (standalone) FAA PPL, I asked the examiner about this. He said that his reading of the FARs is that a "reciprocal" PPL DOES require a separate FAA BFR, although he had heard many visiting foreign pilots arguing about why it shouldn't. His "take" was that the more they argued, the more convinced he became that they "needed" a BFR.

[Speedbird48]

FAA Validation.

Hi Keef,

Well said, and as I said earlier"attitude is everything"!!

I would no more think of "expecting" to be allowed loose with someones machine in the UK, without some form of check, than fly to the moon. Nor, do I expect to take an airplane without a check-out here. Yet there are people that do???

I find that you can always learn something or even pass on some snippit of knowledge on these rides. I also get to fly some neat airplanes, 108 different types so far!!

I hope that the subject has been well aired this time and the UK pilot understands where we are coming from and why?? We are so fortunate, in spite of the ADIZ and TFR problems, to be able to have so much freedom to enjoy our hobby or means of transportation.

As I said I work for the "dark side" and the point I was trying to make was "these are the rules, quit arguing and accept it" as I don't want to see UK pilot, or anywhere else, in trouble !!

Regards, come an see us we need your money!!

[421C]

currency

Originally Posted by ca_flyer

Not quite true..
There is a big difference between valid and current. You don't even need a certificate if you have no intention of being PIC - you may as just well go with an Instructor.

ca_flyer, in all good faith, which bit is "not quite true"? The diference between valid and current is exactly what I was posting?

Originally Posted by ca_flyer

The purpose of a Safety Pilot is to take control should it be necessary e.g. traffic avoidance. A Safety Pilot can be in the right seat whilst the pilot in the left seat is under the hood in simulated instrument conditions. That safety pilot has to have a current certificate applicable to the category and class and a valid medical. The safety pilot in this instance is considered a 'Required' Crew Member" and may log the time as second in command (FAR 61.51) Not having a current BFR means that that person cannot act as safety pilot as he cannot legally take control.

I am not sure of this. 91.109(b)(1) says

No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless the other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.

On the other hand, 61.55(a) says

(a) A person may serve as a second-in-command of an aircraft type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or in operations requiring a second-in-command pilot flight crewmember only if that person holds:
(1) At least a current private pilot certificate with the appropriate category and class rating

It is not clear to me that a Safety Pilot in the simulated instrument sense has to qualify as a required SIC. Of course, he needs to be BFR current to log the time as SIC as you describe. It's just that 91.109 does not use the word "current". My understanding is that the Safety Pilot does not need to be current unless he wants to log the time.

Another example is that 91.109 only specifies category and class ratings, not endorsements. So a Safety Pilot may be qualified on ASEL but not have the required complex endorsement to act as PIC, or have a AMEL rating but not the High Altitude endorsement to act as PIC.

[englishal]

And this was because I fell into the same trap as other people i.e. not believing a BFR was required.

The DPE did find the instructor and have a chat with him. It was an oversight as the BFR had been carried out as part of a rental checkout.....as well as 50 odd hours of instrument training, but not logged "as a BFR", and hence I didn't meet the minimum requirements.

[421C]

Originally Posted by ca_flyer

If you do not carry the appropriate endorsements, then you are not qualified to be the required crew member that you would be if you are acting as safety pilot.

I understand this is a bit of a minefield but it is fact and you have to review the FAR's as a whole and not in isolation (unfortunately).

I agree you have to read 14CFR as a whole - good point. However, the interpretation hinges on whether the Safety pilot is a required crew member able to act as PIC. (clearly there are required crew members like S-I-C or FE who need not qualify as PIC).

§61.31(d)(1); § 61.51(e)(1)(iii), § 61.51(f)(2), § 61.3(c); § 61.56(c), § 61.57(c), & § 61.3(c)
and meet all the other pilot-in-command currency requirements §61.3.

None of these references are specific to the Safety Pilot role. I can not find a part of 61 or 91 that links the definition of Safery Pilot in 91.109 with the requirement to qualify as PIC. If this linkage exists then yout Part61 references are relevant, but if not, then I don't see that they apply. My understanding of both the spirit and letter of 91.109 is that the Safety Pilot is not required to fully qualify as PIC - he needs to have some basic qualification in order to spot traffic etc, may be even take the controls for a few seconds if traffic avoidance requires it, but not to take over as PIC. Another example is that, as I understand it, the SP need not have an Instrument Rating even if the flight is under an IFR flight plan - hence can't act as PIC on that flight.

Sorry, I hope I don't seem to be debating this for the sake of being argumentative! It's potentially an important point for someone needing a Safety Pilot where the SP candidate may be lapsed in BFR terms, or not have the exact endorsement (like Hi Alt) or, I guess, outside the US, who may have a non-US Private certificate with the right class rating.

[Arrowflyer]

Wow! All this has been really helpful, even if some contributors thought it was going over old ground. Forgive me for final clarification (I've been flying for 2 years now so just gone through my UK PPL Revalidation and thus the confusion). I fly an N-reg (but not outside the UK yet).

1. For an FAA license based on a foreign license to be VALID, the foreign license needs to be valid with a valid, current medical and all restrictions on the foreign license apply to the FAA one.

2. A valid license also has to be current to allow PIC (ICAO/FAA/CAA etc)

3. For the FAA license to be current for the type/class, all FAA currency rules apply so a BFR, 90 days passenger rules, and 12 hours in previous 12 months etc.

4. A pilot cannot fly PIC in the US on the FAA license unless it is current and valid so the foreign license needs to be valid, but only the FAA one needs to be current (go figure!). For renting in the USA therefore, a BFR is required as it's likely a checkride for insurance purposes also.

5. For a UK (say) pilot flying an N-reg in the UK, it can be flown on the UK license which must be valid & current for the type. However, the N-Reg cannot be flown outside the UK on a UK license and thus it must be flown on the FAA license at which point it needs to be current and a BFR etc is required.

6. The airwork (and groundschool?) for a BFR can be done by any ICAO instructor, but the logbook endorsements must be made by an FAA certified instructor. (So theoretically, doing a UK PPL re-val with an instructor counts for 1 hour of the FAA BFR, but to complete the BFR, 1 hour of groundschool on FAA FARS is required plus proper logbook endorsement)

Is that a fair understanding?

If so, opens a whole new debate for me on why have an N-reg without a full FAA license. Makes the FAA license issued based on a foreign license kind of pointless if you own an N-reg or rent in the US. (OK, I can hear all responses about 2 medicals now)

[421C]

Originally Posted by ca_flyer

There are plenty of hits on Google re this.
Here is a cut and paste from such an article...
"... 14 CFR 91.109 says a safety pilot is required for simulated instrument
flight and that the safety pilot must have at least a private pilot
certificate, along with the type and category ratings appropriate to the
aircraft being used. Since a safety pilot is a required crew member, they must have a current medical certificate (14 CFR 61.51) and meet all the other pilot-in-command currency requirements..."

So not only must the safety pilot have a BFR he/she must also have the 90 day currency for carrying a passenger.

At this point it is probably best that you contact a FSDO and get it straight from the horses mouth..

I think we leave it at agreeing to disagree. Google hits are not the same as the FAR's. I have read the exact opposite in other googled articles! The quote above is logically flawed. A Flight Engineer or a Second-in-Command are required crewmembers and yet do not need to meet PIC requirements. Therefore I don't believe that Safety Pilot = Required Crewmember = must qualify as PIC.

Arrowflyer

6. The airwork (and groundschool?) for a BFR can be done by any ICAO instructor, but the logbook endorsements must be made by an FAA certified instructor. (So theoretically, doing a UK PPL re-val with an instructor counts for 1 hour of the FAA BFR, but to complete the BFR, 1 hour of groundschool on FAA FARS is required plus proper logbook endorsement)

In order to endorse you for the BFR, the FAA Instructor has to do the ground and flight school elements with you. So no, non-FAA ICAO instructors can not do any of the BFR. There are other ways of meeting the BFR requirement (eg. passing an FAA checkride, or recurrent and differences training with FAA instructors that may include a BFR sign-off)

My advice would be to get access to an FAA Instructor you trust and verify all the advice you get by personally reading the FAR/AIM books. You can see from the discussion ca_flyer and I have had that there is scope for disagreement between 2 reasonable guys who sound pretty knowledgeable (for instance, I'd swear I'm right on the Safety Pilot thing, but I may be wrong, and the rules do change both in print and how the FAA interprets them....wait till you ask about forecast icing and known icing!). You can not treat any given instructors advice as absolutely definitive on every regulatory subject, because there are always a few areas of difficult interpretation and different instructors will disagree. As ca_flyer says, the last resort is writing to a FSDO. In the case of UK N-reg operators, this is the New York International Field Office, although I think we have an obligation to do as much research and due diligence as possible before bothering them.

This is an excellent document on the BFR:
http://www.faa.gov/pilots/training/m...ght_review.pdf
The BFR isn't a 1hr ground plus 1hr air 'box ticking' excercise. The FAA view is that 1+1hrs might be appropriate for a Pilot in very current practice (eg. >300hrs/yr) but for a UK pilot exercising FAA privileges I'd expect the instructor to be extra diligent that they really new all the important rules both for operating in the US, and for operating on the N-reg in Europe.

[Arrowflyer]

Thanks 421c.
Further clarification helps
I have, today, written to the Airmen Branch to see if I can get a definitive statement. I have no problem with the BFR as such (although I think it will be harder than my UK revalidation). I am reasonably confident in my knowledge of FARS and I'm confident in my flying and piloting abilities. Actually for my UK reval, my instructor made me do some cross-country, so the only issue would be weather planning (or more precisely - planning sources).

I'm pretty cheesed off that I have to do a UK and an FAA revalidation, given the issuance of the license based on my UK one and that I have to pay twice for effectively doing the same thing. Now I need to go and get dispensation from the DoT to do the BFR in my N-reg.

However, this thread has shown that the FAA BFR IS required for licenses issued on the basis of a foreign license and that's the key learning.

[421C]

Arrowflyer - it's worth mentioning a couple of other requirements that are specific to using your N-reg license here in the UK. You must also have an FCC Restricted Radiotelephoone Operator Permit (easily done, go to the FCC website). Also, you must carry a Passport whenever using the privileges of the license on an N-reg airplane, even if the flight is within the UK. IIRC the Passport is the only qualifying photo ID, I don't think a UK photo driver's license will do.

rgds
421C

[421C]

I take back my earlier point. ca_flyer, thanks for your patience, at least I have learned something. More careful reading of 61.55 (especially subpart (d) which refers to Safety Pilots) makes it clear that the Safety Pilot is a required crewmember in the Second-In-Command sense, and that means he must be current etc, and meet other SIC requirements except those that 61.55f4 says are not needed.

Going back to a copy of the John Lynch 14 CFR FAQs (no longer current or available on the FAA website), it seems that there used to be an item in 61.55 which absolved a Safety Pilot from all of 61,55, but now it is only from the specific SIC training requirements.

However, I now have a stronger conviction that the Safety Pilot needs to qualify as SIC and not PIC, so am clinging to that as being partially right on something!


regards
421C

[Arrowflyer]

Originally Posted by 421C

Arrowflyer - it's worth mentioning a couple of other requirements that are specific to using your N-reg license here in the UK. You must also have an FCC Restricted Radiotelephoone Operator Permit (easily done, go to the FCC website). Also, you must carry a Passport whenever using the privileges of the license on an N-reg airplane, even if the flight is within the UK. IIRC the Passport is the only qualifying photo ID, I don't think a UK photo driver's license will do.

rgds
421C

That's a new one on me! Is this for outside the US or only for the UK as I am flying in the UK on my UK license.

This lot is beginning to do my head in

[Arrowflyer]

Thanks ca_flyer

I am aware of the Radio Station license and, as I thought, all the rules regarding US registered aircraft otuside the US, but the FCC one is new to me and has never been raised in discussions I've had with other N-reg owners. That's why I was a bit surprised. Got one ordered now though

BTW. I checked with the US AOPA and they say an FAA BFR is not required if using your foreign license but that the foreign license BFR, if one applies, keeps your FAA license current.......and round we go.
I've written to the Airmen Branch for clarification. It's a bit pedantic, but I want to be 100% sure.

[DaveW]

Originally Posted by ca_flyer

If you fly PIC without that FAA BFR - then you would be doing so illegally - it's your call.

And hence you wouldn't be insured either, which is never a good idea but in the USA could be positively ruinous.

ca_flyer's precis also makes logical sense, if you think about it, which is what I was trying to say with my blather several posts back about the non-US licence being a "foundation".

Belated thanks, 421C.