61.75 without going to US
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The above posted URL is mis-informed.
The widely distributed email mentioned above was mis-informed too.
Q: You say on your website that instruction for the award of an FAA instrument rating given by a UK IMC instructor is invalid. I know someone who received such training and found an FAA DPE in Arizona that excepted it. He now has the FAA instrument rating. In fact, he is a major contributor on several websites in the UK offering advice on the subject. So who's correct here.
A: The person in question knows that his instrument rating was issued on false pretenses. Although the DPE in Arizona didn't realize that instruction toward an FAA IR from a UK IMC instructor is invalid, I did! What normally happens in these cases is that the applicants logbook gets audited and he instantly loses the rating and/or license.
The fact is, If an IMC instructor isn't allowed to instruct for the award of his own country's instrument rating then he certainly isn't allowed to instruct for any ICAO Instrument rating!!
The pilot concerned was and is 100% legit. He met the FAA IR dual training requirements with approx 25hrs done with an FAA CFII in Arizona. No UK based IMCR training time was used towards his IR.A: The person in question knows that his instrument rating was issued on false pretenses. Although the DPE in Arizona didn't realize that instruction toward an FAA IR from a UK IMC instructor is invalid, I did! What normally happens in these cases is that the applicants logbook gets audited and he instantly loses the rating and/or license.
The fact is, If an IMC instructor isn't allowed to instruct for the award of his own country's instrument rating then he certainly isn't allowed to instruct for any ICAO Instrument rating!!
The widely distributed email mentioned above was mis-informed too.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
English Language Proficiency
Can anyone give a definitive answer to the question of how you add the english language proficiency endorsement to a piggy back FAA PPL (the new plastic card one)? I got mine about four years ago and of course it is absent the endorsement. Speaking to someone recently the procedure he outlined seemed to amount to the fresh issue under 61.75. The cost quoted was quite high and it is almost worth getting a stand alone FAA PPL instead.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: E Anglia
Posts: 1,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes you get a re-issued plastic certificate but you keep your original number.
I followed the path outlined by echobeach (posting 8.30 yesterday) except I used a visiting DPE who came to Denham for a few days.
You could use Adam House but I think visiting DPE was cheaper.
PM sent
Cusco
I followed the path outlined by echobeach (posting 8.30 yesterday) except I used a visiting DPE who came to Denham for a few days.
You could use Adam House but I think visiting DPE was cheaper.
PM sent
Cusco
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA can give you the definitive answer
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviat.../info08012.pdf
Re Tom Hughston
For the avoidance of doubt:-
I've never met or corresponded with Tom and have no axe to grind either way.
Any Googling on this subject will turn up lots of stuff. Here's a short history of my own involvement.
AOPA UK made enquiries some months ago of the FAA Head Office and were given information which it published in good faith. That information stated that a personal vist to a FSDO was required. Tom and his suporters objected strongly to what AOPA published but did not provide any definitive information to support their contention that 61.75's and English Proficiency endorsements could be obtained through DPE's (Designated Pilot Examiners).
I researched the situation and found the references that I have referred to on this thread. The information was then posted on the AOPA UK thread at AOPA UK • View topic - FAA throws a spanner in the works
If the information regarding Tom not operating at present is correct then it may be that he's fallen foul of the restrictions contained in Art 140 of the ANO
And of course to do it in a G-Reg would require the appropriate JAA or CAA license to be held.
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviat.../info08012.pdf
Re Tom Hughston
For the avoidance of doubt:-
I've never met or corresponded with Tom and have no axe to grind either way.
Any Googling on this subject will turn up lots of stuff. Here's a short history of my own involvement.
AOPA UK made enquiries some months ago of the FAA Head Office and were given information which it published in good faith. That information stated that a personal vist to a FSDO was required. Tom and his suporters objected strongly to what AOPA published but did not provide any definitive information to support their contention that 61.75's and English Proficiency endorsements could be obtained through DPE's (Designated Pilot Examiners).
I researched the situation and found the references that I have referred to on this thread. The information was then posted on the AOPA UK thread at AOPA UK • View topic - FAA throws a spanner in the works
If the information regarding Tom not operating at present is correct then it may be that he's fallen foul of the restrictions contained in Art 140 of the ANO
Restriction on aerial photography, aerial survey and aerial work in aircraft registered elsewhere than in the United Kingdom
140 (1) An aircraft registered in a Contracting State other than the United Kingdom, or in a foreign country, shall not fly over the United Kingdom for the purpose of aerial photography or aerial survey (whether or not valuable consideration is given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight) or for the purpose of any other form of aerial work except with the permission of the Secretary of State granted under this article to the operator or the charterer of the aircraft and in accordance with any conditions to which such permission may be subject.
(2) Without prejudice to article 93 or to paragraph (1), any breach by a person to whom a permission has been granted under this article of any condition to which that permission was subject shall constitute a contravention of this article.
140 (1) An aircraft registered in a Contracting State other than the United Kingdom, or in a foreign country, shall not fly over the United Kingdom for the purpose of aerial photography or aerial survey (whether or not valuable consideration is given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight) or for the purpose of any other form of aerial work except with the permission of the Secretary of State granted under this article to the operator or the charterer of the aircraft and in accordance with any conditions to which such permission may be subject.
(2) Without prejudice to article 93 or to paragraph (1), any breach by a person to whom a permission has been granted under this article of any condition to which that permission was subject shall constitute a contravention of this article.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The above posted URL is mis-informed.
Q: You say on your website that instruction for the award of an FAA instrument rating given by a UK IMC instructor is invalid. I know someone who received such training and found an FAA DPE in Arizona that excepted it. He now has the FAA instrument rating. In fact, he is a major contributor on several websites in the UK offering advice on the subject. So who's correct here.
A: The person in question knows that his instrument rating was issued on false pretenses. Although the DPE in Arizona didn't realize that instruction toward an FAA IR from a UK IMC instructor is invalid, I did! What normally happens in these cases is that the applicants logbook gets audited and he instantly loses the rating and/or license.
The fact is, If an IMC instructor isn't allowed to instruct for the award of his own country's instrument rating then he certainly isn't allowed to instruct for any ICAO Instrument rating!!
The pilot concerned was and is 100% legit. He met the FAA IR dual training requirements with approx 25hrs done with an FAA CFII in Arizona. No UK based IMCR training time was used towards his IR.
The widely distributed email mentioned above was mis-informed too.
Q: You say on your website that instruction for the award of an FAA instrument rating given by a UK IMC instructor is invalid. I know someone who received such training and found an FAA DPE in Arizona that excepted it. He now has the FAA instrument rating. In fact, he is a major contributor on several websites in the UK offering advice on the subject. So who's correct here.
A: The person in question knows that his instrument rating was issued on false pretenses. Although the DPE in Arizona didn't realize that instruction toward an FAA IR from a UK IMC instructor is invalid, I did! What normally happens in these cases is that the applicants logbook gets audited and he instantly loses the rating and/or license.
The fact is, If an IMC instructor isn't allowed to instruct for the award of his own country's instrument rating then he certainly isn't allowed to instruct for any ICAO Instrument rating!!
The pilot concerned was and is 100% legit. He met the FAA IR dual training requirements with approx 25hrs done with an FAA CFII in Arizona. No UK based IMCR training time was used towards his IR.
The widely distributed email mentioned above was mis-informed too.
FAA PPL/IR
Don't you think you should have practiced what you preached? Just wondering as I know how keen you are on stamping out bull**** on internet forums.
Last edited by S-Works; 6th Jul 2009 at 12:59.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can use IMC time, in the same way as you can use Safety Pilot time. There are core requirements which must be met - i.e. 15 hrs with an APPROVED instructor - which means FAA CFII or IR rated IRI abroard. You must also meet some other CFII requirements too. But other than that, how the balance of your hours are made up, who cares.
Regarding Bullsh*t on these forums, you are right Bose, there is lots going around and lots of misinformation.
Regarding Bullsh*t on these forums, you are right Bose, there is lots going around and lots of misinformation.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am just curious, who are we to believe, the postings of internet experts or the writings of an FAA authorized DPE who seems to have made his interpretation quite clear. So which opinion is bull****? Is yours or his bull****, where is your evidence? Or is it just hearsay that is being propagated?
I just wonder at times about these. Especially when some people could be seen as getting on there soapbox about bull**** it is important to make sure they have all the facts and clearly argue the case. In this case if you are so certain that the DPE is incorrect you have stated it is your duty to expose him. Do you want the NY FSDO contact details?
Just playing devils advocate here as I am pretty neutral on the whole subject of what can and can't be allowed.
I just wonder at times about these. Especially when some people could be seen as getting on there soapbox about bull**** it is important to make sure they have all the facts and clearly argue the case. In this case if you are so certain that the DPE is incorrect you have stated it is your duty to expose him. Do you want the NY FSDO contact details?
Just playing devils advocate here as I am pretty neutral on the whole subject of what can and can't be allowed.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In all FAA IR cases I know of, mine included, the previous IMCR training had been accepted by the US based school and its US based DPE without any problem, but in all cases I know of it turned out to be irrelevant for logbook filling purposes because more than 15hrs were subsequently flown with the US based FAA CFII in order to reach the checkride standard.
It is virtually impossible for an IMCR holder to reach the FAA IR checkride standard without flying at least 15 additional hours with the eventual instructor (who for equally practical reasons will be an FAA CFII) so this whole question is moot for the purpose of debating the legality of somebody's logbook.
This kind of thing (the FARs are silent on this specific issue) is well within the discretion of the individual DPE anyway.
The real benefit of using the IMCR towards the FAA IR is that the minimum dual instrument time is indeed just 15hrs i.e. the FAA IR works largely on the principle of "demonstrated competence". So an IMCR holder who is already very good can go to the USA and knock off the FAA IR in perhaps an extra 15-25hrs. Whereas if you did the JAA IR you would have to sit there for 50/55hrs no matter how good you were, but a previous ICAO IR reduces this to 15hrs. This is why the IMCR -> FAA IR -> JAA IR remains a reasonable route.
It is virtually impossible for an IMCR holder to reach the FAA IR checkride standard without flying at least 15 additional hours with the eventual instructor (who for equally practical reasons will be an FAA CFII) so this whole question is moot for the purpose of debating the legality of somebody's logbook.
This kind of thing (the FARs are silent on this specific issue) is well within the discretion of the individual DPE anyway.
The real benefit of using the IMCR towards the FAA IR is that the minimum dual instrument time is indeed just 15hrs i.e. the FAA IR works largely on the principle of "demonstrated competence". So an IMCR holder who is already very good can go to the USA and knock off the FAA IR in perhaps an extra 15-25hrs. Whereas if you did the JAA IR you would have to sit there for 50/55hrs no matter how good you were, but a previous ICAO IR reduces this to 15hrs. This is why the IMCR -> FAA IR -> JAA IR remains a reasonable route.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't the FAA regulations specify:
of which 15 have to be with an instructor, ie the balance of 25 hours is flight time not instructional time?
I am not sure how it advances the argument to use an insulting tone. Clearly Mr H has his own particular view of the regulations; other persons here disagree with his interpretation as a result of their own contrary experiences. Can anyone quote an example of an individual who has been stripped of his IR by having IFR time flown using an IMCR being disallowed?
A total of 40 hours of actual or simulated instrument time ....
I am not sure how it advances the argument to use an insulting tone. Clearly Mr H has his own particular view of the regulations; other persons here disagree with his interpretation as a result of their own contrary experiences. Can anyone quote an example of an individual who has been stripped of his IR by having IFR time flown using an IMCR being disallowed?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Tom's basic contention that the 15 hours must be with a 'proper IR instructor' is reasonable, but not explicit. 3 of those hours explicitly must be with an FAA CFII, so as IO says it is only a question of those 12 hours.
I doubt there is a single IMCr holder who could get to check ride standards (in foreign airspace) in less than 12 hours. So Tom's FAQ is likely to be correct in its answer -
"IMCr training can not be counted towards the dual hours requirement of the FAA IR",
but it is answering the wrong question, the question asked should be,
"does my IMCR training and Instrument time (as in flight by sole reference to instruments) count towards the 40 hours total Instrument time?"
and the answer to this question is clearly, "Yes".
I doubt there is a single IMCr holder who could get to check ride standards (in foreign airspace) in less than 12 hours. So Tom's FAQ is likely to be correct in its answer -
"IMCr training can not be counted towards the dual hours requirement of the FAA IR",
but it is answering the wrong question, the question asked should be,
"does my IMCR training and Instrument time (as in flight by sole reference to instruments) count towards the 40 hours total Instrument time?"
and the answer to this question is clearly, "Yes".
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The impression I and many others got was that Mr. H's post was alleging not just that IMCR instruction time does not count but that IMCR flying time under IFR does not count. The latter is clearly wrong; the former would appear to be correct but irrelevant as anyone doing an FAA IR gets over 15 hours anyway from the instructor at the FTO, as has been pointed out here already. He appears to have used this point of view as a means of attacking publically someone who quite legitimately holds an FAA IR.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Justiciar -
Correct.
mm_flynn -
That's a perfectly fair personal interpretation - as are others.
The FARs are silent on this weird combination of US and non-US instrument privileges...
One soon gets into debating the meaning of "authorised instructor" which has never been settled by the FAA in the context of a non-FAA instrument qualification (like the UK or Australian sub-ICAO one). Some commentators have interpreted this as "ICAO IR instructor" (presumably because the FAA IR is an ICAO IR) but the FARs don't say this, either.
I have no idea if Australian pilots have forums too
but if they have, this is sure to be a topic on there too, for those going to the USA to do the FAA IR.
Anyway, this one is definitely within the discretion of the individual DPE doing that specific checkride. As are a pile of other things.
of which 15 have to be with an instructor, ie the balance of 25 hours is flight time not instructional time?
mm_flynn -
the 15 hours must be with a 'proper IR instructor'
The FARs are silent on this weird combination of US and non-US instrument privileges...
One soon gets into debating the meaning of "authorised instructor" which has never been settled by the FAA in the context of a non-FAA instrument qualification (like the UK or Australian sub-ICAO one). Some commentators have interpreted this as "ICAO IR instructor" (presumably because the FAA IR is an ICAO IR) but the FARs don't say this, either.
I have no idea if Australian pilots have forums too
but if they have, this is sure to be a topic on there too, for those going to the USA to do the FAA IR.Anyway, this one is definitely within the discretion of the individual DPE doing that specific checkride. As are a pile of other things.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't the FAA regulations specify:
Quote:
A total of 40 hours of actual or simulated instrument time ....
of which 15 have to be with an instructor, ie the balance of 25 hours is flight time not instructional time?
Quote:
A total of 40 hours of actual or simulated instrument time ....
of which 15 have to be with an instructor, ie the balance of 25 hours is flight time not instructional time?
I am just curious, who are we to believe, the postings of internet experts or the writings of an FAA authorized DPE
I read the FARS and have a copy of the FAR AIM and it is not "my view". Maybe you should read it too bose to stop you sprouting so much bullsh*t With regards to DPEs - well sometimes their view is also open to interpretation, I grant you - I suppose whatever suits them best and makes their life easy. The one who has the final say is the FSDO which supervises them and I'm sure that if anyone writes to the FSDO and asks the specific question, they will get the specific answer.
You don't have to worry about shopping me to the FAA though Bose, my IR is FAA born and bread - I never did do an IMCr first so did all 45 hrs or so with an FAA CFII....
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So funny I read the FARS and have a copy of the FAR AIM and it is not "my view". Maybe you should read it too bose to stop you sprouting so much bullsh*t
So I ask again who is correct, one of you must be, which means the rest are wrong and spreading bull****........
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I ask again who is correct, one of you must be, which means the rest are wrong and spreading bull****........
It is clear this is quite a technical discussion with the law not being entirely clear. The droves of lawyers we have each side of the Pond is testimony to the lack of legislative clarity, and it certainly does not mean when one lawyer takes a different view from the other "bull****" is involved.
In the context of this thread quite a different matter from those who like to embelish their hours or their Sky God status which justifiably would befit the previous label.
I remember a similiar discussion about the IMC rating and whether or not the minima were recommended or compulsory. The CAA's interpretation is that they are recommendations but I know of some who take the alternative view. Ultimately if anyone was ever interested it would be for the Courts to decide and, even then, a lower Court might take a different view from a higher Court.
Tom has expressed one view and I0 and alternative. IO has justified his view on this thread. So far as I can see Tom has not commented and nor have the FAA. The debate is interesting and I guess we can each take a view if we were judge and jury on the verdict we would give.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I ask again who is correct, one of you must be, which means the rest are wrong and spreading bull****........
What's your view Bose?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is clear this is quite a technical discussion with the law not being entirely clear.
There are a number of these areas, potentially applicable to foreign candidates going to the USA to do the FAA stuff.
It isn't a correct v. wrong situation.
The FAA FAQ (which used to be on their website till 2004; I have a copy if anybody wants one) which was written by John Lynch who wrote much of the FAR/AIM (not to be confused with Robert Lynch who works at the NY IFO) deals with some of these areas but not others, but in any case is not binding on any DPE or FAA staff examiner.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
So I ask again who is correct, one of you must be, which means the rest are wrong and spreading bull****........
The FARs allow for "safety pilot" time to count, so there is no earthly reason why IMC training time wouldn't count...is there...how could it not?
What's your view Bose?
So I ask again who is correct, one of you must be, which means the rest are wrong and spreading bull****........
The FARs allow for "safety pilot" time to count, so there is no earthly reason why IMC training time wouldn't count...is there...how could it not?
What's your view Bose?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Instrument time accumulated in IMCr training and IMCr operation clearly counts as Instrument time, as does any other flight time by sole reference to instruments - which is the main substance of the question. So IO, Al, et al. are not wrong.
Tom clearly believes, and as a DPE is entitled in undertaking his roll to enforce his view, that training by a sub-Icao IR instructor doesn't count as dual training towards an FAA IR. As Tom's belief is translated into his action, he is not wrong either.
There appears to be no evidence that the FAA Chief Council has been asked to or has issued an opinion in this regard - so the grey shade remains!
Tom's FAQ does not put forward any view or comment that Instrument Time accumulated by non-ICAO compliant licence holders does not count as logable instrument time. If it did, then there would be a clear contradiction and someone would be wrong.