Expired SEP with Foreign Based FAA PPL

[aviatorrossy]

In 2019 I got myself an FAA Foreign Based Private Pilot Certificate with SEP(L) rating. Since then, my CAA SEP has lapsed and I want to fly in the US again. Having looked on the FAA 61.75 regs and designee handbook I still can't figure this out.

Do I need my UK CAA SEP to be current before I complete an FAA BFR to renew currency there? Or are the two separate?

All references I can find suggest that so long as the licence remains valid then so does the foreign based FAA PPL. Cheers.

[Fl1ingfrog]

All references I can find suggest that so long as the licence remains valid then so does the foreign based FAA PPL. Cheers.

That is correct. Therefore until you renew your UK licence then your associated FAA licence is not valid. .

[aviatorrossy]

Originally Posted by Fl1ingfrog

That is correct. Therefore until you renew your UK licence then your associated FAA licence is not valid. .

But that's the thing, are we talking about licences or ratings? My licence is current, but the SEP rating has expired. Surely if I need a BFR check anyway then it's irrelevant whether my CAA SEP is current.

[awair]

Based on previous FAA legal interpretations, that is not correct.

The 61.75 certificate is a fully-fledged license with its validity maintained by Flight Review, and PIC passenger carrying by 90-day recency. The FAA previously made a distinction between licenses being valid, or being current.

Have a look at this thread:
FAA 61.75 licence validity question

Good luck.

[awair]

Have a look at the Grossman 2014 letter:
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/fi...rpretation.pdf

… and Krausz 2012:
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/fi...rpretation.pdf

…and Collins 2013:
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/fi...rpretation.pdf

[B2N2]

Your FAA piggy back is fully based on your underlying UK/CAA certificate and its associated privileges and limitations.
So if you can’t fly on that one you can’t fly on the FAA one.

[awair]

Originally Posted by B2N2

Your FAA piggy back is fully based on your underlying UK/CAA certificate and its associated privileges and limitations.
So if you can’t fly on that one you can’t fly on the FAA one.

Respectfully disagree with your insertion of ‘fully’.

14 CFR 61.2 (a)(4) refers to validity:

Exercise privileges of a pilot certificate issued under §61.75, or an authorization issued under §61.77, if the foreign pilot certificate relied upon for the issuance of the U.S. pilot certificate or authorization is surrendered, suspended, revoked or expired.

Also the ‘privileges & limitations’ is also dubious. Restrictions stated on the license are binding on the 61.75, but the privileges are expanded by the 61.75 - for example, to include the turbine PA46, no type rating is required on an underlying UK/EASA license to fly this under Single Engine Land with FAA privileges.

​​​​​​​See the links above.

[B2N2]

SEP is not a Cirrus nor a PA-46, SEP is a Category of aircraft.
The reference to the letters is invalid.

• Does the CAA require your SEP to be current/valid/non-expired prior to flying any SEP your license/certificate authorizes you to fly?
• If that answer is YES then it falls under ‘limitations and restrictions’ requirements of 61.75

[awair]

SEP is a class of aeroplane.

PA46 & Cirrus fall into the similar SEL class on a US certificate.

It matters not what you, or I, think about the validity of those letters. Nor even the CAA’s opinion.

We are referring to N-registered aircraft: FAA and CFRs apply, and these interpretation letters set the precedent of the FAA’s determination of whether one is legal to fly.

The 61.75 certificate states that is “issued on the basis of” and must be “accompanied by”.

This becomes a risk management decision should one choose to fly an N-registered aircraft outside the USA.

[B2N2]

Ask yourself what would satisfy a

• NTSB judge
• Judge in a civil liability case
• Judge in a criminal case

Rather then trying to read into minutiae and mismatching regulations?
I find it especially ironic that the alleged “evidence” is in FAA council letters that concern accidents.

[rudestuff]

Originally Posted by B2N2

Ask yourself what would satisfy a

• NTSB judge
• Judge in a civil liability case
• Judge in a criminal case

Rather then trying to read into minutiae and mismatching regulations?
I find it especially ironic that the alleged “evidence” is in FAA council letters that concern accidents.

I think a legal opinion from an FAA assistant chief council for regulations would tick those boxes.

Part 61.75 clearly states that the holder "Is subject to the limitations and restrictions on the person's U.S. certificate and foreign pilot license"

The FAA have clearly ruled that limitations and restrictions must be annotated on the licence and even given examples such as "not valid for night operation" etc. If a total lack of an EASA PA46 type rating isn't considered a limitation then clearly neither is a lack of currency.

Part 61 Requires that flight review be conducted which takes care of the proficiency aspect - which makes perfect sense - its an FAA certificate so they want you to meet FAA currency requirements. The underlying licence must be valid (not surrendered or revoked) and have no limitations (as per FAA definition of limitations). Currency is irrelevant.

Why not write to the FAA for an opinion?

[BEagle]

As explained to a colleague of mine when he wanted to rent an aeroplane from a US flight school in Florida:

"If this isn't valid", he said holding up a UK PPL, "Then neither is this", he continued holding up a 61.75.

Also the licence serial numbers must match exactly........

[rudestuff]

Originally Posted by BEagle

"If this isn't valid", he said holding up a UK PPL, "Then neither is this", he continued holding up a 61.75.

Absolutely correct. The only question then is what does 'valid' mean? Many seem to interpret that as "If you can't use this then you can't use this" which is incorrect according to FAA logic. If you let your UK SEP rating expire, you cannot fly - but your licence does not disappear in a puff if smoke and cease to exist. It is still valid according to the FAA if it hasn't been suspended or revoked. Therefore you can fly on your associated 61.75 as long as you have a valid flight review.

By regulation a 61.75 is not a standalone licence. It needs to be issued 'on the basis of' something. The underlying licence merely needs to exist, it does not need to be current. That's what the flight review is for.

[Fl1ingfrog]

By regulation a 61.75 is not a standalone licence. It needs to be issued 'on the basis of' something. The underlying licence merely needs to exist, it does not need to be current. That's what the flight review is for.

This is suggesting that two different licences are held, one UK and the other FAA but they are not. For the UK licence to be 'valid' then all parts must be in place and up to date and certified for the flight to take place anywhere throughout the world; Subject to ICAO If the pilot wishes to fly a UK registered aircraft in the US then there is no additional licencing procedures. Each ICAO state may have additional requirements for flying its own aircraft. Only the CAA can certify a UK licence and its privileges, the US cannot.. The US rule 61.75 is an additional requirement. for the operation of its own aircraft.

[rudestuff]

Originally Posted by Fl1ingfrog

This is suggesting that two different licences are held, one UK and the other FAA but they are not. For the UK licence to be 'valid' then all parts must be in place and up to date and certified for the flight to take place anywhere throughout the world; Subject to ICAO If the pilot wishes to fly a UK registered aircraft in the US then there is no additional licencing procedures. Each ICAO state may have additional requirements for flying its own aircraft. Only the CAA can certify a UK licence and its privileges, the US cannot.. The US rule 61.75 is an additional requirement. for the operation of its own aircraft.

I'd have to disagree. An FAA certificate is required to operate an N registered aircraft in US airspace. Those are issued by the FAA and it is their rules that apply as to currency, validity etc. When they issue a 61.75 certificate they do so on the understanding that to use it you must be in possession of a valid underlying licence. Here's the important bit:

When you are flying an N-registered aircraft They decide what valid means. The FAA decide. Not you or me or the authority that issued the underlying licence, the FAA. And here's where it becomes my opinion: The FAA have made it very clear in their rulings that they dont care about currency or type ratings for SET, they care that you have a valid licence that covers ASEL, and in their book valid means not expired or revoked. Thats it.

I wonder if all the confusion is based on verification? The UK CAA would have to verify a licence in order to apply for a 61.75 and they may very well insist on it being current at the time of verification. But verification is a one time only event. 5 years later you could be flying around on a 61.75 with a current BFR (with an expired SEP rating on a valid UK license)

[Silvaire1]

Originally Posted by rudestuff

An FAA certificate is required to operate an N registered aircraft in US airspace. Those are issued by the FAA and it is their rules that apply as to currency, validity etc. When they issue a 61.75 certificate they do so on the understanding that to use it you must be in possession of a valid underlying licence. Here's the important bit:

When you are flying an N-registered aircraft They decide what valid means. The FAA decide. Not you or me or the authority that issued the underlying licence, the FAA. And here's where it becomes my opinion: The FAA have made it very clear in their rulings that they dont care about currency or type ratings for SET, they care that you have a valid licence that covers ASEL, and in their book valid means not expired or revoked. Thats it.

I wonder if all the confusion is based on verification? The UK CAA would have to verify a licence in order to apply for a 61.75 and they may very well insist on it being current at the time of verification. But verification is a one time only event. 5 years later you could be flying around on a 61.75 with a current BFR (with an expired SEP rating on a valid UK license)

You are absolutely correct. ICAO and/or foreign law does not regulate US airspace, pilots or aircraft. In providing perspective on the FAA position, it is worth bearing in mind that ratings like SEL, MEL, IR etc on an FAA Private Pilot Certificate do not expire, ever, so the concept of them expiring on some foreign licenses is not something that FAA personnel are either trained to understand, or interested in. What they care about under FAA regulations is the validity of the foreign license itself, any limitations that are written on the foreign license itself, and that the pilot flying on an FAA 61.75 pilot certificate meets the same Flight Review requirement as any other FAA pilot.

My father flew on a FAA 61.75 pilot certificate based on a non-expiring foreign pilot license for approximately 30 years in the US, during which time he did absolutely nothing with the foreign licence except to physically keep it. Any new ratings were earned on the FAA certificate only. Happily his foreign national pilot license was never revoked or rendered invalid by the issuing nation with the arrival JAR, EASA or whatever, so it continued to serve as required for the purposes of FAA and FAA regulations.

[custardpsc]

Valid in this context means not suspended or revoked. This has been covered on here many times. A european pilot licence cannot be used in europe without a european medical, but it doesnt mean its invalid if the medical is expired. A FAA medical can be used.with a 61.75 cert and the currency requirements are simply BFR/FAA currency requirements not anything else. The underlying licence needs to be valid, as in not revoked, and the underlying medical certificate can be expired provided an FAA medical is held. OR no faa med and a valid underlying one.

The only exception to this is when operating outside the USA. Many countries ( UK,EASA member countries) require residents to hold a local certificate that is both valid and usable to fly in that country. (note - country. EASA is not a country)

In the UK , where I am resident, I need a UK cert / med to fly my N reg, but as soon as I leave UK and enter france I have to have a FAA cert and medical. A french person needs a french issued easa cert until they fly to uk or germany in an N reg.

And whilst on the topic, paper 61.75 haven't been valid for a very long time yet I still see people trying to use them. And the foreign licence number must be an exact match for the number on the 61.75. If you go from say, ppl to cpl, the prefix changes and you will need a reissue.