FAA 61.75 licence validity question
 

As I understand it, this depends on having a valid parent licence, current medical from the country of the parent licence or an FAA medical, plus an in-date FAA BFR. I have always presumed that it does not require the pilot to be within date on the parent country 'BFR equivalent' as well.

Is this correct?

That is my understanding. That said, as my EASA licence contains a specific rating validity dated, which is based upon my biennial - I don't think I'd like to try arguing that it was valid if that date had been passed. It seems a dangerous place to start playing "barrack-room lawyer".

Incidentally, whilst it's still nominally biennial, the FAA have decided to stop calling it a "Biennial flight review", and it's now just a "Flight Review" on the grounds that there may be reasons to have them at different intervals depending upon currency need.

G

I raised this question with an examiner (EASA rather than FAA) very recently. I expressed the view that my FAA 'piggy-back' PPL was not current as I am not in-date with an FAA BFR. He told me that I did not require an FAA BFR as the FAA 'piggy-back' licence was rendered valid by my EASA PPL, BFR etc. being fully up to date.

Does anybody 'with stripes' have a clear view on this? Where can I verify this; Part 61.75(g) is not explicit, not to me at least?

(PS. I'm using the term BFR 'cos its easy and we all know what it means in both EASA-land and FAA-land).

Hm, no stripes but fairly certain that for 'piggybacks':

1. Your supporting paperwork must be 100% correct and legal (ie you can go fly a plane using it).
2. The only FAA additional requirement is the Flight Review which still has to be done.

But, happy to be corrected.

I'd ignore anything an EASA examiner says regarding what I can do using my 61.75 under FAA jurisdiction.
I'd ignore anything an FAA examiner says regarding what I can do using my EASA PPL under EASA jurisdiction.
(As I also hold a UK National PPL, I suspect no-one is sure exactly what I can do within UK Airspace.😬)

Thanks Sam, I've just found what could be the answer - and I (we) might not need an FAA BFR.

Part 61.19(c)(2) says:

The holder of a pilot certificate issued on the basis of a foreign pilot license may exercise the privileges of that certificate only while that person's foreign pilot license is effective.

But, but, but...

If the much fabled FAA Flight Review (61.56) is required for 61.75 licence holders, then section 61.41(2) means that the 1 hour with an instructor accomplished to keep the EASA PPL up to snuff satisfies:

§61.41 Flight training received from flight instructors not certificated by the FAA.

Going through parts 61 and 91 and the FAA's guidance on flight reviews, I can't see anything suggesting you are wrong Kemble.

But, I'm going to keep keeping mine up to date with an FAA instructor, in case you are, and for a straightforward life (and the fact that my local EASA IRE is also an FAA CFI, which helps.)

G

I'm only an EASA FI, but if someone would ask me to sign off a FAA Flight Review based on the bi-yearly SEP revalidation, I would politely decline that as I have no FAA qualifications. Looking at the intent of the regulations, I read this as:
1. You need to keep your non-US license valid, including the bi-yearly revalidation requirements. As mentioned, you need to be able to use this certificate for it to cover the needs of the piggyback FAA license.
2. You need to have a current FAA Flight Review, as that covers both the flying skills and the knowledge required. But I would hazard a guess that the intent here is to review the knowledge of FAA procedures, which would not be covered by the pre- and post-flight briefing for an EASA training flight. The best way to cover this would be to do your SEP revalidation with an EASA instructor who is also a FAA CFI, as this person would be able to make sure that the needs of the FAA Flight Review are met.

Just my two cents, I realise that this is a tricky subject...

Training is very different to a Flight Review. In one you are PUT and in the other P1. That must mean that EASA training cannot replace an FAA Flight Review.

Then again, PUT vs P1 is a UK distinction, the FAA only recognises PIC vs Dual received. FAR 61.56 states that "a flight review consists of a minimum of 1 hour of flight training". I would expect that to be logged as 'Dual received', similar to the 1 hour training flight for SEP revalidation. FAA CFIs please confirm...

Nope. The FAA flight review is logged as PIC time - the name of the instructor only appears in the short sentence they write and sign in the back of the logbook. Some also countersign next to the flight but this is not a requirement.

When I give an FAA flight review I log PIC and instruction given and the flight review applicant logs PIC and instruction received. PIC and instruction received are not mutually exclusive. In nearly 40 years as an FAA licence holder I have never seen it done any other way.

Also, my FAA license does not become invalid if I don't have a current flight review. All that happens is that I'm not authorized to exercise the privileges of the licence until I do have a satisfactory flight review.

Thanks for correcting me on that one EXDAC. I wasn't able to find the FARs on logging flight time. In EASAland the training flight should be logged as Dual, as the regs don't allow more than one PIC per flight. The exception to that is a succesfull skill test for license issue.

Sapperkenno, I have studied Part 61 all the way through - hence me quoting some of the relevant sections. As is often the case with regulations though, they can be ambiguous. 61.56 defines the flight review but 61.41 accepts training given overseas by a foreign instructor.
I don't see anywhere in the regulations that says a 'flight review' does not qualify as 'flight instruction'? In EASA-land both get logged as PUT, I don't know about FAA-land. Sadly in this day and age pilots and instructors need to be barrack-room lawyers otherwise we will get driven from pillar to post even more than we are already.

Your suggestion of asking the FAA direct makes eminent sense but, in my experience, it is always a good idea to have read and digested the regs before talking to the Regulator.

Does anybody have the right FAA contact for such a query?

I think you may have misunderstood the regulation you quoted.

"(2) A flight instructor who is authorized to give such training by the licensing authority of a foreign contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, and the flight training is given outside the United States." does not stand alone. It is subordinate to:
"(a) A person may credit flight training toward the requirements of a pilot certificate or rating issued under this part, if that person received the training from:"

Therefore 2) only applies to instruction toward a pilot certificate or rating and this para does not cover flight instruction for a flight review.

There is no doubt in my mind that an FAA flight review must be conducted by an FAA certificated flight instructor.

I believe so. You may find the following CC opinions useful:

Collins which confirms that a BFR is required
Krausz which confirms that foreign regulation regarding validity does not apply.

I can't find it, but I think there's one that explicitly says that an expired foreign rating does not invalidate the 61.75.

Thanks EXDAC and Bookworm, the FAA letter to Collins is pretty conclusive.

Out of interest, where do you find these letters? Presumably somewhere on a US government FOI-type website?

Bookworm's link is probably the most important place to start when you have any question about the application or meaning for anything in the FARs.

The answers to this are clear and already well documented on pprune - use of the search function will give you more info.

In summary - the non-faa licence must be VALID - this means not under suspension, wthdrawn or expired. Nothing to do with currency. Currency is irrelevant.

To use the privileges of the 61.75 you need either a current FAA medical or medical certificate appropriate to the underlying licence. You also need a current flight review ( BFR ). When a 61.75 is issued it does NOT convey a flight review ( like a check ride woudl) nor does a foreign currency check count. A FAA flight review is thus required before using the 61.75 and thereafter when using it.

+1 for custardpsc

That's my understanding as well.

My situation is slightly different from the usual. I have lived in the US 20 years and for the first 15 or so I flew entirely on a 61.75 based on UK/EASA. My rule of thumb was not to do anything I was not CURRENTLY entitled to do in both countries. Anything else you may not discover the legal position until the court case. The one exception is you are probably ok with just an FAA medical although to renew / revalidate EASA you now appear to need a medical anyway so you can't sustain that very long.

The issues have been much discussed on PPrune but they are certainly not clear. Some have even argued your licence is not even VALID without a medical. As has been said good luck (to you or your lawyer) with getting the answer you want from the CAA.

At the moment to fly again in the UK I would have to get an ATO recommended training schedule and pass a skill test and probably a few other things - the idea that I could reactivate my 61.75 with just an FAA medical and a (B)FR would seem to be more than a stretch. If you are living outside the US maybe you can afford to take a more sanguine view of potential liability issues.

In the case of an EASA licence, they are correct:

The bottom line with the FAA Flight Review (or revalidating a lapsed EASA licence) is that the pilot has to display an acceptable standard of flying. It would be a pretty remarkable pilot who can do that after a multi-year break, without some remedial TK and flight instruction.

G

I have been flying with a certificate issued under 61.75 for about 10 years and can concur that only the underlying licence should be valid as described (i.e not revoked, suspended or expired), the class rating privileges etc are taken care of by the US regulations (i.e. flight review).

One possible issue is that the US requirement for instructor endorsements such as 'high performance' or 'tailwheel' should be as described in the FARs. Unless you meet the grandfather rights that are enshrined in the rules, then you will need the endorsement of a CFI before flying PIC irrespective of your prior experience. It may seem odd that 1000 hours of tailwheel flying may not qualify you, but those are the rules.

It's also worth noting that the CAA will only issue the validation to the FAA if your rating and medical are valid at the time. My one minor issue with the 61.75 was having to go through the process again when JAR changed to EASA and the licence number changed. I needed to revalidate in the UK to get the CAA to do a new validation. The FAA don't care about your foreign medical and rating so long as you meet their requirements.

Md600 - Validity is what is verified with the CAA , not currency. You don't have to be current, only have a VALID ( ie not suspended etc) licence. And yes, you can reactivate a 61.75 after 15 years with a BFR and a FAA medical provided the underlying licence remains VALID. (not current). This is no different to a FAA regular Private Certificate holder who lapses. Its all on the CFI who writes BFR satisfactory in your logbook, and no sane CFI is going to do that after the bare minimum.(one hopes)

BillyBob - not so. You are not using the privileges of your EASA licence when using a 61.75. You merely need to hold a *valid* EASA licence on which to base the 61.75. ( And carry it with you when using the 61.75) An EASA licence is not rendered valid by a medical, it is rendered usable. There is a diffference. You can have a valid licence but no medical and no currency, meaning that you cannot exercise the privileges. The only exception to this is some (non EASA) foreign licences which have medical endorsements as a part of the licence itself but this is not the case for EASA licences.

Mark you are partly right about the endorsements, but if your foreign licence requires training / endorsement by an authorised instructor ( ie foreign CFI ) for a skill eg UK tailwheel differences, that is acceptable to the FAA and no FAA CFI endorsement is required.(And yes, I do know the FAA definition of an authorised instructor and this is the correct use of the term !) Where the foreign licence is silent about a skill (the FAA's own words) , eg a country doesn't have any required training / endorsement for say, tailwheel - then you are correct and a FAA CFI endorsement is required.

But "It's also worth noting that the CAA will only issue the validation to the FAA if your rating and medical are valid at the time " not so - they will simply verify only that your licence is valid if you don't also have a medical. You don't need to hold a current EASA medical, although, if you do, you can also have that verified. ( see also Question 11 on the 61.75 application form, just tick no foreign medical if you don't have one). After 61.75 issue you can use an unverified EASA medical instead of an FAA medical. For issuance of a certificate under 61.75 you will need to present either a verified foreign medical or a current FAA medical at the FSDO. I did not have a current EASA medical at time of verification letter issuance and subsequently used my FAA medical instead for 61.75 certificate reissuance.

FAA's own words : Ref. § 61.75(b)(4); If the verification from the foreign civil aviation authority states that the foreign pilot license is valid, but the foreign medical license has expired then in accordance with § 61.75(b)(4), it is permissible to accept the FAA medical certificate as meeting the requirement for a current medical certificate

FYI - if you add a rating to a 61.75 - you have to have a valid verification letter when you wish to add the rating to thecertifiate ( its a re-issuance)

This may help - here is the issuance procedure (note the use of the word OR in the medical cert section)

) If there is a verification of authenticity letter on file, proceed with the application process. (2) Application Process of Person with Verification of Authenticity Letter. (a) Open PTRS. (b) Verify that the authenticity letter is still valid (within 60 days of date on letter). (i) If the authenticity letter is still valid, review the applicant’s FAA Form 8710-1. (ii) If the authenticity letter is no longer valid (more than 60 days from the date on the letter), advise the applicant that he or she must pre-apply again with AFS-760. Close PTRS. (3) Review the completed FAA Form 8710-1. (a) Assure it is filled out accurately and in ink. (The instructions for completing the FAA Form 8710-1 application are attached to the application.) (b) In Section I, “Application Information,” assure that the applicant has checked “Private.” If the applicant desires instrument privileges on the U.S. pilot certificate, assure that the applicant has also checked “Instrument.” (c) Assure that Section II, Blocks A through V, have been completed.(d) Assure thatSection III, “Record of Pilot Time,” has been completed. (e) Ensure that Sections IV and V have been completed. (f) Have the applicant make any necessary corrections if any of the above items are not accurate or complete. (4) Verify that the applicant has the following documents with the completed FAA Form 8710-1: (a) The person’s foreign pilot license. A legible English transcription of the foreign pilot license, if the foreign pilot license is not in English, is acceptable. (b) Permanent home of record of the person. (Refer to the note after paragraph 4S(3)(b) of this Notice.) (c) U.S. pilot certificate issued under §61.75 (if for re-issuance). (d) A copy of the foreign medical endorsement/foreign medical license, as appropriate, or a 14 CFR part 67 medical certificate. (e) Knowledge test results, if knowledge test results are applicable. (f) Verifiable and positive identification of the person, e.g., driver’s license, passport, or other acceptable means of identification with a photograph and physical description. (g) Attach the original verification of authenticity letter issued by the FAA’s Airmen Certification Branch, AFS-760. (5) Determine ICAO Member State status.(a) Note the country in Section II, Block D1, of the FAA Form 8710-1 application. (b) Compare the country listed with figure 1 to determine if the country is an ICAO member state. If there is any question about a country’s status, check the listing of current ICAO member states located athttp://www.icao.int/icao/en/members.htm.
(i) If the country is not an ICAO member state, inform the applicant that the U.S. certificate cannot be issued and return all submitted documents to the applicant. Close out PTRS. (ii) If the country is an ICAO member state, verify the applicant’s identity. (6) Verify the Applicant's Identity. (a) Establish the person's identity with some form of government-issued photo identification (driver’s license, passport, etc.). (b) Compare the identification with the information provided on the FAA Form 8710-1 application. (i) If the person's identity cannot be verified for lack of documentation or inadequate documentation, request that the person return with the appropriate identification. (ii) If the person's identity appears to be falsified, do not proceed. (See FAA Order 8700.1, volume 2, Chapter 182). (c) Review the verification of authenticity letter (should be the original letter) that was sent to the applicant by the FAA’s Airmen Certification Branch and compare it to the information provided by the applicant on FAA Form 8710-1. (i) If the information does not match, do not proceed. (See FAA Order 8700.1, volume 2, Chapter 182). (ii) If the information matches, proceed to establish the applicant’s eligibility. (7) Establish the Applicant’s Eligibility. (a) Review the applicant's foreign pilot license for the following: (i) Ensure the information on the foreign pilot license is the same as the information provided in the person's identification and in Section II(D) of the FAA Form 8710-1 application. (ii) Ensure the applicant holds the ratings which he or she is applying for by comparing it to the ratings held on the foreign pilot license. (iii)If the person is requesting an instrument rating, ensure that the applicant's foreign pilot license authorizes instrument privileges that are equivalent to the U.S. instrument rating. If the applicant needs to take the Instrument-Foreign Pilot knowledge test, refer the applicant to a computer testing center and explain that he or she will have to reapply for the instrument privileges once that test has been passed. (iv) Verify that the applicant has passed the Instrument-Foreign Pilot knowledge test. (v) Review the person's medical endorsement/certificate to determine if it is valid. (b) If an applicant is not eligible for the U.S. pilot certificate and/or rating sought, or if a discrepancy exists in any of the items indicated above, return the FAA Form 8710-1 and any submitted documents to the person. Inform the person why he or she is not eligible and explain how to obtain the certificate and/or ratings sought. Close out PTRS. (c) If a person is found not to be eligible for the U.S. pilot certificate because the person was unable to read, speak, write, or understand the English language, issue a Notice of Disapproval of Application, FAA Form 8060-5. NOTE: The reason that the FAA Form 8060-5 needs to be issued is so the failure will be recorded and on file with the FAA’s Airmen Certification Branch, AFS-760. Properly recording the failure is needed when and if the person re-applies for the U.S. pilot certificate, for example at another FAA Flight Standards District Office or with FAA Representatives who are located in a U.S. Embassy overseas. (d) If the applicant is eligible for the U.S. certificate, issue the certificate. (8) Issue the private pilot certificate as follows:

And for those still struggling with the difference between currency and validity - here is the FAA definitionRef. § 61.75(a), (a)(4), and (b)(4); We do not have any written language on the term “current” or “valid” or “valid and current.” However, for the purpose of standardization and policy, the terms “current”, “current and valid,” or “valid” mean: · Current means the person has met all of the appropriate recency of experience requirement of Part 61 for the flight operation being conducted and the person's medical certificate has not expired.

· Valid means the person's pilot certificate has not been surrendered, suspended, revoked, or expired.

It is simple - in order to fly under a 61.75 once issued, you need the originating licence to be working i.e. thst you can fly in the originating country using only that licence. So it must be accompanied by a current medical, a current flight review or the originating country's version and you must be current on flight experience (hours, take off & landing).

Then with your 61.75 you can fly on FAA with only the following stipulations, you must have a current FAA flight review and be current on take off and landings for an SEP. In addition you must have sign-offs from an instructor for complex, tailwheel. The 61.75 does not give you ratings your original licence dies not e.g. FAA PPL has an automatic "night rating" the 61.75 does not unless you have such a rating on your originating licence.

The idea that the 61.75 allows one to skirt around one's originating licence is incorrect. For example, one cannot get a 61.75 to enable legal flight by getting a Class3 FAA medical because one has been denied a Class 2 in, say, the UK. The 61.75 does invalid once the originating licence does when one is denied the originating country's medical.

Anyone who says different is simply wrong.

I regret that you are misinformed

No one is suggesting that it is a way to skirt around anything. But to clarify

>. So it must be accompanied by a current medical,
A current medical can be EITHER the host country or FAA. The FAA say so and i have quoted from the FSDO manual section for issuance of 61.75 above.

There are countries that have medcial endorsements within the licence itself. These are indeed rendered invalid by lack of a medical and thus are not usable to gain a 61.75 in that condition. But EASA licences do not contain that endorsement.

FAA guidance notes:

Some foreign CAAs enter periodic medical endorsements on their foreign pilot licenses, which affect their currency. Therefore, if the foreign pilot license must have a medical endorsement to make it valid, an FAA medical certificate alone will not satisfy the regulations. In cases when a medical endorsement is not used, a current medical license from the person’s foreign medical examiner or a current part 67 medical certificate will satisfy the requirement. If the person’s foreign pilot license shows a medical endorsement, the person should enter the word “endorsement” on FAA Form 8710-1, section I, block R, or the equivalent class of medical certificate

> a current flight review or the originating country's version
> and you must be current on flight experience (hours, take off & landing).

You do not need to be CURRENT according to the based -on country definition. You just need the underlying licence to be VALID. The FAA don't give any sort of care about the original licence currency. requirements, they expect you to be current according to their own definition. There is plenty of documentation on this point, starting with the need for an initial FAA flight review after issuance of the 61.75. Remember - you aren't flying in the original country., you are flying an N reg in the USA and the FAA only care about that set of circumstances.

This is what the FAA say :

Once the U.S. pilot certificate has been issued in accordance with § 61.75, the pilot need only meet the U.S. Federal Regulations (e.g., requirements on recency of experience) to exercise the privileges of his/her U.S. pilot certificate here in the United States.

And - yes you could fly on a FAA class 3 with a denied medical in the original country - but you'd have to declare the condition and the medical denial as part of getting the class 3 and if you subsequently get the class 3 you are good as far as the FAA is concerned. This is no different to simply obtaining an FAA private - you either have the class 3 or you don't. If you have it you can fly on it. Or, you can use basicMed if you held a FAA med certificate previously and don't have a disqualifying condition/require special issuance.. BUT - if you are outside the continental USA what you can't do is use the self declaration BasicMed route. You do need a minimum of a class 3 to operate an N reg outside the USA because BasicMed is a national program and not ICAO compliant.


You are correct that a 61.75 doesn't give you ratings you are not entitled to But don't confuse ratings with endorsements or restrictions.. The privilege to fly at night is neither a rating nor an endorsement. This falls under the heading of 'restriction on based-on country licence' that has to be observed. ie, the UK has a night rating and wthout it you can't fly at night because your UK licence contains that restriction. If you want night privs on your 61.75 based on an UK EASA licence without a night rating then you have to complete the necessary night training a FAA private would take and have the training endorsed on your logbook.

As for the endorsements - I quoted the FAA guidance on the subject showing that foreign endorsements are acceptable . - here is a relevant para from the FAA FAQ ::QUESTION: As in scenario No. 3, the foreign State's civil aviation regulations DOES have a regulatory equivalent to 14 CFR § 61.31. And, in this scenario the pilot HAS received training, logged time, and has an endorsement (or has a rating) in an aircraft equivalent to one or more of those specified in § 61.31(e) – (g) and (i). The pilot has flown a complex, high performance, high altitude or tailwheel aircraft. And has met the foreign State's regulatory requirements with respect to the required training and logbook endorsements (or ratings), if any, for those aircraft. ANSWER: Ref. § 61.31(e)(1), (f)(1), (g)(1) and (2), and (i)(1), as appropriate; As long as it has been determined that the foreign pilot has complied with the additional aircraft training requirements of § 61.31 then that foreign may act as a PIC for that kind of aircraft that foreign pilot wishes to exercise PIC privileges while exercising his/her U.S. pilot certificate.

hope that clarifies the position...

Currency to add IFR to a 61.75 Certificate
 

I've encountered another wrinkle on the discussion in this thread.
I was issued a 61.75 in 2016 on the basis of my Australian PPL. I had a current Australian Medical and BFR (bi-ennial flight review) at the time. Both of which have since lapsed, as I am now resident in the US.
After 61.75 issue, I have maintained US medical and Flight Review currency.
I have, this year, passed the FAA IFR Written exam, and have in the last 2 months logged all the necessary training hours with a US CFII
3 weeks ago, an FAA DPE rejected my application for an IFR Flight Test, for addition of the Instrument rating to my 61.75 licence.
The basis of that denial was the DPE's assertion that I needed to have a current Australian Flight Review and medical certificate. In addition to my current US medical and Flight Review. The fact that my Australian Licence is stamped Permanently Valid was not acceptable to the DPE.
The DPE even called an FAA inspector and a contact at AOPA who both confirmed the DPE's position.
Can anyone point me to the relevant words in the FAA regs, orders and/or AC's that state the requirement for my Valid Australian Licence to be supported by current Australian medical and Flight review?

Following the implementation of the EU (not EASA?) bilateral agreement with the US/FAA, there are a couple of updates to the understanding of validity/currency quoted above.

They may not apply in your case, but try looking for another DPE?

Alternatively, if you are already at a standard for the IRA checkride, why not complete the Private/Commercial checkride, and be done with 61.75 altogether?

Good luck.

Thanks awair.
I'm looking at 3 possible tracks
1) A clarification from the FAA to my request (already submitted) that they cite the regulation which the DPE has used to deny my application
2) Have discussed with a US CFII about going to a different DPE
3) Doing a US Private licence written and Flight Test

I do not anticiapte the FAA has the ability to provide a quick answer, so I'm guessing option 2) or 3) will come into play.

But I would like to get the FAA and the DPE to show the documentary proof.