It's been a while since I woke up to this many kisses...:ok:

SoCal

You are correct. I was also referring to FAR 61.31, but obviously confused 'turbine' with 'turbojet'.

Well, I do understand the confusion by many...
That word "turbine" is a very bad name for explanations.
xxx
Jet engines have a turbine as powerplant... and so do turboprops.
FAA requires a type rating for flying any jet airplane.
But a turboprop is... a propeller engine (powered by a turbine, yes).
But only require a check-out as they are over 200 hp.
FAA does not say anything about type ratings for "turbine engines".
xxx
A propeller airplane (reciprocating engine or turboprop) fly about the same.
Plenty of power with a turboprop, is the only difference.
But such airplanes behave about the same.
xxx
Jets (turbojet or turbofan airplanes) behave differently from propeller planes.
Therefore, FAA considered it should be requiring a type rating.
xxx
Example of handling differences -
On a jet, reducing power does not reduce the "drag" much.
On a "turboprop", reducing power immediately brings propeller drag.
Compare also stall speeds power ON and power OFF.
Basically NO difference for jet airplanes.
Not so for propeller or turboprop airplanes.
xxx
Hope you guys all are happy now.
Happy contrails.

Sorry to backtrack a bit, but does any know if the weight limit of 12,500lbs (5700kg) is max takeoff weight or empty weight?

It's always based upon gross takeoff weight. The wrinkle comes when a PPL multi license holder, who, in Canada, can fly a Twin Otter, which is a 12,500 aircraft, flies it at it's permitted 14,500 for ferrying. Is he still legal? Oh, the complexities!

Canadian regulation:

401.26 The holder of a private pilot licence - aeroplane may act as
(a) pilot-in-command or co-pilot of an aeroplane of a class and type in respect of which the licence is endorsed with ratings;

So, if you have the rating, go fly whatever you are rated for.

With a higher performance, complex endorsement and high altitude performance endorsement (all instructor sign offs)....then yes you can.

Without, then you are limited to non complex, non high performance and non high altitude. Easy...

(under the FARs)....

And even if they were _allowed to_, I strongly doubt that they actually _can_ ;)

Surely the answer is YES! the Caravan referred to is SET not SEP! The original question said SE

Another little known fact is that although a STANDALONE FAA licence entitles you to fly 'N' reg things which if they were on the 'G' reg would require a type rating (ie. FAA ASEL Class Rating covers you you fly a Caravan etc) this is NOT so with the 61.75 'foreign based' or piggyback licences.

A foreign based FAA PPL will appear to include ASEL and AMEL class ratings, but in fact it DOESN'T! It is simply giving you entitlement to your foreign licence privileges in an 'N' reg aircraft - it's NOT giving you new privileges that you don't already have.

So anyone one burning around in an 'N' reg Caravan, Malibu or King Air on a 'piggyback' FAA licence who doesn't have a type rating for that aircraft on their foreign licence, is doing so illegally.

See below . . .

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...2W%2008-08.pdf

I'm intrigued by the 200hp "high performance" defiition.Does this go on rated power or actual?
(i.e. a Lycoming 0-360 is rated at 200hp,but will only develop about 170[for example] if fitted with a course fixed pitch prop.however the same engine in an experimental,slightly breathed on {ported and balanced with high comp pistons,electronic ignition and a good exhaust system } with a constant speed prop can produce 220-230 h.p.).

The FAA define a 'high performance airplane' as being in one "an airplane with an engine of MORE than 200 horsepower".

Worth noting the 'MORE' because a 200bhp Piper Arrow is not a high performance aircraft because it does not have MORE than 200 hp.

So far as I am aware, I don't think the FAA defines how that 200 hp is to be measured.

Makes for an interesting question as well. If someone is flying a high performance aircraft on a 61.75 certificate do they need an FAA HP endorsement?

It is a VERY interesting question, and one which I sought to answer a few years ago before I had a standalone FAA licence.

Here's the scenario - I had a 61.75 'foreign based' licence and wanted to fly an 'N' reg 300hp Cessna 206 whilst on holiday out in the States.

The SEP (land) Class Rating on my UK licence covered this (and I had hundreds of hours in a Cessna 206 anyway), but did the ASEL on my 'piggyback' FAA licence?

I could find nothing in the FAR / AIM which clarified this, so I went to the local FSDO and asked them. They said that the 61.75 licence gave me exactly the privileges of my UK licence - so I should be ok.

The flight school who hired me the aircraft though, thought that to be on the safe side, they would give me a high performance endorsement as part of my pre rental check flight.

These days I have a stand alone FAA licence so things are now much clearer.

That was my understanding as well. What made me think though was when I converted to a full FAA certificate the DPE I talked to originally said that I would need HP for my own aircraft despite being a JAA Instructor as well as differences training etc which I can already give. It all seemed a bit odd.

That's because when you fly an 'N' reg aircraft on your 61.75 foreign based certificate, you are effectively exercising the privileges of your foreign licence, albeit that the 61.75 certificate enables you to do so on an 'N' registered aeroplane.

Once you have a stand alone FAA licence, you will then be exercising the privileges of THAT licence, so whatever JAA qualifications you may have, become irrelevant.