Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

FAA 61.75 piggyback + FAA IR (and whether a Type Rating can be added to a 61.75)

To use the privileges of a 61.75 FAA certificate, one must meet the 61.56 Flight Review requirements. A flight review consists of a minimum of one hour dual flight and one hour ground instruction conducted by an FAA authorized instructor who makes an appropriate endorsement. To exercise instrument privileges based on the 61.75 certificate, one must meet the FAA currency requirements specified in 61.57(c).

KUZA, United States

Qalupalik wrote:

That viewpoint is inconsistent with the LOI to Andrew Krausz (22 March 2012) (link):

I agree.
Although I hold both a CAA/EASA & now (Stand-Alone) FAA license with an IR, I had always been told when I previously held a §61.75 ‘based-on’ certificate that whenever one was exercising its privildges one is bound by the stricter Regulations of whichever license you possess.

Last Edited by Peter_G at 21 Feb 12:49
Rochester, UK, United Kingdom

Al_Kee wrote:

The DPE I met said I don’t need adhere to the US system of 6 approaches/hold/tracking in latest 6m to keep it valid – I believe the only requirement is to keep my CAA IR valid (i.e. annual flight test). Is that correct?

That viewpoint is inconsistent with the LOI to Andrew Krausz (22 March 2012) (link):

… the pilot is subject to the restrictions and limitations that appear on the face of the US certificate or foreign pilot license. The language does not include the entirety of regulatory requirements of the foreign State since the holder of the §61.75 certificate is bound by the US regulatory requirements to exercise the privileges of the US certificate.

London, United Kingdom

I have just obtained an FAA piggyback with instrument rating based off my CAA IR (attended US and sat FPE etc).

The DPE I met said I don’t need adhere to the US system of 6 approaches/hold/tracking in latest 6m to keep it valid – I believe the only requirement is to keep my CAA IR valid (i.e. annual flight test). Is that correct?

Also, I had read that I need to do an hour with an FAA instructor to ‘validate’ the license – although the DPE said this was not required. My FAA license is an initial issue.

Cheers

United Kingdom

For the plane you need
EASA Turbocharged/Variable Pitch Prop/Retractable Gear differences trainings (basically a non event with any FI/CRI).

For FAA a complex endorsement is required (if <=200hp).

Get the EASA differences training and FAA endorsements and you are safe.

I’d hoped that if I have Turbo and RU in EASA Land that FAA would recognize as a valid endorsement on the FAA 61.75 PPL.
Then it’s as I assumed that FAA License lives it own life, and if you have a 61.75 PPL you also need to have the EASA part valid.

Only the EASA License needs to “exist”, it is valid for life to fly an N-reg.
To fly an N-reg outside EASA territory all ratings on the EASA license can be lapsed. Inside EASA, all ratings need to be valid.

always learning
LO__, Austria

The High performance endorsement is for more than 200 HP, so if the engine is rated for 200 HP, it is not eligible to obtain the HP endorsement and does not require the endorsement to act as PIC.

Good clarification, thanks. Sometimes details matter, particularly in this case if you were flying behind a 200 HP Lycoming!

Silvaire wrote:

High Performance (200 HP and up)

The High performance endorsement is for more than 200 HP, so if the engine is rated for 200 HP, it is not eligible to obtain the HP endorsement and does not require the endorsement to act as PIC.

I don’t have a HP or Complex endorsement, but am so old I meet the grandfather clause because I logged time in both prior to August 4, 1997. Same for tail wheel because I logged PIC time before April 15, 1991. I did get a High Altitude endorsement for flying in a King Air.

KUZA, United States

172driver wrote:

IMHO they would need to be done by a FAA CFI.

Some of the additional training required in 14 CFR 61.31(f) to act as PIC of a high-performance aeroplane, for example, could be provided by a non-US flight instructor pursuant to 14 CFR 61.41. However, the credit is limited to flight training. Para 61.31(f)(1) requires both ground and flight training, meaning the ground training must be given by a US flight or ground instructor. Further, the proficiency endorsement cannot be given a non-US instructor owing to the limitation in 14 CFR 61.41(b).

London, United Kingdom

Silvaire wrote:

My understanding is that the only thing that matters to FAA for the 61.75 ‘based-on’ license is the validity of the foreign license itself, what is written on the foreign license itself, and subsequently what they write on the back of the FAA license. Once you have the ‘based-on’ FAA pilot certificate it is maintained like any other FAA pilot certificate except that the foreign license number referenced on the back of the credit card sized pilot certificate must be valid and unchanged. Otherwise FAA does not care about foreign law or the details and extra features of foreign pilot licensing regulation, and also FWIW I don’t think anybody in the US would care whether the foreign license lists particular ratings or not once they are on the FAA certificate.

Just like an FAA pilot certificate itself, FAA ratings and endorsements do not ‘expire’ so once you have them you have them forever. My understanding is that you do need to have a valid FAA flight review recorded in your logbook to use any FAA private certificate (with reference to the FAA regulation that describes the requirements) and you do need to be current by FAA regulations to use your FAA IR. This is no different whether its a stand alone pilot certificate or was issued based on a foreign pilots license.

I agree with many others that it would be worthwhile to get a stand alone FAA pilot certificate, ratings and endorsements via the BASA process, if you can. You then have all the FAA ratings and endorsements forever without linkage to a foreign license that may be complex to keep valid.

That sounds correct, and the most likley.

I’d hoped that if I have Turbo and RU in EASA Land that FAA would recognize as a valid endorsement on the FAA 61.75 PPL.
Then it’s as I assumed that FAA License lives it own life, and if you have a 61.75 PPL you also need to have the EASA part valid.

ESMS, ESML, Sweden

172driver wrote:

Nope, there isn’t a ‘turbo’ one in FAAland. As @Silvaire says, there are only three endorsements that are relevant to the typical SEP. The only additional one would be the high-altitude endorsement if you want to fly a pressurized airplane with a service ceiling of 25k ft or more.

Correct, I got it mixed up.

FAA has only 3 endorsements.

High Performance
Complex Aircraft
High Altitude

EASA
T = Turbo/Compressor
RU = Retractable undercarriage
EFIS

ESMS, ESML, Sweden
60 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top