Peter wrote:
This is pretty amazing
Indeed. Not only a very weird interpretation of Appendix 6, but with BASA/TIP-L in force now IMHO a position completely impossible to maintain. BASA clearly states what is required to convert an FAA IR when the applicant has > 50 hrs IFR-time.
If the applicant has a minimum experience of at least 50 hours of flight time
under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) as PIC on airplanes, he/she will
demonstrate to the examiner before the assessment of instrument flying
skills that he/she has acquired an adequate level of the required theoretical
knowledge. The demonstration will be completed according to paragraph
2.1.5 and Appendix 2 to Section B of the TIP-
tmo wrote:
there was a long silence and “please send an email”.
I feel your pain. I think you can count on one hand the number of people in NL who have any idea how it works. Fulfilling the actual requirements was less effort than convincing the licensing people that I had done so!
Thank you; I already called them asking if they even do validations based on TIP-L, there was a long silence and “please send an email”.
I just did this over the summer (NL CAA), and it seems to depend on the CAA because of the ambiguity. The Dutch CAA published a document just this year which clarified this, and they allowed all time flown under an IFR flight plan or time under actual conditions using FAA rules, including time prior to obtaining the rating. The tricky bit was the requirement to produce flight plans to prove these hours. You should check with the CAA to see how they interpret this.
From here
@tmo post moved to existing thread
When converting a FAA IR, which definition of flight time under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) would be applicable for showing the 50h required to skip the CAA theoretical exams based on 2.4.4(b)?
The TIP defines (in 3(m)) Flight time under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) differently for holders of FAA licenses (flight time during which the aircraft is being operated solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument meteorological conditions) and EASA licenses (all flight time during which the aircraft is being operated under the Instrument Flight Rules).
For a FAA IR one needs at least 40h of actual or simulated instrument time, which is all logged as PIC, and can be done in VMC with VFR flight plans.
Is that 40h applicable towards the 50h requirement of 2.4.4(b), based on 3(m)?
If it is, so would any additional time one would fly on a US license VFR, in VMC, in a hood and with a safety pilot, correct?
Peter wrote:
the annotation can be done (by an FAA instructor) at a later date, when the said training is finally being applied towards a US certificate.
The annotation has to be done by the instructor who provided the training. Reference: personal experience over past three years or so. To be clear: that training was done in the US.
AFAIK if the training is towards an FAA license it is subject to TSA approval
How is “towards” defined?
All instrument training now needs to have a very specific mention of FAR 61.xx.yy.zz
Is there a reference for the above, for training outside the US? And how does that requirement apply to training outside the US, with non US instructors, which is acceptable towards US certificates (61.41)? I can’t find that wording in 61.51; in fact IME the annotation can be done (by an FAA instructor) at a later date, when the said training is finally being applied towards a US certificate. It would be meaningless to allow 61.41 and at the same time require a contemporaneous annotation by a US instructor.
Peter wrote:
obviously can’t be subject to TSA.
AFAIK if the training is towards an FAA license it is subject to TSA approval
Peter wrote:
especially if annotated in the logbook as being IAW FAR 61.xxx
All instrument training now needs to have a very specific mention of FAR 61.xx.yy.zz. Which is checked by the DPE during BOTH the IR and the CPL checkrides.
Yes indeed, TSA is required for training for both Part 61 and Part 141. But there is an “obvious” exception: the US fully accepts all foreign training, and such training obviously can’t be subject to TSA. It is possibly subject to TSA if given by an FAA CFI/CFII, especially if annotated in the logbook as being IAW FAR 61.xxx. IMHO in practice you need TSA for the last 5 (?) hrs within x days of the checkride, and the checkride itself, both of which are done by an FAA CFI/CFII/DPE. There is a “famous” UK based DPE whose position is that only training done by FAA instructors is acceptable towards FAA papers, but that’s nonsense per the FARs, and this may be a great development.
