My local FAA guy has attached as a CRI to his part FCL PPL.
The only realistic case where this gets complex is when the (FAA-)CFI needs to be PIC from FAA point of view (e.g. because the candidate in an IR review is not IR current according to FAA rules) but must not be PIC from EASA point of view (e.g. because he does not have EASA papers at all).
That would lead to the funny question if for the same flight the EASA PIC and FAA PIC can be two different persons ?!?
Malibuflyer wrote:
That would lead to the funny question if for the same flight the EASA PIC and FAA PIC can be two different persons ?!?
That is possible: even swap PIC roles on FIR boundary (or 12nm in waters if you are a purist)
The case when flying foreign with FCL FI and no FAA CFI on N-reg
Malibuflyer wrote:
The only realistic case where this gets complex is when the (FAA-)CFI needs to be PIC from FAA point of view (e.g. because the candidate in an IR review is not IR current according to FAA rules) but must not be PIC from EASA point of view (e.g. because he does not have EASA papers at all).
That I agree, otherwise as Peter said the FAA instructor flies as PAX should work out of the box but the student needs all his FCL papers & ratings…as long as the individuals agree on how the flight gets logged
Ibra wrote:
That is possible: even swap PIC roles on FIR boundary (or 12nm in waters if you are a purist)
That is a different (much simpler) case as at any given point in time there is only one PIC in the plane.
In the case of the non FAA-IR current candidate and the non EASA licensed CFI, there had to be an EASA-PIC and an FAA-PIC in the cockpit at the same time! That would pose the question: In case of any emergency, who is PICer? ;-)
When the operation comes within the scope of the Basic Regulation, flight instruction must only be carried out by a person holding an appropriate Part-FCL instructor certificate. FCL.900. Therefore, the pilot receiving the US flight review will be a passenger under European law, while the US instructor acts as PIC. Alternatively, the recipient could act as PIC, in which case the US instructor will be a passenger. Whoever acts as PIC will need an EASA licence unless the aircraft is a (non-excepted) annex I type or the aircraft operator is established or resident in a third country.
Normally a US DPE does not act as PIC during a practical test so no Part-FCL licence or validation is necessary.
The operation must not have a dual purpose if done in a US-registered aircraft.
Peter wrote:
US CFIs were doing JAA PPL training, and US DPEs were doing JAA PPL skills tests in Florida, etc, and the UK CAA approved all that
No. The JAR-FCL licence skill tests were only conducted by examiners authorised in accordance with JAR–FCL Subpart I.
It has also been argued that a DPE working in Europe needs to be either a resident, or have a working visa.
A permitted paid engagement visa can be used by a foreign examiner invited by a UK training organisation to carry out a flying examination. The PPE visa takes up to three weeks to obtain, it is valid for one month, and it costs 100 GBP.
The JAR-FCL licence skill tests were only conducted by examiners authorised in accordance with JAR–FCL Subpart I.
Sure; I was told a long time ago they were resident DPEs, with the JAA authorisation added.
A permitted paid engagement visa can be used by a foreign examiner invited by a UK training organisation to carry out a flying examination. The PPE visa takes up to three weeks to obtain, it is valid for one month, and it costs 100 GBP.
I am sure this would cover it but whether it is necessary is a different Q. Take this example: a team of 10 Boeing engineers comes to the UK to train some Ryanair Part 66 mechanics. For say 2 weeks. Would these guys need a visa? I very much doubt it. They would be paid by Boeing, even though Boeing is being paid by Ryanair – maybe that’s the difference. In which case a US school could bill the European checkride client directly, with the visiting DPE being salaried from the US school.
No idea. The examiner case is specifically listed in appendix V to the UK Immigration rules (link).
“V 13.3. The following are permitted paid engagements:
(c) an overseas designated pilot examiner coming to assess UK-based
pilots to ensure they meet the national aviation regulatory
requirements of other countries, where they have been invited by an
approved training organisation based in the UK that is regulated by
the UK Civil Aviation Authority for that purpose"
Interesting; I think that is a recently added category. But at least there is no ambiguity now, which is good news.
