Airborne_Again wrote:
An EIR holder is not allowed to make instrument approaches, so it is reasonable that the are not exempt from the 1 flight in 90 days rule.
Makes sense. Same question as jfw but now for BIR, which of course does allow instrument approaches – does holding a BIR exempt the holder from 1 night landing in 90 days?
Tango wrote:
Makes sense. Same question as jfw but now for BIR, which of course does allow instrument approaches – does holding a BIR exempt the holder from 1 night landing in 90 days?
It does not. As a BIR holder is not allowed to make IFR approaches in less than 1500 m visibility, that makes some sense, I guess.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Tango wrote:
Makes sense. Same question as jfw but now for BIR, which of course does allow instrument approaches – does holding a BIR exempt the holder from 1 night landing in 90 days?
It does not. As a BIR holder is not allowed to make IFR approaches in less than 1500 m visibility, that makes some sense, I guess.
Is there a reference that differentiates between BIR and CBIR in this respect? Or is it just an assumption that in this context IR means an ICAO IR such as full EASA IR and CBIR, but not BIR?
chflyer wrote:
Is there a reference that differentiates between BIR and CBIR in this respect? Or is it just an assumption that in this context IR means an ICAO IR such as full EASA IR and CBIR, but not BIR?
First, there is no “CBIR” rating. There is an IR rating and a BIR rating. CBIR is a particular training route to the IR — not a separate rating. The only sense in which the CBIR can be said to not be a “full EASA IR” is that the CBIR training route lacks some theoretical knowledge material which is necessary only when you fly High Performance aircraft. But such aircraft requires a High Performance Authorisation (HPA) anyway. So if you want to get the HPA (and fly IFR) you need some additional theoretical knowledge above that which you always need for the HPA.
The exemption rule for the night landing (FCL.060(b)(2)(ii)) specifically mentions “an IR.”
Sure, but the rule dates back to when there was only one IR around. The unrestricted, ICAO-compliant one. Therefore, sone doubts are justified, but as long as the wording isn‘t changed, I guess that a BIR would satisfy the rule.
boscomantico wrote:
Sure, but the rule dates back to when there was only one IR around. The unrestricted, ICAO-compliant one. Therefore, sone doubts are justified, but as long as the wording isn‘t changed, I guess that a BIR would satisfy the rule.
It’s quite possible that it is an oversight, but nevertheless that’s what the rule says. And it’s not an AMC either but “hard law.”
But, as I wrote, as a BIR holder isn’t allowed to do approaches in less than 1500 m visibility, it’s also quite possibly intentional that the exemption doesn’t include the BIR.
Airborne_Again wrote:
It’s quite possible that it is an oversight, but nevertheless that’s what the rule says.
That’s not immediately obvious to me. In the plain meaning of the words, a “basic house” is a house, a “basic car” is a car and … a “basic IR” is an IR. I admit that clearly cannot read any and all uses of the word “IR” in all the FCL annex as meaning “any instrument rating, even a basic instrument rating”, like e.g. in all of subpart G (the part regulating the “full” IR) and in FCL.835(a)(1):
The privileges of a BIR holder are the conduct flights under IFR on single-pilot aeroplanes for which class ratings are held, with the exception of (…) aeroplanes variants if operational suitability data has determined that an IR is required.
So there is indeed plenty of basis to take the position that “IR” means only the full IR.
Now, night currency exemption under FCL.060(b)(2)(ii) is “interesting”. According to the plain meaning of the text, it requires “an IR”; that is “any IR”, even an IR for another category, type or class. That is, e.g. if one holds only a single-engine IR (and a NIT rating and a MEP class rating), one can fly at night carrying passengers in a MEP without recency requirements. Or if one holds an IR or an IR, a NIT rating and an aeroplane SEP rating, one can fly a SEP at night carrying passengers without recency requirements.
At any other place a rating is necessary to do something, it says “a name of rating appropriate for the category of aircraft” or “relevant/applicable class or type” or some similar that explicitly says each and every time that the rating must be held in a manner that is valid/applicable to the category, class or type being flown. That it does not say it for night currency exemption can, from a criminal law perspective, only be interpreted as an explicit choice of the legislator to not require it. That largess pushes in the direction of a basic IR would qualify just as well for the exemption, but I can’t say it is definite.
The BIR is according to part FCL an “additional rating”, not in the subpart G, but subpart I FCL.835. So it is not the Instrument Rating of subpart G.
But this is only some pointer. The argument of @airborne_again is pointing in the same direction.
However, “an IR” is quite a bad expression because it is unclear in fact. There is no legal definition in part fcl on what is to be understood as “IR”.
In the end someone who holds a BIR and survives an accident where he did not have the night landing will have to clarify that point before a court.
In dubio pro reo?
UdoR wrote:
In the end someone who holds a BIR and survives an accident where he did not have the night landing will have to clarify that point before a court.
“While not holding a PART-FCL IR, pilot has elected to proceed at night…” :)
So I’ve been reading this thread and I am a bit confused as to FAA night currency requirements for pax carriage as per FAR 61.57 b) (there is a typo here, earlier in the thread which erroneously points to 91.57 b) )
If an EASA FCL pilot flies an N-reg aircraft using the privileges of 61.3 (a) (1) (vii)
§ 61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.
(a) Required pilot certificate for operating a civil aircraft of the United States. No person may serve as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil aircraft of the United States, unless that person:
(1) Has in the person’s physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft when exercising the privileges of that pilot certificate or authorization—
[….]
(vii) When operating an aircraft within a foreign country, a pilot license issued by that country may be used.
…and his EASA license by whatever approved method, would allow him as PIC to carry pax at EASA-night (we have already established it is different from FAA-night but that is a different matter) , would he be allowed to exercise such night privileges of his EASA license regardless of currency under FAR 61.57 (b) ?
Edited to add explicitly that this question is not referring to a holder of an FAA Pilot’s cert issued on the basis of a foreign license per FAR 61.75 but to a pure holder of an EASA license.
