FAA IR Currency in Europe via 61.57 - does safety pilot need a FAA certificate?

Peter wrote:

During the second 6 months you need the safety pilot, basically.

Not if you have dual papers in the UK.
If one has an IR(R) – IMC rating in older currency – you can use that in a variety of places in the UK to do approaches solo. Once, when due to atrocious weather, Rochester was water-logged, I ‘renewed’ my FAA IR that way.

Peter wrote:

Can you do it on a sim?

Sure, but under the normal sim T&Cs for logging time. Basically that means using an approved sim (which doesn’t include the home PC type) and under a CFII supervision and signoff of the work.

If one has an IR(R) – IMC rating in older currency – you can use that in a variety of places in the UK to do approaches solo.

Or an EASA IR. So I presume the answer to my question in post #30 is yes.

Peter, re #40:

How important is an authorisation of this kind for operations in US civil aircraft in the US? What operations may be undertaken by an EASA Flight Instructor or Examiner, exercising the privileges of either certificate, who holds neither a US flight instructor certificate nor the status of an FAA examiner, and what special requirements apply?

These operations, which are commercial ones, come under the requirements for an air operator certificate established in 14 CFR 119 and are exempt only if they both satisfy at least one of the exemptions at 119.1(e) and are not dual purpose. The exemption at 119.1(e)(1) for “student instruction” applies only to flight training given by a US-certificated flight instructor for the purpose of a 14 CFR 61 certificate, rating, privilege, or authorisation. And the exemption at 119.1(e)(3) for “training flights” covers training requirements made outside of part 61 such as in one of the special flight operations described in 14 CFR 91 Subpart D.

See the legal interpretation to William W Grannis from Lorelei Peter, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations (3 Aug 2017):

… the FAA interprets “student instruction” broadly as referring to an operation in which a person receives flight training from an authorized instructor for the purpose of obtaining a certificate, privilege, rating, or authorization under part 61. Section 61.1 defines “flight training” as that training, other than ground training, received from an authorized instructor in flight in an aircraft. A person who holds only a commercial pilot or ATP certificate may not conduct flight training for purpose of satisfying the “student instruction” exception in § 119.1(e)(1) because he or she does not hold a flight instructor certificate.

The FAA interprets “training flights” described in § 119.1(e)(3) as referring to operations in which a person receives training for the purpose of satisfying a training requirement outside of part 61, such as the crewmember training requirement of§ 91.313. Therefore, flight crewmember training in special purpose operations, such as crop dusting, seeding, spraying, and banner towing, would fall under the “training flights” exception of § 119.3(e)(3).

Unless FAA accepts EASA flight training in US civil aircraft as being exempted by 119.1(e)(3) then, if an air operator certificate and its associated responsibilities and operating specifications are to be avoided, the exemption at 119.1(e)(1) must instead be satisfied which requires the pilot-in-command to hold and exercise the appropriate US flight instructor certificate. The same applies to EASA skill tests, proficiency checks, and assessments of competence when the EASA FE acts as pilot-in-command. If instead the candidate acts as pilot-in-command the operation is not a commercial one, barring a perverse interpretation by FAA, and therefore no exemption in 119.1(e) is required, but see Administrator v. Corredor (NTSB Order No EA-5322 (2007)), citing Administrator v. Jeffreys (4 NTSB 681, 682 (1982)):

We have also held that, whether or not actually exercised, a pilot has ultimate decisional authority for control or direction of a flight if his responsibility includes the authority to give directions on how to fly the aircraft and to assert control of the aircraft. Here, respondent’s assumption of control when he determined that such control was necessary leads us to conclude that respondent ‘possessed the ultimate decisional prerogatives traditionally associated with service as pilot in command.’

There is no confusion about the status of EASA FEs in the US, see legal interpretation to Caroline Olson, EASA Chief Flight Instructor, CTC Aviation in Phoenix, from Lorelei Peter, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations (16 Nov 2016):

Given the definitions of “examiner” and “practical test” in § 61.1, for purposes of part 61, the EASA examiner is not an “examiner” and the EASA multi-engine commercial pilot test is not a “practical test.” Therefore, the regulations applicable to “examiners” and “practical tests” do not apply to the flight in question. The FAA views the flight in question as an operation for compensation or hire.

Peter wrote (#40):

Otherwise I can’t see why anyone would want to do it – other than to offer oneself in the USA as an “instructor” under false pretences.

Refresher training for the revalidation of an SEP rating is an obvious bona fide example.

By the way I did file an FOIA request in late 2009 with the Southern Regional Office in Atlanta but it was unable locate evidence of the agreement or authorisation.

I did file an FOIA request in late 2009 with the Southern Regional Office in Atlanta but it was unable locate evidence of the agreement or authorisation.

Thanks for another great post, Qalupalik

You do have a very interesting job, whatever it is

I wonder what other informal agreements existed… e.g. the one for mutual examiner authorisation. The NY IFO (as it was called) was an FAA outpost which did more or less what it liked.

@cactus1549 many thanks for coming back on this. Regarding notifications not being received, I am not sure pushover will be any better. I suggest looking at this and this. Gmail is really bad for dumping emails, but only a % of people find that.

Part 91 must apply outside the US since it is the maintenance standard for most smaller N-regs.

Simplest way to quote is to copy and paste the desired text, with bq. (3 chars) in front of it. There needs to be a blank line (or nothing) before the bq. and a blank line below it. If you edit your post now you will see what I did with the quote.

I think the pilot has to hold a US certificate to be the safety pilot, but it may be a 61.75 piggy back certificate. The exception is that a pilot license with at least private pilot privileges issued by the country in which the flight is conducted may also be used. The rational from the regulations is:

This wording in 91.703 indicates that part 91 applies to operations outside the US, except for the specified regulations and as long as they don’t conflict with the applicable regulations of the country.

§91.703 Operations of civil aircraft of U.S. registry outside of the United States.
(a) Each person operating a civil aircraft of U.S. registry outside of the United States shall—
(3) Except for §§91.117(a), 91.307(b), 91.309, 91.323, and 91.711, comply with this part so far as it is not inconsistent with applicable regulations of the foreign country where the aircraft is operated or Annex 2 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation;

So since 91.109 applies, this is relevant:

Sec. 91.109 Flight instruction; Simulated instrument flight and certain flight tests.
(c) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless—
(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.

A “private pilot certificate with category and class ratings” in this regulation only applies to a US pilot certificate and by the regulation is a required crew member.

Part 61.3 defines required certificates and includes this wording:

§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—
(v) When operating an aircraft within a foreign country, a pilot license issued by that country may be used.

This says that when operating in a foreign country, the pilot license issued in that country may be used instead of the required certificate. It is not limited to acting as pilot in command as it includes the following wording “no person may serve as a required flight crew member” which covers the safety pilot.