What I fail to understand is why people who operate expensive kit like a PA 46 on an N-reg in Europe don’t do the standalone FAA license. It’s hardly rocket science and puts a firm lid on cans of worms like this one.
Historically the reason has been what one might call certain difficulties in arranging FAA checkrides in Europe. It’s a long story, which I know rather a lot about myself (having done the FAA PPL & CPL here and the IR in the USA)…
This is one reason why I just did my standalone FAA commercial. While the position is clear it avoids regulatory or even, as in this case, insurance questions regarding the 61.75. The Cessna turbine conversion that crashed in Belgium had half the accident report devoted to his 61.75.
I noticed in December that Virgin has direct flights from Gatwick to Las Vegas… I can imagine getting the recommendation from a UK based CFII and taking the checkride in Vegas. I mention Gatwick because avoiding Heathrow T5 is one of my major ambitions in life 
Its often enjoyable to read FAA legal opinions because they so obviously avoid ambiguity and are painfully aware that every businesslike word is forming a precedent.
Yeah… TSA and Visa …
That’s a good point. I wouldn’t gladly pursue any more US visa applications, ummmm, ever again 
Non-event. If you can already fly airplanes, then all you need is a pass on the theory, some hours with a CFI and the checkride. AFAIK (but don’t quote me on this), no visa required, as you are not taking formal flight training.
You need TSA and technically the hours with a US instructor to recommend are training.
Yes, but they don’t meet the 15-hour per week (or whatever it is) test. TSA – yes, forgot that in my post.
