Even if it is OK to count a foreign checkride as a BFR for Part 61 purposes, it defeats the intent - which is to ensure competence and familiarity with flying in the US....I have always done my BFRs in the US...even with a fresh Aussie AFR....
Thank you for that post Peter.
It does result in a slightly odd situation. As I understand it a UK PPL is intrinsically not valid for flight at night. A UK PPL can only fly at night if they have an additional night rating. However, this restriction (vs. a fully ICAO compliant licence) is not 'On the licence' in the sense the FAA use (that of a restriction being printed in plain text on the actual licence). Clearly it is not the intent to automatically allow night flight to someone not so qualified, but that does appear to be the technical view of the FAA Chief Counsel. ???
On further looking at Part-FCL, the privileges of a PPL do not specifically exclude VFR at night, however, the Night Rating paragraph does indicate one can not fly VFR at night without a Night Rating (which interestingly doesn't seem to have a carve out to allow IR holders to fly VFR at night (I probably have missed it somewhere in the treacle)
Awqward said: "Even if it is OK to count a foreign checkride as a BFR for Part 61 purposes, it defeats the intent - which is to ensure competence and familiarity with flying in the US....I have always done my BFRs in the US...even with a fresh Aussie AFR...".
By not being required to undergo a flight test at the time of obtaining your "FAR 61.75" Private Pilot Certificate (that is issued on the basis of your valid and unrestricted "foreign" licence), you are assumed (by FAA) to be competent to conduct safely private VFR operations in N-registered aircraft. If your "foreign/home" licence remains valid and unrestricted, and if your piloting skills are re-checked at least every two years by licensing authorities at "your home", I see no logical reason for the FAA to want to re-test again your piloting skills "themselves" (through requiring you to undergo further flight reviews by FAA-certificated instructors/reviewers).
I see many compelling reasons for you to be always fully familiar with any operational "idiosyncrasies" of the foreign skies (FIRs :) you happen to be flying under.
mm_flynn
I agree; it creates a most "interesting" situation. But the FAA Chief Counsel's determination is final - even if that particular lawyer was perhaps less than familiar with aviation as we know it 
And the USA is free to do as it wishes in its airspace; they are free to accept a Mongolian kite flying permit for flying Part 121 
it defeats the intent - which is to ensure competence and familiarity with flying in the US
I do not agree with that, Awqward. Nothing in the FARs (the law) says that. The purpose of a BFR is to make sure you can fly a plane well enough. And loads and loads of US licensed pilots do not fly in US airspace at all.
I've had US tests for the PPL, the CPL and the IR, and a few BFRs, and all but the IR were done in the UK, and no DPE or CFII ever suggested that I should go to the USA to do the stuff.
Here is a couple of "interesting" examples of "home-imposed" restrictions that do not appear on my Australian licence but, according to advice given to me, I must observe while flying under the authority of my "piggy-back" FAA Pilot Certificate.
While piloting N-registered aircraft in the US under the authority of my "piggy-back" FAA certificate, that includes "instrument airplane" privileges, ......
...... I am not authorised to conduct an ILS approach unless I had performed at least one such approach during the last 35 days (in flight under actual or simulated IMC, or in an approved flight simulator). This currency requirement is imposed by Australian regulations that, in this case, also restrict exercising instrument privileges of my "FAR 61.75" Pilot Certificate.
...... I must be specifically authorised by the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority to conduct each type of instrument approach procedure. Under CASA regime - DGA, ILS, LOC, NDB, RNAV/(GNSS) and VOR procedures are re-authorised separately after each re-newal of one's Command Instrument Rating. As in my first example, any restriction on the use of a particular approach procedure would also apply to me while flying under the authority of my "FAR 61.75" certificate (but not when flying under the authority of my other, "stand-alone" FAA Pilot Certificate that I could only use after obtaining a separate medical certification from an FAA-accredited medical examiner).
PS One is perfectly entitled to keep one's "FAR 61.75" certificate after obtaining also a separate, "stand-alone" FAA certification. Apparently there were some instances at few FSDOs where official requests to return pilot certificates granted under FAR 61.75 were mistakenly made.
Fair enough on BFR compliance overseas if you do not intend flying in US airspace....(although the FARs require demonstation of knowledge of Part 91 operations as part of the review)....but I admit that was not the intent of my post - I was (wrongly) assuming you were flying in the US....
In terms of the Australian requirements for IR currency (which must be the most stringent in the world?), I guess that's why private pilots with the CIR also have the PIFR which does not have the 35 day requirement (as well as CPLs flying privately)...
AQ
Before you comment Antek , I realize that the PIFR is an Australian airspace only rating and so in terms of being authorized to use you IR on your 61.75 licence on an N-reg (overseas?) you probably do need the 35 day currency...
AQ
And Peter read FAR 61.56 (a)...
And Peter read FAR 61.56 (a)...
The supposedly latest 61.56 is here.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (f) of this section, a flight review consists of a minimum of 1 hour of flight training and 1 hour of ground training. The review must include:
(1) A review of the current general operating and flight rules of part 91 of this chapter; and
(2) A review of those maneuvers and procedures that, at the discretion of the person giving the review, are necessary for the pilot to demonstrate the safe exercise of the privileges of the pilot certificate.
Which bit do you think is significant?
Re the Australian PIFR, this was looked at here in the UK by pilot groups fighting to preserve the IMC Rating a few years ago, and was looked at in the context of proposing something to EASA which could be introduced to replace the IMCR which, at the time, EASA was simply going to ban unless all of the EU was going to agree to have it (which would never happen). That was before the near-meltdown of the EU... EASA is having to listen a bit more nowadays.
It seems to be a superb privilege, but also I would suspect that not many Australian private pilots would need the full IR because of simple geography - as with the USA, "anywhere else" is too far to fly for most people.
Sorry Peter, I genuinely respect your views and your posts are always very well researched....
I am not trying to be a smartar*e....I simply made the point that one of the objectives of the BFR was ensure competence and familiarity with flying in the US...to which you stated that there was Nothing in the FARs to this effect....however I would say that this is the point of 61.56(a)(1)....however I would agree that 61.56 does not explicitly state that the authorized instructor need be an FAA CFI(I)....
Cheers AQ
