Peter wrote:
OTOH there is AFAIK no requirement to enter every flight into the aircraft logbooks (airframe, engine, prop)
chflyer wrote:
I’ve never heard of such a thing (entering flight information into maintenance documents such as airframe, engine, prop). My aircraft maintenance records (they happen to not be called logbooks) don’t contain any flight information at all, only maintenance events.
As I’ve written before, under FAA regs it’s still required to keep a separate flight log if you have no recording tach or Hobbs meter, but other than those rare cases it is essentially unknown to record individual flights. In the US I’ve never heard of it being done by anybody, ever, in an aircraft maintenance logbook.
Nor is is required for the pilot to record all his flights (in a logbook or otherwise), only that he be able to provide proof of enough recent flying for 90-day currency when carrying passengers and also a flight review within the last two years.
Peter wrote:
Post #7 appears to disagree with you Jason, but I too would find it surprising if a flight in Sweden was legal without a valid license.
Of course you need a license in Sweden. But our insurance will not automatically become void if the pilot doesn’t have one. IIRC the condition is that as long as such a flight is made without the consent of the owner, the insurance is valid. Of course in this case it makes a major practical difference if the aircraft is owned by the pilot or owned by a syndicate or club.
But more to the point, let’s take an example that actually happened in Sweden two years or so ago. A PA32 attempted a takeoff where the runway was too short for the actual takeoff mass. The aircraft didn’t become airborne in time and crashed. Also, the flight was apparently a covert commercial operation, so it was doubly illegal. The insurance company paid nevertheless. But in that case the owner and pilot were different.
Yes; I have such a clause too. Basically AIUI the purpose of it is to maintain the insurance cover if the plane has been stolen. And there can be varying degrees of “stolen” so any flight where the pilot is flying without authorisation is also covered.
Peter wrote:
Yes; I have such a clause too. Basically AIUI the purpose of it is to maintain the insurance cover if the plane has been stolen. And there can be varying degrees of “stolen” so any flight where the pilot is flying without authorisation is also covered.
In the case I referred to the aircraft was not stolen. The flight was made with consent of the owner. The owner obviously didn’t know that the flight was a covert commercial operation and also not that the pilot would attempt a take off while overweight for the runway.
Do you mean English insurance law? There’s no UK law. Scotland and, I think, Northern Ireland, have separate laws.
Hi. Trying to find out what would be the best way to go to take an instrument rating for my PPL-A. I have a EASA PPL-A and a foreign validation faa based on easa. I would like to fly in Europe with N-reg but also EASA REG aircrafts. Can I take CB-IR and get it validatet by Faa?
What will I have to do to get the Faa-ir.
Can I fly N-REG with a CB-IR?
Or can I take a Faa IR, part 61/141and fly N-REG and EASA-reg the fly in Europe without converting?
This is a little confusing…. any suggestions?
Also recommendations for a flightschool
Generally speaking: the CBIR does not exist, as a rating. Only the IR. Therefore, you will have no problems getting this IR validated on a US license.
However, I do remember that the Norwegian CAA unfortunately DOES write “CBIR” into their licenses (instead of just “IR”) if the IR has been obtained through the CBIR route. So this might potentially cause some problems with the FSDO working your 61.75 application (you will have to apply for a new 61.75 license after you get your IR in your EASA license).
boscomantico wrote:
So this might potentially cause some problems with the FSDO working your 61.75 application
The UK CAA also does so (and did in my case), but that didn’t create any issue with getting my 61.75
Noe wrote:
ut that didn’t create any issue with getting my 61.75
No issues with equivalent set-up either.
The FAA does not validate foreign licences. The US restricted foreign-based private pilot certificate enjoys those privileges and limitations that are exclusively made in the US regulations save for limitations expressly made in the parent licence. The same is true of a foreign-based Canadian PPL which has the superior distinction of being independent of the parent licence in every respect.
A US standard IR may be included in a US restricted airman certificate in which case the certificate will be replaced with one including an IR and bearing the notation “U.S. Test Passed.” Prior to making an application for an updated airman certificate you’ll need to repeat the verification of authenticity process with the Airmen Certification Branch.
Alternatively, if a Part-FCL IR is acquired first, then in addition to repeating the verification and application processes you’ll need to take the Instrument Rating—Foreign Pilot (IFP) written exam and no other kind of FAA IR exam.
If you are an alien under US law then training towards an IR in the US is usually only possible on a full-time basis under a student visa, requiring attendance of 22 hours per week, which in turn restricts the choice of training provider to a Part 141 flight school (database 1) certificated under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (database 2). Participation in the Alien Flight Student Program, involving a TSA security threat assessment, is also likely to be necessary. The visa and AFSP participation cost about 500 USD and involve a 3 to 6 week delay before commencing training in the US.
You could also acquire a Canadian IR which doesn’t require a visa or security checks however costs and the starting delay are similar because a medical certificate must be obtained first, perhaps from one of the 50 Transport Canada Civil Aviation Medical Examiners in Europe, which takes about 3 to 8 weeks. One advantage is that a Canadian PPL/IR can be converted to FAA equivalents without doing further practical tests and the associated TSA security threat assessment is done in the background without your involvement
A further option is to receive, from a Canadian flight instructor for example, up to 15 hours of instrument flight training in part fulfilment of the Part-FCL CB-IR course requirements. You could start doing these in Canada tomorrow because neither a Canadian medical certificate nor an Aviation Document Booklet are needed to receive IR training. If the 15 hours are done in the US with a US flight instructor then the above comments on school choices, visa requirement, and AFSP participation apply.
Lastly, the CB-IR as noted is not a rating and no competent authority should be including such a thing in a Part-FCL licence. In the case of UK CAA a regulation 6 appeal would quickly sort things out.
