Initial IPC for a mint FAA based on 61.75? (also EASA IR revalidation for ICAO IR holders)

Valid question. But i was told the same….

You are FAA instrument current if you have done 6 actual instrument approaches, holding, and tracking procedures within the preceding 6 calendar months. I don’t believe an IPC is needed unless you are not current and can’t get current without using your FAA certificate.

You need a BFR but an IPC is not needed if you are current.

FAA has previously held that a US IR test is superior to an IPC so I expect the same holds for a foreign ICAO-compliant IR test (or check) regardless of whether the specific requirements at 14 CFR 61.57(c) were satisfied.

TobisBS wrote (#04):

And the EASA license will always be the path to become current again, if needed.

If you obtain a full US IR, and maintain its validity, then any future renewal action for a lapsed EASA IR will be effected as a revalidation. A full US IR may be included in a certificate issued under 61.75 subject to 61.65. This overcomes the refresher training “recommendation” in the AMC to Part-FCL which is being treated as a requirement by some national authorities, including all of the overseas ATOs which have chosen to be under direct EASA oversight. It may be particularly useful when the EASA IR has been expired for at least 7 years.

The provision is made in section 3 para 2.2 of annex V to 2014/69/EU: Commission Decision of 6 February 2014 authorising Sweden and the United Kingdom to derogate from certain common aviation safety rules pursuant to Article 14(6) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document C(2014) 559) [URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014D0069 ]:

The Agency agrees with the reasoning provided by the UK. The rule [FCL.625(d)] does not take into account the possibility that the licence holder may have been flying under IFR using an IR held on a 3rd country licence during the 7-year period which has been renewed during that period and which is therefore valid. The intended derogation would concern holders of licences in accordance with Part-FCL that include the ICAO compliant IR. If such pilots after a certain time stop to fly on that licence but continue to fly on an ICAO based third country licence that includes an IR and would request then to renew their IR on the European licence they would only have to fulfil the revalidation criteria contained in FCL.625(b) based on the current and valid third country IR. This means that the rating holder must pass the proficiency check, but will not be required to undergo training or to re-take the theoretical knowledge examinations. In the case of a pilot who held a third country IR that is not any longer valid but has been revalidated or renewed within the preceding 7 years the rating holder shall comply with the renewal requirements in FCL.625(c), but will also not be required to re-take the theoretical knowledge examinations. The Agency considers that this provides a level of safety equivalent to that provided by Part-FCL.

There is a related provision for class ratings in [URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014D0425 ] 2014/425/EU: Commission Decision of 1 July 2014 authorising Slovakia and the United Kingdom to derogate from certain common aviation safety rules pursuant to Article 14(6) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document C(2014) 4344).

If you obtain a full US IR, and maintain its validity, then any future renewal action for a lapsed EASA IR will be effected as a revalidation. A full US IR may be included in a certificate issued under 61.75 subject to 61.65. This overcomes the refresher training “recommendation” in the AMC to Part-FCL which is being treated as a requirement by some national authorities, including all of the overseas ATOs which have chosen to be under direct EASA oversight. It may be particularly useful when the EASA IR has been expired for at least 7 years.

How old is that ruling?

Currently, in the UK, if you let an EASA IR lapse for more than 1 day (i.e. go for 366 ays since the last revaliation) you have to go back to an FTO who decides how much “retraining” is required. In some cases the FTO will accept a valid FAA IR as a means to avoid any need for retraining but AIUI this is just “being nice”. If there is a reg supporting it, that is brilliant!

As regards going past 7 years, am I right that you still have to go via the FTO but merely don’t have to sit the exams? That was sorted a few years ago because it screwed a load of UK airline pilots who went to work in say Hong Kong and then had to sit the 14 exams again when they came back

The Council Decisions are from February 2014 and July 2014. They permit NAAs to derogate from Part-FCL rules governing some rating renewals. One such derogation allows renewals to be treated as revalidations. The administrative action for a revalidation does not require ATO involvement (FTO is a disused JAA term) so there is no need for refresher training, or a course completion certificate, before attempting the first proficiency check.

What happens in the event of a failed proficiency check is not clear: FCL.1030(b)(1) can be relied on to mandate further training. Normally a failed proficiency check exhausts rating validity so that candidates must go through renewal action for a subsequent proficiency check and this will require ATO involvement under provision FCL.625(c). Perhaps an EASA FE with experience of this situation can comment?

Flight examiners are responsible for ensuring candidates satisfy the renewal or revalidation requirements made in Part-FCL, under provision FCL.1030(a)(2), so it is worthwhile carrying a copy of the appropriate Council Decision when in this situation and particularly when being checked by a non-UK FE.

If the ICAO-compliant IR is not valid then the holder has the option of relying on the expiration date of the ICAO-compliant IR for the purpose of FCL.625(d), but in any case is required to comply with the renewal requirements in FCL.625(c).

It is unclear whether the derogation in the first Council Decision has a favourable effect on FCL.025(c)(1).

FCL.025 Theoretical knowledge examinations for the issue of licences and ratings:

[…]
(c)(2) The completion of the airline transport pilot licence (ATPL) theoretical knowledge examinations will remain valid for the issue of an ATPL for a period of 7 years from the last validity date of:
(i) an IR entered in the licence;
[…]

FCL.625 IR — Validity, revalidation and renewal:

(a) Validity. An IR shall be valid for 1 year.

(b) Revalidation.
(1) An IR shall be revalidated within the 3 months immediately preceding the expiry date of the rating.
(2) Applicants who fail to pass the relevant section of an IR proficiency check before the expiry date of the IR shall not exercise the IR privileges until they have passed the proficiency check.

(c) Renewal. If an IR has expired, in order to renew their privileges applicants shall:
(1) go through refresher training at an ATO to reach the level of proficiency needed to pass the instrument element of the skill test in accordance with Appendix 9 to this Part; and
(2) complete a proficiency check in accordance with Appendix 9 to this Part, in the relevant aircraft category.

(d) If the IR has not been revalidated or renewed within the preceding 7 years, the holder will be required to pass again the IR theoretical knowledge examination and skill test.

UK CAP 804, section 4, part G, subpart 1, page 5, para 5.3:

FCL.625(d): IR Renewal requirement for pilots who hold or have held an IR on another licence or a UK Military Green Rating

The UK CAA has adopted a derogation such that where a pilot holds or has held an Instrument Rating issued by a third country and that rating is compliant with Annex I to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the applicability of FCL.625 IR(c) and (d) may be based on the validity dates of the Instrument Rating of that other country. The effect of this exemption is that to renew the IR on a UK issued licence:

(i) a pilot with a current and valid 3rd country IR shall complete the revalidation requirements of FCL.625(b) and the aircraft category specific requirements for
revalidation of the Part-FCL IR; meaning that he must pass the proficiency check, but is not required to undergo training or to re-take the theoretical knowledge
examinations; or

(ii) a pilot who held a 3rd country IR that is no longer valid but had been revalidated or renewed within the preceding 7 years shall comply with the renewal
requirements of FCL.625 IR(c), but is not required to re-take the theoretical knowledge examinations.

The UK CAA has published equivalent terms for holders of a United Kingdom Unrestricted Military Green Rating, Refer to Section 4, Part O for full information.

Qalupalik has the most brilliant grip on the various regs. He’s a great asset here

TobiBS wrote (#08):

that the IFP replaces the IPC

The instrument proficiency check requires the practical demonstration of skill which cannot be done by writing the IFP exam. To clarify, for persons who within the recent six months have passed a practical test for a standard US instrument rating there is no requirement for an IPC. This position is made clear in a legal interpretation to Joshua Wynne dated 1 Aug 2008 from Rebecca B MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations:

… You asked whether a newly rated instrument pilot, one who just successfully completed a practical test for an instrument rating, would be subject to the recent experience obligations under 61.57(c).

Based upon our interpretation, the answer is no. The six calendar month period described in paragraph (c) begins when a pilot successfully completes his or her practical test. By passing the practical test, the pilot has demonstrated his or her instrument proficiency. In that regard, it is akin to an individual who already holds an instrument rating, but has not met the recent flight experience requirements of 61.57(c) for more than 12 months, completing an instrument proficiency check (IPC) under paragraph (d) of 61.75. Though less extensive than the practical test for issuance of the rating, an IPC likewise is a demonstration of proficiency that starts the clock again for the purposes of 61.57(c).

This thread raises the question of why an IPC is unnecessary when exercising instrument flight privileges conferred by an instrument rating listed on a US private pilot certificate issued on the basis of a foreign licence which includes an instrument rating. I have simply speculated that this de facto policy is consistent with the Wynne interpretation: the demonstration of skill required to hold a valid foreign instrument rating is more extensive than that expected during an IPC.

TobiBS wrote:

Regarding your route to a full IR on FAA license: I actually plan to do the full FAA license once, but this takes some more time than the validation alone.

A US private pilot certificate issued under 61.75 has neither been converted nor validated. In a 1966 notice of proposed rule making (31 FR 10475, notice 66-31), in response to an ICAO project on personnel licensing and technical training (ICAO Circular 68-AN/60), FAA originally intended to use the term validation but it was dropped by 1967–see 32 FR 7239 of 16 May 1967 (docket no. 7538, amdt. 61-33):

The purpose of these amendments is to extend the issuance of the special purpose pilot certificate requirements of § 61.33 [now 61.75] of the Federal Aviation Regulations to any holder of a foreign pilot license issued by a member State of ICAO, regardless of whether the holder is a citizen of the State that issued the certificate.

A notice of proposed rule making regarding this action was circulated as Notice 66-31 and published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on August 4, 1966 (31 F.R. 10475). In response to the notice, the FAA received several comments from interested persons and pilot associations. While these comments were generally favorable to the proposal, suggestions were made which were given due consideration, and where appropriate were adopted in the amendment.

It was pointed out in two comments that while the term validation was used in the notice, the proposal is for the issuance of a special U.S. certificate based upon the foreign license rather than a true validation of that license. One comment favored on actual validation thereby eliminating the need for the issuance of a certificate by the FAA. The other comment suggested the elimination of the term “special purpose” as being confusing. After due consideration, it was decided that, as proposed, a certificate should be issued based upon recognition of the foreign pilot license. Moreover, to distinguish these certificates from other pilot certificates issued by the FAA, the term special purpose pilot certificate has been retained. However, to avoid any misunderstanding as to the method by which the special purpose pilot certificate is issued, the use of the term validation has been eliminated from the final rule.

The effect is quite important because it means that a US private pilot certificate issued pursuant to 61.75 is not bound by the regulations governing the foreign pilot licence and rating(s) contrary to received wisdom.

It is possible to list a standard US instrument rating on these certificates subject to 61.65 being satisfied and if this is done then the notation “U.S. Test Passed” is used on the certificate. This rating may later be included in a US private or commercial pilot certificate obtained under subparts F or G.