If pre-solo flight training must correspond to a Part-FCL course then the same applies to post-solo training. The interpretation must be consistent. Flight training done on aircraft coming within the scope of the Basic Regulation shall be done according to a developed syllabus. Art 20.
However, the US accepts flight training done anywhere in the world, in any aircraft reg, so, unless this is specifically excluded, it should accept pre-PPL solo flying too.
One could argue this is true especially if care was taken to ensure that your instructor has both FAA and EASA instructor ratings. Then one could pretend to be complying with both requirements concurrently. But I can’t see any reason for this.
There are US schools at which you can do both the FAA PPL and the EASA PPL concurrently. AFAIK they employ FAA instructors without EASA FI ratings, by some mutual agreement, but they may be dual qualified. However that is within-US training which is a different thing; my above statement about accepting non-US training is a concession specifically limited to training outside the US. I can’t remember the FAR reference off hand.
The interpretation of European law does not depend on what training US regulations accept. A US-certificated flight instructor is dispensable for all but a residuary portion of the flight training, namely, the few hours in preparation for the flight test. An alien disposing himself to suffer those preparations must finally submit to TSA for a security threat assessment.
An ATO outside the EASA member states may use a native instructor if an appropriate Part-FCL instructor certificate is held. There is no requirement for the instructor to hold a Part-FCL licence. Point (c) of FCL.900 refers.
I need to do an hour with a instructor before getting my EASA SEP rating revalidated.
Can the pundits here tell me whether this has to be done in an EASA-registered aircraft, or is my N-registered Bonanza ok under EASA regulations?
This has not come up before on previous revalidations as I was renewing my UK-issued IR(R) annually in this aircraft; with Brexit looming I changed my state of licence issue to Ireland. If I ask the IAA now I would expect the routine answer “no”, unless I am forearmed with chapter and verse.
[Meantime as a prudent private pilot I keep my standalone FAA private/IR to ensure the plane won’t fall out of the sky due to lack of signatures …. ]
Peter
No problem to do this on an N-reg, as long as the instructor is EASA-rated and the flight takes place within the country which has issued the instructor’s license.
Can you point me to a source for this requirement:
and the flight takes place within the country which has issued the instructor’s license.
Is it because you can only be PIC on a third country aircraft within the airspace of the country that issued the license, and thus, this requirement wouldn’t apply when instructing in an EASA reg?
It is FAR 61.3. Some stuff here.
You can fly an N-reg, outside US airspace, on a license issued by the owner of the airspace. The FAA interprets the “issued by” strictly i.e. EASA etc is of no relevance.
However, this requirement on the instructor is true only if the instructor is required to be PIC. On a revalidation that isn’t the case. On a renewal it would be. It depends on whether the candidate has some means of acting as PIC.
I know that in Euro-land there is the convention that an instructor is always PIC but that is clearly not necessarily true in reality for the actual flight. For example I think most EASA IR revals with a freelance FI are not logged as PU/T…
A similar thread is here.
Snoopy wrote:
Is it because you can only be PIC on a third country aircraft within the airspace of the country that issued the license, and thus, this requirement wouldn’t apply when instructing in an EASA reg?Exactly. 14 CFR 61.3 (a) (1) (vii):
Peter wrote:
However, this requirement on the instructor is true only if the instructor is required to be PICThis is true in the FAA-jurisdiction, but definitely not in EASA-land. In Europe, an instructor providing instruction in an aircraft must always be qualified as PIC for the operation, regardless whether he is acting PIC during the flight or not.
Be entitled, perhaps 
We had a thread on this topic but I can’t find it right now. IIRC, nobody found a reference that an acting FI was automatically PIC. Something similar is here.
This is digressing, of course… In practice, you meet the FI’s paper requirements by e.g. using a French licensed FI in French airspace.
Peter wrote:
nobody found a reference that an acting FI was automatically PICNo dispute here – certainly you can instruct without being PIC. But you need to be “entitled” (OK, not necessarily “qualified”
) to do so…
