In Olson the blanket term flight test distinguishes a Part-FCL demonstration of skill from the term practical test already interpreted for US purposes.
Part-FCL demonstrations of skill are described in FCL.010. The bracketed words will be inserted by the amendment currently awaiting scrutiny by the European Parliament.
‘Skill test’ means the demonstration of skill for a licence or rating issue, including such oral examination as may be required.
‘Proficiency check’ means the demonstration of skill to revalidate or renew ratings [or privileges], and including such oral examination as may be required.
[‘Assessment of competence’ means the demonstration of skills, knowledge and attitude for the initial issue, revalidation or renewal of an instructor or examiner certificate.
‘Renewal’ (of, e.g. a rating or certificate) means the administrative action taken after a rating or certificate has lapsed for the purpose of renewing the privileges of the rating or certificate for a further specified period consequent upon the fulfilment of specified requirements.
‘Revalidation’ (of, e.g. a rating or certificate) means the administrative action taken within the period of validity of a rating or certificate which allows the holder to continue to exercise the privileges of a rating or certificate for a further specified period consequent upon the fulfilment of specified requirements.
Peter wrote:
I wonder where an EASA license revalidation would fall?
That’s a good question because some candidates could act as pilot-in-command according to US regulations. The Administrator traditionally regards the instructor as the acting pilot-in-command by default. Admin v Hamre, Admin v Moeslein, etc (link). Whether the same standard would be applied to a Part-FCL instructor or examiner, being neither a US-certificated flight instructor nor a US-authorised examiner, is unknown.
To add context to the Olson interpretation it’s normal practice in the US for candidates to act as the pilot-in-command while undertaking a practical test. The rule for this, 14 CFR 61.47, was originally proposed in notice 64-33 (26 May 1964) to overcome prevalent confusion about the capacity of the examiner and clarify that the passenger carrying limitation did not apply to the candidate. Notice published at 29 FR 7150 (2 Jun 1964) (link). The final rule, then section 61.26, took effect 1 Sep 1965. A review of material comments from industry is given in the preamble. See amendment 61-19 published at 30 FR 8515 (3 Jul 1965) (link). The language appears to have been carefully chosen to facilitate the lawful transfer of command to the inspector or examiner. In any event none of this applies to Part-FCL examiners lacking US authorisation.
The UK allows citizens who are not Swiss or EEA nationals to come to UK under a Permitted Paid Engagement visa to examine UK-based pilots if the examiner has been invited by a UK ATO. I don’t believe an equivalent option exists in US immigration law. It’s not permitted to perform labour under a B-1, see eg 9 FAM 402.2 (link).
An excellent post by Qalupalik as usual 
states that EASA flight tests are not deemed to be “practical tests” within the meaning of US regulations and that such flights are operations for compensation or hire. Again, at least a US commercial pilot certificate is required. Chief Counsel stopped short of addressing whether an EASA test (or assessment or check) would come under one of the 14 CFR 119.1(e) exceptions.
[ my bold ]
What is the difference between the two bold bits?
I wonder where an EASA license revalidation would fall?
That will require appropriate work authorisation as it’s deemed to be labour whether or not remunerated.
I don’t know about the US end but this has been looked at at the UK end, in the context of visiting FAA DPEs doing checkrides in the UK. It seems a grey area but the UK work visa regs do allow ad hoc stuff e.g. a team of Boeing engineers visiting the UK and presenting a seminar for which the delegates are paying. Is the US treating ad hoc work differently?
An additional way to find German FEs that reside in the US, you can use http://www2.lba.de/examiner/?tablename=mv_examaliste and select USA for country to search.
I think you need FAA FI privileges (i.e. CFI or CFII) only if instructing towards FAA papers.
This is probably a grey area
The peremptory edict issued 3 Aug 2017 to William W Grannis by the Office of the Chief Counsel has addressed this matter. The exemption from the requirement to hold an AOC and operate iaw 14 CFR 121 or 135 rules applies only in respect of student instruction or training flights for US purposes. If these AOC exception are applicable then the pilot must hold at least a US commercial pilot certificate. A restricted private pilot certificate issued on the basis of a foreign CPL is not sufficient.
Grannis in his letter of 28 Feb 2017 “asked FAA to distinguish the ‘student instruction’ exception in § 119.1(e)(1) from the ‘training flights’ exception in § 119.1(e)(3).” The 3 Aug 2017 response from Lorelei Peter, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, states:
“… FAA interprets ‘student instruction’ broadly as referring to an operation in which a person receives flight training from an authorized instructor for the purpose of obtaining a certificate, privilege, rating, or authorization under part 61. Section 61.1 defines ‘flight training’ as that training, other than ground training, received from an authorized instructor in flight in an aircraft. A person who holds only a commercial pilot or ATP certificate may not conduct flight training for [the] purpose of satisfying the ‘student instruction’ exception in § 119.1(e)(1) because he or she does not hold a flight instructor certificate.”
“The FAA interprets ‘training flights’ described in § 119.1(e)(3) as referring to operations in which a person receives training for the purpose of satisfying a training requirement outside of part 61, such as the crewmember training requirement of § 91.313. Therefore, flight crewmember training in special purpose operations, such as crop dusting, seeding, spraying, and banner towing, would fall under the ‘training flights’ exception of § 119.1(e)(3).”
Lorelei Peter, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, in a separate interpretation given 16 Nov 2016 to the EASA CFI at CTC in Goodyear Arizona, Caroline Olson, states that EASA flight tests are not deemed to be “practical tests” within the meaning of US regulations and that such flights are operations for compensation or hire. Again, at least a US commercial pilot certificate is required. Chief Counsel stopped short of addressing whether an EASA test (or assessment or check) would come under one of the 14 CFR 119.1(e) exceptions.
Assuming flight training for Part-FCL purposes falls under either exception what position should be taken by a Part-FCL instructor, who is not also a US-certificated flight instructor, vis-à-vis the security awareness training required of US certificated flight instructors by 49 CFR 1552? I think both of these issue ratchet up the wisdom in putting on the full pontificalia by holding at least a US flight instructor certificate before conducting Part-FCL tests checks assessments or flight training in the US.
There is a separate provision for Canadian/Mexican flight training done on a Canadian/Mexican aircraft in the US if the training comes within the scope of NAFTA Specialty Air Services. These operations come under 14 CFR 375 instead of 119 and benefit from a blanket permit.
I’d be happy to do your hour and sign your licence on on of my visits to NYC
That will require appropriate work authorisation as it’s deemed to be labour whether or not remunerated.
Davidson and Beale might still be available in Phoenix. Kevin Beale with CAE is on the list of non-French examiners (link) where his contact details are given. He should have Davidson’s contact details but if not send me a message. The FE in San Diego is Martin Lloyd contactable through American Aviation Academy. At Fort Pierce there’s Stephen Fisher who may be contacted through EFT. Naples Air Center, which isn’t listed on the ATOs under direct EASA oversight (link see downloads) because it’s approved by UK CAA as a satellite of Andrewsfield Aviation in Essex, has resident and visiting examiners. The examiner at Florida Institute of Technology in Melbourne, FL, is Anthony Best whose contact details are in the FITA directory (link).
The EASA Examiner Differences Document (pdf link) does not permit examiners approved by other than France to endorse a French licence. Similarly FCL.945 in Part-FCL permits an FI to endorse a licence only when “specifically authorised for that purpose by the competent authority responsible for the applicant’s licence.”
It’s on the wrong coast but https://headingwest.net/FR/index.php do both FAA and EASA instruction. This post might be relevant for you too
I think you need FAA FI privileges (i.e. CFI or CFII) only if instructing towards FAA papers.
This is probably a grey area, and is thus both ways i.e. some stuff has been going on in Europe along these lines.
Peter wrote:
A European FI/CRI visiting the US will be able to do this provided the candidate is legally PIC i.e. his license has not yet expired.
On an N-Reg?
What I do have:
EASA (UK) PPL/CRI
FAA PPL (61.75)
What I don’t have
FAA instructing privileges.
I’d probably have to do it for free, but I am sure that wouldn’t be an issue.
Not sure how it works with insurance. Rental airplane probably wouldn’t work.
The 6-7 US schools that offer EASA licenses will have instructors and examiners capable of signing off these papers. I am sure those people will have valid FAA papers anyway so they can be PIC if required.
A European FI/CRI visiting the US will be able to do this provided the candidate is legally PIC i.e. his license has not yet expired.
I don’t think there is a way for an EASA FI to do it on a n-reg outside the airspace of its licence issuer (UK for me) but if I’m proven wrong I’d be happy to do your hour and sign your licence on on of my visits to NYC (2-4 times / year)
