But isn’t the point that they aren’t flying it on an FAA Airman’s Certificate? Instead they are flying it on their national country’s licence with the privileges of that. Once they want to leave that country then they need the FAA Airman’s Certificate and the endorsements that are required on it/logbook.
I think that is exactly right.
My first Q was re the UK/EASA endorsement (which some say is not legally required).
My second Q was whether you need the FAA CFI complex endorsement on a 61.75.
Peter wrote:
My first Q was re the UK/EASA endorsement (which some say is not legally required).
Was the question if you have a 61.75 license based on an EASA PPL, do you need EASA differences training for RG and VP in order to fly a N-reg TB20?
My understanding is no, you don’t. The EASA restriction that you can’t fly a TB20 without RG and VP differences training, is not a limitation on the license, which is what matters to the FAA. OTOH, you might need complex aircraft training according to FAA rules. (I don’t know.)
Peter wrote:
My second Q was whether you need the FAA CFI complex endorsement on a 61.75.
Unless you have time before 1997, then you need the logbook endorsement, of course logbooks get lost 
The only thing I can see which is open to interpretation is whom the authorized instructor is, and what form the logbook endorsement needs to take.
Airborne_Again wrote:
My understanding is no, you don’t. The EASA restriction that you can’t fly a TB20 without RG and VP differences training, is not a limitation on the license, which is what matters to the FAA. OTOH, you might need complex aircraft training according to FAA rules. (I don’t know.)
I think the answer is yes you do if you rely on the 61.75 to fly the aircraft, unless the 61.75 is just a coincidental and you can fly the aircraft using your ICAO license.
Ted wrote:
I think the answer is yes you do if you rely on the 61.75 to fly the aircraft, unless the 61.75 is just a coincidental and you can fly the aircraft using your ICAO license.
The FAA has officially said that you don’t need the EASA night flying rating to fly N-reg at night on a 61.75 license, as the limitation to day flying without the rating is a consequence of EASA licensing rule and is not a limitation that appears on the license. Why should differences training be different?
Airborne_Again wrote:
The FAA has officially said that you don’t need the EASA night flying rating to fly N-reg at night on a 61.75 license, as the limitation to day flying without the rating is a consequence of EASA licensing rule and is not a limitation that appears on the license. Why should differences training be different?
It is not different in terms of the FARs, 61.75 gives you a private certificate and all the privileges of 61.113 (private cert) including flying at night, but also all the limitations of all FARs including 61.31 which is why you need the training and the endorsement, and all the currency etc. What is not clear is who can do the training and how you need to prove it, if indeed you do need to prove it since you don’t need to carry your logbook. The FARs are very clear, I am only posting from that perspective.
It is not a best or worst of each system, at least from the FAA perspective. The national CAA may see it differently of course.
whom the authorized instructor is
That is another excellent point I wonder if @ncyankee still holds that view?
It’s not too hard to find an FAA CFI. Finding a CFII is a lot harder… Also one would do this thing in this order:
1) get the diff training with a UK/EASA FI (CAA/DfT permission for N-reg training is no longer needed, even if you pay him for the flight)
2) get the 61.75
3) do the flight with an FAA CFI (who incidentally does not need to be PIC on that flight, if done in the UK) and get his signoff
After 1) you are legal in UK airspace (or whichever airspace is owned by your license issuer).
An authorized instructor is an FAA instructor rated in category and class. They do not have to have Instrument on their CFI certificate, that is only required for the 15 hour portion of instrument rating training, endorsing a pilot for the instrument rating, and conducting an IPC.
Ted wrote:
a CFI marking a student pilots logbook as proficient in a complex aircraft before they get their PPL. e.g. teaching someone in their bonanza/C182 fro
Just wearing my pedantic hat this morning, a C182 is not a complex aircraft per FAA definition, unless it’s an RG. It needs a high-performance, not a complex endorsement.
I’m sorry to be opening up this can of worms again.
But I’m trying to find out; if I e.g., got my tailwheel endorsement pre-JAR/EASA, is it still «valid»? In other words, were there any «grandfathers rights» at some point?
And, if one flew (let’s say) an RG in the US on FAA papers, will one still need differences training in EASA?
Working on a new book («Differences Training»), but in norwegian first.
ErlendV wrote:
But I’m trying to find out; if I e.g., got my tailwheel endorsement pre-JAR/EASA, is it still «valid»? In other words, were there any «grandfathers rights» at some point?And, if one flew (let’s say) an RG in the US on FAA papers, will one still need differences training in EASA?
Hi @ErlendV, my understanding that you don’t need it – it is not a license edorsement, but a logbook endorsement, but it is better to ask guys like @Qalupalik and @bookworm.
