Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

EASA/UK approved ATOs outside Europe, and acceptance of EASA/UK training done outside Europe

you have lost the option of doing the US Foreign Pilot IR Exam route

I have never about this, @Peter. Could you elaborate? Does that condition that you already have a non-FAA IR, in which case you would only need the FAA written exam?

LFPT, LFPN

AFAIK the FAA Foreign Pilot IR Exam route to the FAA IR is available only to FAA 61.75 PPL holders.

The principle, as far as I can see one, is that the USA offers an easy “temporary validation” to visiting pilots. I don’t suppose they ever expected that the validation route would be taken up by vast numbers of pilots living outside the USA, but to their huge credit (and at significant US taxpayers’ expense!) they have not done anything deliberately to make this option more difficult for non US residents. To be fair if I was running the USA I would do the same because it extends US influence and goodwill worldwide and does so at a cost which is trivial on the scale of traditional foreign policy implementation costs (e.g. wars)

I don’t think that the possession of another ICAO IR makes any difference. Obviously you do need to have the ICAO IR to sit the Foreign Pilot IR Exam, but you also need a 61.75 PPL and you can’t have a 61.75 PPL if you already have a standalone FAA PPL (or CPL or ATP).

Incidentally there is a “61.75 CPL” or whatever it is called, or was till recently, but it is/was limited in that you could not carry passengers, so it was good only for crop spraying or ferrying.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

One can only hold one valid FAA license. If you also have a full license, then your 61.75 is technically no longer valid.

That isn’t true. If you have a 61.75 and then get a standalone, the 61.75 remains valid. If you you have a standalone, you can’t get a new 61.75.

From FAA order 8900.2:
(3) Without Using Foreign-Pilot License. A person may obtain a U.S. pilot certificate without relying on his or her foreign-pilot license by accomplishing the required training, instructor endorsements, aeronautical experience, and passing the appropriate knowledge test and practical test as required by the pilot certification requirements contained in part 61. However, if a person holds a standard U.S. pilot certificate (other than a student pilot certificate or recreational pilot certificate), that person may not apply for a U.S. pilot certificate based on his/her foreign pilot license (see § 61.75(b)(3)).
Note: A person who applies for a U.S. pilot certificate by accomplishing the appropriate pilot certification requirements of part 61 and also holds a pilot certificate issued under § 61.75 does not need to surrender that § 61.75 U.S. pilot certificate. There have been isolated incidences where examiners have mistakenly required a person to surrender their § 61.75 pilot certificate when applying for a standard U.S. pilot certificate. In this instance, it is permissible for a person to hold both a pilot certificate issued under § 61.75 U.S. pilot certificate and a standard U.S. pilot certificate.

For example I currently hold a 61.75 PPL/SEL/MEL IR US test passed and a standalone CPL/SEL/ IR.

Last Edited by JasonC at 02 Nov 09:21
EGTK Oxford

That happens because in commercial education (of all types, not just flight training) there is a whole load of hangers-on milking the business for all they can. If mandatory flight time or mandatory ground school time were removed, a lot of people would be out of a job.

Possibly. But I also have a feeling that this has to do with tests. Either that there is doubt about the validity of the tests — or that you don’t do tests at all (in aviation you do, obviously) as testing means the potential of failing someone, which is always unpleasant (and possibly bad for business). Instead you just “assume” that if someone has taken X hours of instruction, then they must surely have learned something…

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

But I also have a feeling that this has to do with tests. Either that there is doubt about the validity of the tests

I think that’s true – there is a bit of a history of being able to purchase bits of paper. This has definitely happened in Europe. At one stage you could purchase all 14 ATPL exams for €10k (a total rumour of course, usually featuring the word “Spain” ) and it is a very “European thing” to distrust individuals.

But I still think the biggest reason for mandatory ground school is the maintenance of ground school FTO facilities and all the peripherals (book publishing etc) which often employ people who are ex aviation and ex national air force personnel and this is all tied up with national CAA staff.

The next big reason is to maintain a high barrier to entry. This is a specific issue in Europe which – unlike the USA – is not using the ATP as the “professional pilot” status symbol and instead is using the IR, and to a much lesser degree the CPL (which here is a pretty daft and irrelevant all-VFR product anyway). The world is full of kids who dream of becoming airline pilots and this directly leads to high barriers to entry, IMHO.

There have been isolated incidences where examiners have mistakenly required a person to surrender their § 61.75 pilot certificate when applying for a standard U.S. pilot certificate. In this instance, it is permissible for a person to hold both a pilot certificate issued under § 61.75 U.S. pilot certificate and a standard U.S. pilot certificate.

That is interesting and not known to many. I know of people who lost their 61.75 when they did the full PPL and that’s where this piece of general knowledge comes from, no doubt.

But how relevant is it in practice? Are you saying that you can hold a 61.75 PPL and a full PPL and do the Foreign Pilot IR exam?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

But how relevant is it in practice? Are you saying that you can hold a 61.75 PPL and a full PPL and do the Foreign Pilot IR exam?

Of course. But it will still only give you a foreign based IR on your 61.75. That will however allow you to fly IFR in an N-reg worldwide without doing the full FAA IR checkride.

That is interesting and not known to many. I know of people who lost their 61.75 when they did the full PPL and that’s where this piece of general knowledge comes from, no doubt

Is it actually removed from the FAA database or did they just surrender the card?

Last Edited by JasonC at 02 Nov 09:46
EGTK Oxford

No idea (would have to ask – personally I totally avoided the 61.75 route due to the massive issues with getting e.g. the address updated without visiting the USA) but many have gone down that route over the 10 years I have been kicking about in it.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

My 61.75 is for SE, ME and Gliders, and has Instrument rating with the note US Test Passed.

My CPL is ME (NOT SE) and has the IR and Type ratings on it.

There is an overlap but not a total duplication of privileges so I always believed I could legally have both, and a database search on the FAA shows both licences with the most recent medical the same on both.

I visit the US on business fairly regularly so no hassle to update details. In any case I don’t like to move house.

Darley Moor, Gamston (UK)

Foreign hours don’t count towards EASA PPL?

The CAA in the past has always accepted hours flown abroad towards the hours required for a PPL. The case used to be:

“‘Any previous flying experience in single engine-piston (Land) aeroplanes gained during an incomplete course of training towards an ICAO PPL(A) may be counted towards the requirements for the grant of a JAR-FCL PPL(A). Applicants will be required to obtain copies of their training records from their training provider, together with confirmation from them that the training completed was towards the grant of an ICAO PPL(A). Applicants will be required to attend a registered facility or approved FTO and provide evidence of their previous training to the Chief Flying Instructor. The CFI will then establish a course of training taking into account previous experience to ensure that all the specific requirements of C1.2 have been met.’”

However now someone on another forum has said that the hours do not count:

“The school needs to be EASA approved for the hours to apply for a new EASA ppl – which makes things a bit complicated. There’s been a shift from CAA/ICAO to EASA within the last couple of years. It’s frustratingly complex.
EASA is now the licensing body for the UK CAA: https://www.caa.co.uk/General-aviation/Learning-to-fly/Which-licence-is-right-for-me-/
Unless he/she is doing an NPPL(SSEA) then the US school needs to be EASA certified.”

(see the thread here )

Is this really true? It seems mighty dunderheaded if it is.

Andreas IOM

On a quick read, the bit which appears correct is

which is pretty well self evident…

LASORS 2005 is dead now, AFAIK.

The rest of that thread appears to be drivel.

The old “100hr route” for ICAO-CAA PPL conversion should still exist.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top