The meaning “authorised instructor” has long been debated in Europe, with respect to the admissibility of training by non FAA instructors towards an FAA license or a rating.
61.1 (b) (i) and (ii) and (iii) here states
This has been used to justify a commercial position that training by non FAA instructors is inadmissible.
But 61.41 here (the FARs come up in at least 2 different places) states the well known exception
It is possible that the first bit has changed in recent years but I cannot imagine the second bit no longer applies. Can anyone with detailed knowledge of the FARs confirm it is still in place and means what I am getting at, which is
with the proviso that the signoff saying that you are ready for the checkride must still be done by an FAA CFI or CFII (respectively), within the 60 days preceeding the checkride, as usual.
The admissibility of European training is massively self evident in that myself and many others I know have used it towards FAA papers, but there are still people out there who say it is illegal.
Any views on this one?
Peter, as an example, only certain hours are required to be given by an FAA Authorized Flight Instructor with an Instrument rating on their instructor certificate. In the case of an instrument airplane rating, it is only 15 hours, 3 of which must be given within two calendar months of the practical test. There is a list of topics that must be covered within the 15 hours and one long dual cross country. The authorized flight instructor must provide the sign off endorsement. The ground training may be given by the authorized instructor or by a home study course provider who will provide the endorsement for the knowledge test. All the other training can be provided by one of the instructors listed in 61.41. So if a typical pilot takes 40 to 50 hours of training, 25 to 35 can be given by a 61.41 instructor. All the endorsements are from the FAA Authorized Instructor with Instrument ratings on their Instructor certificate.
So, in summary, for the instrument airplane rating, an FAA CFI/CFII must provide at least 15 hours of instruction.
NCYankee – why does 61.41 not apply to the basic 15 hours (dual time) of the FAA IR?
FWIW, the USA always used to accept that. Same for the PPL (private certificate). Only the last 3 hours of these had to be done by an FAA instructor.
My UK based training was accepted in full (except the last 3hrs) for the private, commercial and the IR. In fact it wasn’t needed for the IR because I did ~25hrs in Arizona, and the commercial was done with an FAA CFI in the UK, but the DPEs in all three cases accepted UK (non FAA qualified) instructor time.
Is there any update on this? All I see is hearsay.
Someone said here the FAA Chief Counsel ruled on it. This is really surprising because it runs totally counter to standard US-based FAA training practice where existing European training, cross country time, etc, none of it with FAA instructors, is fully accepted.
I just got the FAA AC 61-144 in my inbox. It only applies to pilots with Swiss EASA licenses as far as I understand it, but the EU probably has an agreement with the FAA as well. The document contains this sentence: “10.1.5 If a person receives flight training outside of the United States from an EASA Part-FCL flight instructor, under § 61.41(a)(2), that person may credit the training toward the requirements of an FAA private pilot certificate or rating”
Yes. I have been discussing this with a specialist recently.
I am not great at decoding convoluted regs but I think a fair summary would be exactly as you state (and has been thus for decades, evidenced by my own experience of a US paperwork chase since 2003, not to mention the thousands of European pilots who went to the US to get their PPLs, IRs, etc) but “required endorsements” still need an FAA instructor. So e.g. the logbook signoff stating that you are ready for a checkride, or ready to sit an FAA written exam, etc, the last 3hrs (within 60 days) before a checkride, these all need an FAA CFI/CFII.
Here is my FAA IR writeup from 2006.
Search for “Why FAA?” and that is the position in practice. Doesn’t look like anything has changed.
I have no idea why this should be Swiss-specific. Maybe somebody in the Swiss CAA wanted a CYA agreement? The FARs have always accepted non US training.
However, I wonder if the FAA wants to change things so that they will accept training only from specified countries?
