FAA IFR Currency in Europe with non N-numbered plane?

A

Alsace

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Sep 10, 2021
Messages
11
Display Name
Display name:
Alsace
Dear All, can I do valid 66Hits maneuvers under the hood (simulated IMC) for my FAA IC license currency in Europe in a Europe/EASA registered plane with a local safety pilot or instructor that has a EU license that goes with the plane?
 
Thanks that is an interesting thread!
 
Thanks. The regs do not mention that, from which one could deduct that it is allowable. Would the same apply for an FTD that is approved in the host country? The regs mention an FAA approved device. However from an ICAO treaty perspective an EASA approved sim should also be allowed to remain current in Europe. Also from the thread linked above I get the idea that the frequently occuring international flight/training/currency situation is intentionally kept vague in the regs. Why not clearly state: “In case the part 61 certificate holder needs to obtain currency while outside the US, a. b. c. applies” ?
 
I have more difficulty with the FTD because it does say, "FAA approved device." But I have no idea what cross-approval agreements may exist or whether the specific FTD might also be approved here.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I have more difficulty with the FTD because it does say, "FAA approved device." But I have no idea what cross-approval agreements may exist or whether the specific FTD might also be approved here.
Click to expand...
 
Agree the regs mention that specifically. But similar to the flight license of the safety pilot this could be interpreted as ‘Approved FTE by the FAA or by the competent authority in the ICAO member state where the device is used’.
 
Alsace said:
Agree the regs mention that specifically. But similar to the flight license of the safety pilot this could be interpreted as ‘Approved FTE by the FAA or by the competent authority in the ICAO member state where the device is used’.
Click to expand...
But it doesn't say so. The wording does matter. And what "should" isn't always what "is."

I suspect part of the issue is that, unlike pilot certification, device approval is not a purely regulatory thing. Each device gets approved individually with a list of regulations it is qualified to be used for. For example, one device might be approved for 66HITS but not for any part of an IPC (a question I've fielded from time to time.) One would think that a device approved to log approaches without a CFII "should" be able to be used to log one toward an IPC with a CFII, no?

While there are guidelines for approvals, it's ultimately a bureaucratic rather than a regulatory task. So I can see EASA and the FAA looking at the same device and coming to different lists. At the same time, I can also envision cross-approvals. Dunno.
 
midlifeflyer said:
But it doesn't say so. The wording does matter. And what "should" isn't always what "is."

I suspect part of the issue is that, unlike pilot certification, device approval is not a purely regulatory thing. Each device gets approved individually with a list of regulations it is qualified to be used for. For example, one device might be approved for 66HITS but not for any part of an IPC (a question I've fielded from time to time.) One would think that a device approved to log approaches without a CFII "should" be able to be used to log one toward an IPC with a CFII, no?

While there are guidelines for approvals, it's ultimately a bureaucratic rather than a regulatory task. So I can see EASA and the FAA looking at the same device and coming to different lists. At the same time, I can also envision cross-approvals. Dunno.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for your view midlifeflyer. I feel some serious reg overhaul and international harmonisation is overdue. After all, piloting in its essence is an international affiair.
 
I will check this out tx!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top