philaviate wrote: ↑Sun Dec 14, 2025 7:06 am
Well firstly you actually have two separate licences. You can keep one or both active.
And for professional pilots, you obviously need the commercial licence anyway, so the stand alone is the one you need.
Also you're not restricted in what endorsements you can have on it like it appears you are with the piggyback one.
Some of my work colleagues don't even bother keeping their TC licence valid as they exclusively use their FAA licence for work and don't fly in Canada recreationally.
If it's a very rare thing you'll use it, then the piggyback one is likely fine. But for the tiny bit more up front hassle and the cost of a annual medical I think the full licence is worth it. I've flown more N registered planes for work in Canada than I have C reg ones. So there are definitely work opportunities for FAA holders in Canada.
Thanks.
However, I don’t fully understand your reply. Could you explain further your first sentence about two licences?
For flying commercially, stand alone is required as step along the way. But I believe that the original poster is not interested in doing this. Therefore, good comment but not applicable to most of us.
Could you give specific details on what endorsements are restricted on a piggyback license versus the stand-alone license?
The piggyback one is only valid if your TC one is valid.
With the true FAA conversion I actually have two licences. TC a d FAA. I could stop medicals in Canada and still have FAA or vice versa.
I can also fly multi engine, or type rated planes etc on my faa. You cannot do that on the piggyback one.
So yes, for a simple one time ferry, likely overkill. But personally for a one time ferry I'd just find a ferry pilot.
But for the slight amount of effort, if you're a commercial pilot in Canada, might as well just get the full FAA as it can be quite useful here. I fly a number of contracts for companies flying N registered planes, and the pay is significantly higher than flying similar jobs for Canadian companies. So my $1000 investment in getting my FAA paid me back ten fold that the first month I used it.
Thanks,
I agree that you need your Canadian(or foreign) license to validate the American “piggyback” license.
For better understanding of what you called a true FAA conversion, confirm you need an FAA medical for your FAA license and a TC medical for your TC licence(and that you have chosen to do both medicals in order for both licenses to be valid)?
However, I don’t fully understand your reply. Could you explain further your first sentence about two licences?
For flying commercially, stand alone is required as step along the way. But I believe that the original poster is not interested in doing this. Therefore, good comment but not applicable to most of us.
Could you give specific details on what endorsements are restricted on a piggyback license versus the stand-alone license?
The piggyback one is only valid if your TC one is valid.
With the true FAA conversion I actually have two licences. TC a d FAA. I could stop medicals in Canada and still have FAA or vice versa.
I can also fly multi engine, or type rated planes etc on my faa. You cannot do that on the piggyback one.
So yes, for a simple one time ferry, likely overkill. But personally for a one time ferry I'd just find a ferry pilot.
But for the slight amount of effort, if you're a commercial pilot in Canada, might as well just get the full FAA as it can be quite useful here. I fly a number of contracts for companies flying N registered planes, and the pay is significantly higher than flying similar jobs for Canadian companies. So my $1000 investment in getting my FAA paid me back ten fold that the first month I used it.
Thanks,
I agree that you need your Canadian(or foreign) license to validate the American “piggyback” license.
For better understanding of what you called a true FAA conversion, confirm you need an FAA medical for your FAA license and a TC medical for your TC licence(and that you have chosen to do both medicals in order for both licenses to be valid)?
Yes, exactly.
When I go for my annual class 1 medical at my Canadian doctor, he also does the FAA one. Most of the tests overlap, but the FAA one has some more vision tests.
And then it's just a case of applying more money. The FAA medical in Canada isn't cheap, I end up paying about $550 a year for the two medicals with EKG and stuff.
philaviate wrote: ↑Sun Dec 14, 2025 7:06 am
Well firstly you actually have two separate licences. You can keep one or both active.
And for professional pilots, you obviously need the commercial licence anyway, so the stand alone is the one you need.
Also you're not restricted in what endorsements you can have on it like it appears you are with the piggyback one.
Some of my work colleagues don't even bother keeping their TC licence valid as they exclusively use their FAA licence for work and don't fly in Canada recreationally.
If it's a very rare thing you'll use it, then the piggyback one is likely fine. But for the tiny bit more up front hassle and the cost of a annual medical I think the full licence is worth it. I've flown more N registered planes for work in Canada than I have C reg ones. So there are definitely work opportunities for FAA holders in Canada.
Thanks.
However, I don’t fully understand your reply. Could you explain further your first sentence about two licences?
For flying commercially, stand alone is required as step along the way. But I believe that the original poster is not interested in doing this. Therefore, good comment but not applicable to most of us.
Could you give specific details on what endorsements are restricted on a piggyback license versus the stand-alone license?
I can also fly multi engine, or type rated planes etc on my faa. You cannot do that on the piggyback one.
Are you sure? My piggyback license says SMELS, which means Single and Multi Engine Land and Sea. Therefore, I am under the impression that I can fly multi engine aircraft.
I got checked out on a DA-42 TwinStar and a Grumman Cougar in the US.
However, I don’t fully understand your reply. Could you explain further your first sentence about two licences?
For flying commercially, stand alone is required as step along the way. But I believe that the original poster is not interested in doing this. Therefore, good comment but not applicable to most of us.
Could you give specific details on what endorsements are restricted on a piggyback license versus the stand-alone license?
I can also fly multi engine, or type rated planes etc on my faa. You cannot do that on the piggyback one.
Are you sure? My piggyback license says SMELS, which means Single and Multi Engine Land and Sea. Therefore, I am under the impression that I can fly multi engine aircraft.
I got checked out on a DA-42 TwinStar and a Grumman Cougar in the US.
Didn't you just say you were grandfathered under the old system?
So anyone doing the process today won't get those allowances, just a basic ppl.
I was talking about the differences for anyone going through the process today. What you did years ago is no longer the same.
I can also fly multi engine, or type rated planes etc on my faa. You cannot do that on the piggyback one.
Are you sure? My piggyback license says SMELS, which means Single and Multi Engine Land and Sea. Therefore, I am under the impression that I can fly multi engine aircraft.
I got checked out on a DA-42 TwinStar and a Grumman Cougar in the US.
Didn't you just say you were grandfathered under the old system?
So anyone doing the process today won't get those allowances, just a basic ppl.
I was talking about the differences for anyone going through the process today. What you did years ago is no longer the same.
I remember being told by the FAA person at the FSDO that having the license say Commercial pilot instead of PRIVATE PILOT(although still only allowing private pilot privileges) was the grandfathered part.
It would be interesting to see official documentation confirming if there was a change to the multi engine allowance aspect.
