Ah yes, I had forgotten about the flappy thingy ;-) Too long ago.......
Silvaire,
Thanks for that information. It brings about a question in that theme: There was a reference elsewhere to more powerful engine powered aircraft also requiring a rating. Are you aware if that is built into the complex rating elements in your reference? If so, they are then exempt by the pre 1997 let, which I could invoke?
In my ideal world, there is a possibility of a radial engine warbird flight in the US for me, but the owner of the aircraft said I have to come with the powerful engine rating, and I had never heard of that...
Yes, till April 2014, but after that, if the policeman (or whoever) determines that the "operator" of your aircraft is EU based, you will need to show both. Yes, it's a mad world...
Actually that I can understand the showing of both papers (only so far as the Operator requirement will require EU Papers, not sure exactly where I stand on this yet)... So you show them both, you are legal under the FAA regime, but illegal under the EASA regime; then for me this is a VERY dangerous area. Does this mean then that EASA will fully be able to prosecute a pilot of an N-Reg aircraft, who is legal under the FAA regime? But they would only be able to prosecute under the EASA legal framework, and then therefore can impose whatever they see fit on the EASA Paperwork, but this still leaves the FAA Papers untouched and therefore valid!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
From many of the things that I have read in the press recently, not just in aviation, I think some of our "trusted" leaders have actually lost the plot... Anyone want to build a spacecraft and start again on Mars?
Thanks for that information. It brings about a question in that theme: There was a reference elsewhere to more powerful engine powered aircraft also requiring a rating. Are you aware if that is built into the complex rating elements in your reference? If so, they are then exempt by the pre 1997 let, which I could invoke? In my ideal world, there is a possibility of a radial engine warbird flight in the US for me, but the owner of the aircraft said I have to come with the powerful engine rating, and I had never heard of that...
Hmmmmm, I don't know. I've heard stuff about special signoffs to fly warbirds but that's a long way from my world. The only such thing I know of for sure is the FAA 'high performance' endorsement that becomes relevant at 200 HP. And I also know that all three of the logbook endorsements are not required if you logged relevant time before the date in the 90s when they were introduced, nor does the regulation care about the registration nationality of the aircraft in which the prior experience was logged.
If I can learn anything at the airport this weekend, I'll let you know.
Thanks for that information. It brings about a question in that theme: There was a reference elsewhere to more powerful engine powered aircraft also requiring a rating. Are you aware if that is built into the complex rating elements in your reference?>
No, DAR, it's not. The complex endorsement (not 'rating') and the high-power (inxs of 200hp) are two separate things. About any 'grandfathering' - no idea. In any case this isn't rocket science.
Actually that I can understand the showing of both papers (only so far as the Operator requirement will require EU Papers, not sure exactly where I stand on this yet)... So you show them both...
I agree 100% with your comment about Mars, and for this reason I do not for a moment think this stupid and unenforceable reg will ever be enforced around European airports, where the framework for that kind of pilot paper verification doesn't exist and nobody is going to be interested in educating airport-visiting policemen to understand the subtle aspects of EASA FCL.
Legend has it that N-reg pilots landing in France were met by French police who had briefing templates prepared, with pictures of FAA licenses, with the words INSTRUMENT PILOT highlighted so if you arrived on an IFR flight plan they could check you had an IR
I do not for a moment doubt that Germany is equally capable of organising that 
But the "EU non-residence of the operator" aspect is another level beyond that. There is no "certificate of EU non-residence" that any pilot could carry.
The only time I see somebody trying to check this would be if you upset them badly and they wanted to "get you", which has happened in the UK where the CAA has specially gone after certain pilots who upset them multiple times. Then the CAA will have to kick off a court case in which the "operator" aspect will be tested, and some think it will be obvious, IMHO it won't be completely trivial because most N-regs have a US-based owner trustee.
The risk which I think is real is insurance, where the insurer could refuse a payout if the flight was noncompliant with EASA FCL. That's why I did the JAA IR, in addition to the FAA one. It's of no use to me whatsoever. But the insurer would have to defect the same court action if the claimant was well resourced.
high-power (inxs of 200hp) are two separate things
So the "high power" is 200HP and greater? That seems low for "high"!
I'll have to hope that Aztec, Cheyenne and Twin Otter time in the 80's will grandfather me, or a recent Caravan PPC will get me through. I'll have to figure someone to ask.
Thanks for the thoughts...
So the "high power" is 200HP and greater? That seems low for "high"!>
Well, it's the FAA's definition, not mine! Do you hold an FAA license? If so, then in the worst case scenario just get the endorsement. Done in one morning. No idea about Canadian licenses and the privileges they may or may not confer WRT flying N-reg.
For an FAA certicated pilot, if he logged any time in any 200 HP or greater aircraft, any aircraft with flaps+retract+VP prop, and any tail wheel aircraft before the relevant date (I think it's 1997 for all of them), he will not need any of the three log book endorsements. The endorsements are only for newbies like me!
Hopefully someone can answer this quickly and easily.
I hold a CPL and it has recently occured to me whilst I have found some work operating a turbocharged twin that I have never flown a turbocharged aircraft before, having done my ME training in a BE76.
Does one need to signed off to fly these, or does having a CPL mitigate the need for this (sounds odd to me). Confusion arising because I have never had my logbook signed off (should I have?) for retractable u/c or v/p prop, but as you have to do a CPL with these is it implied? How does this work for someone doing a CPL in a turbocharged aircraft, do they get signed off or is it implied?
