Surely, if you have money then you can just move about for ever.
That is what many/most seriously rich people do. The basic idea is to earn money in one place, be "resident" in another, and actually live in yet another. Most of them have multiple homes, any of which can be supported as "residence" addresses with utility bills, etc. With care, you pay no tax anywhere (except VAT obviously).
Obviously, the average owner-pilot is not going to be doing that, but a sufficient % of pilots will be able to make a credible case. Pulling out a non EU passport is going to be a pretty good first line of defence.
Also, corporate ops of multinationals will be easily able to arrange for an non EU operator.
This is why I don't understand why the particular wording was chosen. It may be simply that it was the best they could think of. One aviation barrister I know thinks that EASA probably did not even get legal advice.
Obviously if your ideological position is anti USA (which is common in Brussels) then you can read the EASA wording is a very strict way, and have it applying to anybody who substantially lives in the EU. But "you" are not the judge and the jury...
Don't forget that a standalone FAA Private actually equips you in practice to fly in the US, if that's on your roadmap. (And it should be, because the US is an incomparably better place to fly than Europe). This contrasts with the 'based on' route where US specific training consists of whatever differences a particular BFR instructor happens to be aware of and can squeeze into a 1Hr flight.
Little gems like the 45 deg join and ground referenced manoeuvres will come in handy, believe me!
I'm not sure how much of this would get taught in an overseas FAA private where exercises like learning to fly a circuit within the ATZ are anathema to some. So I'm really puzzled as to why someone would pass up on the opportunity to take a week in the US (preferably Arizona) with much cheaper rates to do the thing properly. OK the visa is an issue, but it has been argued that for a person already holding a reciprocal licence no new 'training toward a licence or rating' is involved. (Don't take my word on that!)
There is another, often overlooked, reason to have a standalone FAA ticket. It is MUCH easier and quicker to validate by some foreign CAA then any EASA one. I have experience with this both with a UK CAA/JAR license and an FAA one (mine being standalone).
UK - huge hassle, endless phone calls from Africa to Gatwick (don't ask me about the phone bill in the hotel...) and nearly ruined what ended up being the best trip of my life.
FAA (in this case for the Oz CASA validation): done in no time, no hassle, had the license ready and waiting upon landing in Oz.
If you are given half a chance to get an FAA standalone ticket, go for it!
Dear Euro GA
I have been operating under a Stand Alone FAA Airman’s Certificate since 2004.
I had to complete a 3 hour revision flight in an N Reg and a Flight Test, t/w associated FAA Medical Certifications (at Class Two) and all the computer based training and exams. All in the UK.
Since that time I have “flip flopped” between flying under FAA jurisdiction and CAA (so now EArseR) jurisdiction. When flying under CAA, I have a Class One Part-MED European Union issued Medical Certificate.
HOWEVER
It now transpires that ERSA don’t think that this is valid.
THEREFORE
The delightful staff at the General Belgrano (!), a large, grey, small moving place just South of Gatwick Airport have decided that
IF you have a stand alone FAA Airman’s Certificate and a UK issued PPL IMC NIGHT, you cannot use P1 experience flying under FAA rules to validate your “new licence”. It is a flying club’s dream, as I was told that I have to "learn to fly all over again, from the beginning (!)
This is totally vexatious, salacious and scandalous behaviour.
The “New Licence” issue is just a cash grab.
My complaint is now with The Federal Aviation Administrator (Mr Huarec (sic)) at this time, and I have issued a Judicial Review of the decision of the UK State CAA into their alleged prohibition of FAA registered airmen operating in European Airspace, and a Ms S Lim (legal representative of the CAA) has conduct.
I shall, of course, keep you updated as to how this matter progesses through the High Court, London, and the District Court of Columbia, Washington DC.
Finally, I will leave you with one thought
“If you think matters can’t get any worse, try getting totally unqualified, very low paid Civil Servants in the UK involved – and your own paper mountain is what they fee(d) on. It is all about MONEY”
Rant over.
1. 1976 – Dutch Gliding Licence issued
2. 1979 – UK PPL issued – now with IMC (IR(R) and Night Rating
3. 2000 – UK PPL H issued, with Turbine Conversion
4. 2004 – USA FAA Airman’s Certificate issued – stand alone
Fees to continue flying = 3 × 10 (to the power of 6), or infinite, if you prefer.
IF you have a stand alone FAA Airman’s Certificate and a UK issued PPL IMC NIGHT, you cannot use P1 experience flying under FAA rules to validate your “new licence”. It is a flying club’s dream, as I was told that I have to "learn to fly all over again, from the beginning (!)
How does the CAA tell which license you were flying under at the time?
If you have a UK issued PPL IMC NQ then you are good to be PIC in a G-reg, worldwide, VFR, day or night, and all your instrument time (which by definition is IFR time) in Class D-G in UK airspace counts.
And until fairly recently you were able to fly a G-reg worldwide, VFR, on any ICAO PPL. Plus the IMCR is not restricted to G-reg (not by the UK, for sure; others may have different opinions). This privilege continues today but only for “non EASA” aircraft – e.g. Annex 2.
