That is what I thought I learned on this thread. Before, I thought that pilot training (and subsequent approval by the licensing authority) is sufficient. Now I learn that the state of registry also has to give an approval.
I think the mixup has occurred further up in this thread. You and tom speak about Switzerland, but I think Peter’s comment (“very unlikely to be available for say a rental aircraft”) was also about the approval from the state of registry of the aircraft necessary in the Netherlands, not about the pilot training that e.g. the Swiss require. And the real reason for the mixup is that no two states seem to treat this the same way.
Rwy20 wrote:
despite my letter from the DGAC stating that I have had sufficient training?
That’s why I wrote in #42 that the dutch AIP sentence was strange and mixed up states of registry and license issuance.
But really, these are all misguided / poorly worded attempts at implementing AMC 20-27 and 20-28, so I’d be very surprised if any NAA tried to take action against anyone in compliance with those aforementioned AMCs.
Stephan_Schwab wrote:
Allow me to pretend I’m American. I fly a Cirrus SR22 from the US to someone in Europe. The airfield has an LPV approach and I use it. Which rules do I violate?
You didn’t state:
All three need to be answered…
tomjnx wrote:
I’d be very surprised if any NAA tried to take action against anyone
Me too. But most of the time, trying to be legal when flying is not about fear for prosecution by some NAA, but in case that something goes wrong and you need to defend your actions against insurers and liability claims. As we could see in some cases, you can easily fly a Learjet around Europe without any license at all and nobody gives a crap.
tomjnx wrote:
That’s why I wrote in #42 that the dutch AIP sentence was strange and mixed up states of registry and license issuance.
And that is why I got somehow upset about the justification being some poorly drafted ICAO document affecting small GA pilots. ICAO seems to be where quite a lot of the evil that has hit us in the last 10-15 years is actually rooted. They make rules with only the big airline flying in mind, and we have to suffer the consequences of this being thoughtlessly applied to our flying – think language proficiency for example. Which in Europe unfortunately automatically has some “international” aspect to it.
You didn’t state:
Which country’s pilot’s licence are you using?
Where is the SR22 registered?
Which European country are your flying to?
All three need to be answered…
This shows that it has all become too complicated. A private pilot should only be required to verify:
1. Do I have an IR? If yes, I may fly all instrument approaches unless specifically mentioned on the chart
2. Is my aircraft approved for these approaches?
Anything else (“operator” approvals and special pilot qualifications in order to be allowed to fly a general category of non-complex approaches) goes too far.
Rwy20 wrote:
think language proficiency for example
But from what one hears even ICAO hasn’t intended this to be so badly implemented as in europe. It’s apparently a bit of a curse word now at ICAO HQ.
boscomantico wrote:
Is my aircraft approved for these approaches.
And this should be governed by carriage of the required navigation equipment (in working order, obviously), not by some bureaucratic approval process.
Stephan_Schwab wrote:
Allow me to pretend I’m American. I fly a Cirrus SR22 from the US to someone in Europe. The airfield has an LPV approach and I use it. Which rules do I violate?
The Patriot act? (impersonating a citizen of the US) 
tomjnx wrote:
This is a very strange sentence, it mixes operator/crew authorization with aircraft authorization.
That’s not a strange principle at all. Both the pilot and the aircraft need to be approved for the planned flight. For an IFR flight, both the aircraft and the pilot need to be IFR approved. If an approach requires specific approval, again both the pilot and the aircraft need to be approved. The one cannot go without the other. Same for i.e. taildragger/aerobatics etc. etc.
In my opinion and experience IFR is serious business, once you get to actual IMC. (IFR in VMC is pretty dull). So I don’t blame the regulator for regulating… as is it’s job… it’s pretty arrogant to undertake a flight without training … but some pilot’s are arrogant… and they mix with other operators in a professional environment (IFR approaches), so please, regulate and put some boundaries in place.
boscomantico wrote:
Why is it that when I hear or read the word “syllabus”, I get that uneasy feeling?
Anyway, it seems that EASA wants to ensure that at least one RNP approach is included in the IR skill test. Either in an airplane, or a FSTD. Can’t really fault that.
Archie wrote:
That’s not a strange principle at all. Both the pilot and the aircraft need to be approved for the planned flight
This is not the problem. The problem is that the wording says that the state of registry (of the aircraft) should approve the pilot. That cannot work if pilot and aircraft are licensed in different countries, like it is often the case in EASA land (because EASA / EU is no state)
