Finally we have a reported case of this being enforced.
It happened at EDTF Freiburg, to a US citizen who has the EU Blue Card work permit. Living in Germany for 2 years. Flying an N-reg US Experimental aircraft, under the German 180 day permits. His last 180 day permit had expired on March 2022.
The pilot’s narrative:
Avoid Freiburg/EDTF. “Random” ramp checks are being made (on everyone) – VISITORS INCLUDED – according to LBA (German CAA) rules which may differ from EASA. In my case this led to pilot-grounding until I get an EASA license. According to them, US citizen flying his own N-reg plane – but who lives in Germany – must have EASA license to fly in Germany. Note that German citizens with EASA license may fly N-reg in Germany (only). FAA license only valid in OTHER THAN Germany, in my case – apparently.
The people know me there. When they asked for ID I gave them my German Aufenhaltstitel, or residency card – mainly because they wanted my address. But the guy mentioned that he “remembered” that my Entry Permit had expired. That’s a 180-day thing that I let lapse not thinking it was an issue. That was the first thing that dinged me. But I got a new one within 36 hours. They had already reported me supposedly. Then when I pulled out the plane to fly another guy came and said sorry you need an EASA license. Plane can fly but not you (as PIC).
I admit that any/all of this could have been avoided if I spent most of my time being a lawyer. I’m not good with this kind of admin. I keep my plane in good shape, inspected etc. as well as my own medical. But the EASA license I didn’t know I supposedly needed (after 1 year). And I preferred to believe that, say, after getting ENTRY permit I was good. If the plane is in Germany/EU why new entry permits needed? Anyway. My fault BUT normal people would say “ok look you need these things – I’ll throw out my just-started check – but don’t come back without this because I will check it all next time”
So there are two issues here; the 2nd one being the German 180 day permit. That may have drawn attention to the 1st one.
Their comments about the FAA license being valid only outside Germany are of course nonsense. It is valid everywhere.
Peter wrote:
So there are two issues here; the 2nd one being the German 180 day permit.
Why is that? As I understand it, getting the PTF from the Luftfahrtbundesamt was a matter of 36 hours. All other issues (license, US citizen…) may be a different story.
Peter wrote:
Note that German citizens with EASA license may fly N-reg in Germany (only). FAA license only valid in OTHER THAN Germany, in my case – apparently.
Their comments about the FAA license being valid only outside Germany are of course nonsense. It is valid everywhere.
That’s probably misunderstanding of what they said / Chinese Whispers, or inexact oral expression (common with humans). The juridically exact situation is:
The consequences are:
Corner cases I don’t know:
(owner-pilot in the case of a privately owned plane)
I don’t believe that has ever been defined legally, though few would disagree with you (but criminal law requires clarity, in civilised countries). Here. Search
(gotten from scratch or converted, but not validated)
61.3 says “issued” and this is very specific, with multiple chief counsel opinions.
What is important about this case is that the “dual papers” thing is being enforced. Obviously the “whole world” has known about this since c. 2011 but it was never previously pulled out.
Curiously one of the German inspection team was a Brit… no wonder the UK CAA is taking months to issue licenses 
Also curious is that they told him the plane can fly when the plane’s 180 day permit had expired!
Correction to last post: initially grounded due to expiry of initial 180-day entry permit. New permit issued within 2 days. Then grounded again due to residency rules requiring EASA license.
“an N-reg US Experimental aircraft”
Was it an Annex I type? These are generally excluded from the Basic Regulation etc.
That’s what’s been on my mind as well here.
Peter wrote:
61.3 says “issued” and this is very specific, with multiple chief counsel opinions.
Yes, that is why I wrote “obtained from scratch or converted but not validated” as a licence from country X and validated by country Y is issued by X, not Y. However, in my understanding, conversion of a licence from X to Y is the issuance by country Y of a licence on basis of the licence from X.
Qalupalik wrote:
Was it an Annex I type? These are generally excluded from the Basic Regulation etc.
Oh, good point.
Peter wrote:
I don’t believe that has ever been defined legally
Sorry I was not 100% precise. I should have written “the owner-pilot in the typical case of a privately owned plane used privately by its owner”. Other easy cases, but where the owner and operator are not the same:
In case of the Luxembourg airplane register, the identity of the operator is explicitly declared during the registration process, and is written in the register; there are two columns in the (public) register (the equivalent of the UK G-INFO), one for the owner and one for the operator. E.g. LX-LBK is owned by Pembroke Aircraft Leasing 8 Limited, but operated by Luxair. The operator is Luxair.
In Luxembourg at least, in the scenario of an aeroclub that rents out the planes to a smattering of different people (members) by the hour, and where the renter changes from day to day and from hour to hour, the aeroclub is the operator of the plane in the register.
