Yes; I think I just meant that an EASA PPL/IR holder who just gets a 61.75 PPL isn’t going to get an FAA IR.
Sam_Rutherford wrote:
I think the number of people who are sufficiently wealthy to be permanently ‘non resident’ is tiny with regard to this particular discussion.
It doesn’t take a great deal of wealth.
That aside, if you are operating in EU country A but resident in EU country B, how would country A have proof to the contrary when you showed their officials a US passport with no relevant EU permanent residence related visas, to match your N registered plane?
What if you showed them an EU passport from their own country and US permanent residence card? How exactly would they know where you are resident that month, or season, or decade?
Silvaire wrote:
How exactly would they know where you are resident that month, or season, or decade?
It would be decided in whatever way was most favourable to them.
For instance when I lived in the US, the US got its cake and ate it; from a tax point of view I was very much a resident, but from an immigration point of view I was merely a visitor and didn’t even count as a 3rd class citizen. Taxation without representation at its finest.
@alioth, when you were a resident alien in the US, you actually had a number of tax advantages as a foreign citizen when compared with a US citizen 
This thread has nothing to do with taxes however so regardless I think in the instance of a documented non-EU resident, regardless of EU citizenship, or any non-EU citizen flying an N-registered plane in an EU country, the burden of proof is on the foreign officials to demonstrate that the pilot is also legally resident in the EU somewhere. I don’t think they have the tools to do it, particularly if he isn’t resident in their particular EU country.
Is this of relevance to BASA?
http://atwonline.com/air-traffic-management/us-eu-expand-cooperation-atc-modernization-pilot-training
My understanding is that this is the amendment to the BASA that permits the pilot-licensing annex to be added, though it’s not actually adoption of the annex itself.
The CAA has published this
However, the above takes no account of the SRG2140/2142 route discussed in recent posts above, for FAA licensed pilots, who appear to have a route until 2019. Most of these people are flying N-regs, but virtually all N-regs are “EASA aircraft” i.e. EASA certified aircraft.
Could it be that half the CAA doesn’t know what the other half is doing?
It’s also odd because I thought the ability to fly a G-reg on any ICAO PPL was lost c. 2012.
Peter wrote:
I thought the ability to fly a G-reg on any ICAO PPL was lost c. 2012.
A G-reg EASA certified aircraft just to be clear (Annex II aircraft can still be flown non-commercially on an ICAO PPL – including IFR – according to the 2016 ANO which regulates this stuff).
Peter, I see the reason for that posting coming from somewhere completely different and not related to N-reg aircraft or FAA licences.
I suspect the reason for that posting on the CAA website is that 7 April 2018 is the last day for a JAR-FCL licence to remain valid (8 April 2013 was the last issuance date and the maximum validity under JAA regulations was 5 years) and that any JAR-FCL licence holders ought to have converted (requested for reissue of) their licences as EASA-FCL licences. The German LBA posted a similar reminder/warning recently.
I believe that is why the text further down says:
You will not lose your licence if you do not convert by 8 April 2018. If you hold a JAR licence, you will not be able to exercise the privileges of your licence until it has been converted to the EASA format. Lifetime UK PPLs will still be valid to fly Annex II non-EASA aircraft, subject to holding the minimum level of medical required and a valid rating. However, any privileges to fly EASA aircraft will be lost.
Wolfgang
