If you present a non-European passport in Europe with no documentation of your status (tourist or resident), the switched on policeman will immediately query your immigration status. Good luck if you don’t also carry your European one.
I don’t think anyone knows anything special about regulation. Well, one guy here works inside EASA, and has said so. But everybody else can just read the docs and take them apart. Some people do it very well.
The EASA FCL N-reg stuff has been done to death here, but nobody is any wiser because the wording is only what has been published. No clarification has ever come out. Obviously they want to keep it like that.
Probably the people responsible for this stupidly worded rule are reading these discussions and are still taking pleasure in the havoc they have caused.
Would be interesting to get these 4 names though…
Martin wrote:
Take a look at Annex III (page 208) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 and you’ll find A. Validation of licences and B. Conversion of licences. The requirements are almost identical (for non-commercial activities/ licences).
Thanks Martin
The validation is not terribly useful when you compare it to the convenience of FAR 61.75-issued licenses. If you want to validate an IR, you actually need to convert it AND have a EASA medical. Furthermore the validation period can only be extended if the applicant is undergoing flight training towards an EASA license or rating.
Silvaire wrote:
The US requires that you leave and re-enter the US on a US passport if you are a US citizen
I think it’s normal that a country that issued the passport wants you to use it when you enter/ leave. So if you have US and Swiss passports and travel from Switzerland to the US, you’re supposed to leave Switzerland on your Swiss passport and enter US on your US passport. You can also have multiple passports from the same country (AFAIK). But Cobalt, IMHO, has a point. It really is a question of who will do the check (they might not be entitled to question your immigration status).
Phobos wrote:
he is coming across as though he believes he knows everything about regulation.
Because I usually discuss with confidence and passion. I have discovered that I can be very convincing as a child. But I don’t think I know it all and I think I use enough of I think, I believe or in my opinion to communicate it. It sometimes looks ridiculous. And I’m not a lawyer and I don’t work for EASA or any NAA, but writing disclaimers all the time seems silly. Even if I was, I’m not here in any official capacity. I take it that everything I write is just my opinion. Some people might be reluctant to write what they think, I’m not. And if I’m wrong, then I’ll learn something.
As for our previous discussion, I stopped replying because it didn’t seem like you understood (or wanted to understand) what I’m writing about and the discussion went nowhere. If you want an example where I was wrong, there is one in the ELP discussion (about the purpose of FCL.055(a)). Another one would be interpretation of restrictions on a licence in the context of 61.75 where I didn’t take it that literally as was apparently intended (judging by Chief Counsel’s clarification). The way I understood it was coincidentally in line with what ICAO writes on their website about validations (you can’t get more privileges than the underlying licence gives you). But FAA likes to do things their way (no loss, it would actually play in my favor).
If you have a different opinion on Annex III and it’s role in screwing N-regs, please, fell free to write it and educate me.
The validation is not terribly useful when you compare it to the convenience of FAR 61.75-issued licenses. If you want to validate an IR, you actually need to convert it AND have a EASA medical. Furthermore the validation period can only be extended if the applicant is undergoing flight training towards an EASA license or rating.
This rather useless “validation” has incidentally been proposed as effectively adding 1 year to the April 2017 “N-reg screwing” date. You presumably need to show that you are getting training or whatever.
For PPL/IRs the conversion is OK nowadays (the 100hr PPL route + CB IR) but CPL/IR (e.g. bizjet) pilots have the full 14 exams to do, etc. There are some other ATPL conversion routes which involve some logbook time plus some extra stuff at a sim LPC.
I think it’s normal that a country that issued the passport wants you to use it when you enter/ leave. So if you have US and Swiss passports and travel from Switzerland to the US, you’re supposed to leave Switzerland on your Swiss passport and enter US on your US passport.
Is that enforced?
Does any country actually keep a computer record of who comes and goes?
I plan to get a Czech passport sometime (1 day at the embassy in London) and what stops me just using that for all my travels? Might also improve my life expectancy if I had to do a forced landing in the Middle East 
Probably the people responsible for this stupidly worded rule are reading these discussions and are still taking pleasure in the havoc they have caused.
PROB100
Aviathor wrote:
Thanks Martin
You’re welcome.
If you want to validate an IR, you actually need to convert it AND have a EASA medical.
Not true. There is a validation with and without IR. After all, I suggested you compare their requirements. Page 210 paragraphs 4. and 5.
Furthermore the validation period can only be extended if the applicant is undergoing flight training towards an EASA license or rating.
Yes, but you can ask for another validation. The disadvantage is you’d have to do it every year. As I wrote, I read somewhere (IIRC) that some NAA(s) interpreted it as being able to do it only once. And I called it unbelievable.
Peter wrote:
This rather useless “validation” has incidentally been proposed as effectively adding 1 year to the April 2017 “N-reg screwing” date.
Not just one year. For one thing, if you start training towards an EASA licence, they can extend that validation. And you could validate your licence repeatedly. What you’d probably do is to get your licence validated to buy time to get your ducks in a row. Then convert it, add IR via that infamous conversion path and any class and type ratings you need. Normally you’re not allowed to have multiple EASA licences for the same category (like aeroplanes), but validated foreign licence shouldn’t be considered an EASA licence. That is my opinion. If I’m wrong, then the validation won’t be as useful for this purpose (aside from buying you time go get medical, it would be pretty much useless).
Is that enforced?
It think it’s generally considered good manners, a courtesy (different countries might treat it differently). It’s been some time since I looked into it and the take away for me was that this is how they want you to do it. I didn’t see any reason not to do it so I didn’t dig into the “or else”.
what stops me just using that for all my travels? Might also improve my life expectancy if I had to do a forced landing in the Middle East
They don’t care which passport you use in foreign countries (AFAIK), but when you come “home”, they want you to use theirs.
PS: I think I see where this came from. I originally wrote “enter/ leave that country” but I deleted those last two words because they seemed redundant.
Martin wrote:
As I wrote, I read somewhere (IIRC) that some NAA(s) interpreted it as being able to do it only once.
The former head of FCL dept of HunCAA told me that this how they interpreted the regulation, i.e. they won’t validate the same licence more than once.
JnsV wrote:
The former head of FCL dept of HunCAA told me that this how they interpreted the regulation, i.e. they won’t validate the same licence more than once.
Which is IMO utter nonsense. It’s bad enough that you’d probably have to do the exams again. But what reason is there to deny a validation to a visitor who wants to fly around the country just because he was there earlier? Not only it’s IMO a crappy interpretation (please forgive the language), I don’t think it’s in line with the Chicago Convention. Really, I think these differences in interpretation at national level (whether intentional [twisting the wording for their purposes] or not) are a serious problem.
PS: Thank you for providing an example.
