I recall the UK CAA saying also the validation is a one-off.
I have just heard from a bizjet pilot I know. He says you can then apply for a second one if you can prove you are studying for the EASA exams. He adds that this is likely to become irrelevant on 23/6 when the UK leaves the EU 
Peter wrote:
He adds that this is likely to become irrelevant on 23/6 when the UK leaves the EU
What guarantee is there that the CAA will roll back EASA regulations if this comes to pass?
Peter wrote:
He says you can then apply for a second one if you can prove you are studying for the EASA exams.
In that case it’s an extension, not another validation. And it’s that extension which can be done only once. But I would expect you could do another extension of a different validation. That is if they allowed a second validation. Really, unbelievable.
I decided to quote the relevant bit so everyone can decide who is crazy: 
The period of validation of a licence shall not exceed 1 year, provided that the basic licence remains valid.
This period may only be extended once by the competent authority that issued the validation when, during the validation period, the pilot has applied, or is undergoing training, for the issuance of a licence in accordance with Part-FCL. This extension shall cover the period of time necessary for the licence to be issued in accordance with Part-FCL.
I don’t see how anyone can interpret this as “validate any given licence just once and not ever again.” Perhaps I’m the madman. PS: One would think that the need to go trough the validation over and over again would be enough hassle (motivation) to not “misuse” it.
I should think only a “residence visa” would infer resident status…not a normal visit visa… In fact I imagine a visit visa stamp would only help your argument (of being non-resident)…
Obviously if you actually had no residence related visa (which IIRC and in my experience gets both the visa glued onto the passport and a stamp), you’d just show the non-EU passport with 90 day tourist entry stamp.
I have more than one straightforward legal/visa path to establish EU residence, should I want to in the future. I suppose the one that doesn’t put a residence visa in my US passport would be preferable in this circumstance. My actual intent is to never establish EU residence in the future, a plan which presents no issues unless I wanted to stay for (say) many months continuously – which is likely not the plan. In general, and particularly if you’re a pilot, it’s better to be resident primarily in the US. Europe is better IMO for short visits, even if you have property there.
If I planned to establish myself to the extent of having an N-registered plane to fly in the EU, I could see wanting EU residence so I could use it without time constraints. I use a road vehicle in the EU that has been there for a long time, registered continuously in the US. It’s a similar situation, so looking forward I could imagine having a simple two-seat plane on both sides of the Atlantic. I probably wouldn’t do it if it required an EASA pilot license, or large payments of tax.
Martin wrote:
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.
Actually it is true – or at least it comes down to the same. The PPL/IR validation (paragraph 4) consists of a (IR) skill test and demonstrating knowledge of air law, weather, performance and flight planning. And the EASA medical on top of it. To convert my FAA IR (EU 245/2014) I had to do a skill test and an oral examination in air law, performance, weather and flight planning. I already had an EASA medical.
Ergo, conversion and validation of a PPL/IR come down to the same thing.
Edit: There is a difference in the experience required. The validation requires 100 hours instrument flight as PIC. EU 245/2014 conversion requires only 50 hrs IFR as PIC.
There is also a difference in that the conversion requires an EASA medical. The validation does not, only an ICAO Class 2.
Ouch. Quite right I did not catch that subtle difference the first time around.
hold at least a valid Class 2 medical certificate issued in accordance with Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention;
Martin wrote:
Really, I think these differences in interpretation at national level (whether intentional [twisting the wording for their purposes] or not) are a serious problem.
So the words are:
The period of validation of a licence shall not exceed 1 year, provided that the basic licence remains valid.
This period may only be extended once by the competent authority that issued the validation when, during the validation period, the pilot has applied, or is undergoing training, for the issuance of a licence in accordance with Part-FCL. This extension shall cover the period of time necessary for the licence to be issued in accordance with Part-FCL
I must say that I’ve always read that the Hungarian way, as saying that you get only one validation of 1 year, and a second validation on those conditions.
I guess you’re reading it as saying that you can have multiple 1 year validations. If that’s the case, would you expect the pilot to meet the requirements for validation (skill tests, TK exams) on each and every occasion?
