Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Has the FAA done a deal with EASA to do ramp checks on N-regs?

April 2017 reference here

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

tomjnx wrote:

To find out whether Chileans need visas for Switzerland…

That’s an interesting way to go about it.

Martin wrote:

Just like that you should enter and leave using the same passport.

He didn’t even do that…

Martin wrote:

I would be interested to know why he did it

To find out whether Chileans need visas for Switzerland…

LSZK, Switzerland

tomjnx wrote:

Do you have any reference to a regulation about this in the Swiss case?

I only used Switzerland to illustrate how it would work in that one interesting case (traveling between two countries with passports from both of them) – it seemed better than using A and B at the time.

I take it as a general rule. Just like that you should enter and leave using the same passport. Not that it would be illegal, well, at least not everywhere. Since you can use two passports in a border crossing, keeping with these rules isn’t that much of a problem (from what I’ve read, it can get interesting with countries that don’t allow multiple citizenships). Also, I don’t think all countries will issue multiple passports. I know I can get multiple valid passports. And I think it’s illegal some places to have more than one passport with you.

Perhaps there is even a country that allows dual citizenship but prohibits use of a passport issued by another country. For my taste, there is just too much variation in this. It seems your friend knew what he was doing (and I would be interested to know why he did it – I can think of only one reason but I have no idea if it applies).

I find it amazing that the eggheads that are in EASA cant conference a uniform transition altitude for all of Europe. I suppose it will take another 100 years of meetings with limos and police escorted black sedans to the finest 5 Star hotels to eventually come up with something practical. Other than the Butt F**ing misadventure of this licensing deal.

Ah, I know Im so politically incorrect, might I dare say crude?

KHTO, LHTL

Martin wrote:

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.

Do you have any reference to a regulation about this in the Swiss case?

I travelled with a friend and he deliberately used his Chilean passport to re-enter Switzerland, no problem whatsoever. The border officer even checked his book whether Chileans need visas for Switzerland.

LSZK, Switzerland

bookworm wrote:

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?

Yes. Unfortunately. Hence the word hassle. I wouldn’t want it that way but I’m afraid that is how it would be interpreted. I would like the same regime that is used for PPL(/IR) holders. But there doesn’t seem to be a room for that. Oral exam from the theory during a skill test should be IMHO enough. Same goes for ELP, if needed. It’s still better than being limited to just one validation. Also, IMHO, extension isn’t another validation, it’s extension of a particular validation (beyond the one year limit). And that could be longer than another year. You have 18 months to do your theory.

On a side note, someone forgot to replace “he/she” with “pilot” during spring cleaning (that change was done in paragraph 1. or 2. IIRC, but it still lingers throughout the rest of Annex III).

Trickier question is how many validations can be extended. A validation can be extended only once. But each one, or is it absolute once. I don’t see a reason for the latter. But that is IMHO a smaller problem compared to not allowing multiple validations.

Aviathor wrote:

Ouch. Quite right I did not catch that subtle difference the first time around.

I take it that you now understand what was I going on about? I’m aware of the difference in hours and I remember someone (Peter?) writing that the original proposal for the IR conversion was 100 hours (which would be in line with validation), but it was then changed to 50. Perhaps the requirement for validation should be changed as well.

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?

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;

LFPT, LFPN

There is also a difference in that the conversion requires an EASA medical. The validation does not, only an ICAO Class 2.

167 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top