AMC1 FCL.050 Recording of flight time
(b) Logging of time:
(1) PIC flight time:
(iii) the holder of an instructor certificate may log as PIC all flight time
during which he or she acts as an instructor in an aircraft;
Some people have missed the amendment to the requirement for a Dual flight:
— refresher training of at least 1 hour of total flight time with a flight instructor (FI)
or a class rating instructor (CRI). Applicants shall be exempted from this refresher
training if they have passed a class or type rating proficiency check, skill test or
assessment of competence in any other class or type of aeroplane.
A total of 1 hour, not a 1 hour flight and it does not stipulate any minimum number of flights or confine it to one instructor.
Jeez guys, thanks – the answer to my original question seems to be “yes”!
In discussions here about licensing I can’t help thinking of those fractal diagrams where every branching leads to an indefinite number of other branchings, with ever-finer points of interpretation!
Always good to learn stuff. Thanks.
Bluebeard wrote:
Jeez guys, thanks – the answer to my original question seems to be “yes”!In discussions here about licensing I can’t help thinking of those fractal diagrams where every branching leads to an indefinite number of other branchings, with ever-finer points of interpretation!
True, but that often comes from trying to answer the question for all possible permutations rather than just the “normal” or most likely scenario. This is common in Europe, in law, forums, and the pilot population at large. If you take the simple case of a flight with a qualified FI from the same EASA country as the aircraft registration, then the answer is clearly “yes” as long as the country in question allows it which as far as I understand is generally true across EASA states.
as long as the country in question allows it which as far as I understand is generally true across EASA states
This is not about EASA allowing this, but rather the FAA, who is primarily responsible for deciding who can fly N-reg planes and who not.
tschnell wrote:
This is not about EASA allowing this, but rather the FAA, who is primarily responsible for deciding who can fly N-reg planes and who not.
I think if German LBA is happy for you to fly an N-reg on UK CAA paper (or any paper for that matter) in German airspace, say you have an email, then you are good to go 
Sure, but you aren’t going to get such an email – other than from some “junior” who wasn’t authorised to write it.
Need to give it a try one day 
I am trying to find information regarding the use of a non EASA registered (“third country”) aircraft for training, for instance in an EASA ATO.
I found
ORA.ATO.135 Training aircraft and FSTDs
(a) The ATO shall use an adequate fleet of training aircraft or FSTDs appropriately equipped for the training courses provided
and the AMC
AMC1 ORA.ATO.135 Training aircraft and FSTDs
ALL ATOs, EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDING FLIGHT TEST TRAINING
(a) The number of training aircraft may be affected by the availability of FSTDs. (b) Each training aircraft should be:
(1) equipped as required in the training specifications concerning the course in which it is used;
(2) except in the case of balloons or single-seat aircraft, fitted with primary flight controls that are instantly accessible by both the student and the instructor (for example dual flight controls or a centre control stick).
Swing-over flight controls should not be used.
(c) The fleet should include, as appropriate to the courses of training:
(1) aircraft suitably equipped to simulate instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) and for the instrument flight training required. For flight training and testing for the instrument rating and the en-route instrument rating (EIR), an adequate number of IFR- certificated aircraft should be available;
(2) in the case of aeroplanes and sailplanes, aircraft suitable for demonstrating stalling and spin avoidance;
(3) for the flight instructor (FI) training courses on aeroplanes and sailplanes, aircraft suitable for spin recovery at the developed stage;
(4) in the case of helicopters, helicopters suitable for autorotation demonstration;
(5) in the case of a non-complex ATO, one aircraft fulfilling all the required characteristics for a training aircraft might be sufficient;
(6) each FSTD should be equipped as required in the training specifications concerning the course in which it is used
According to the above, it seems it is up to the national aviation authority?
Anyone know any further details?
Thank you!
@snoopy post moved to a previous very similar thread. Or I can rename it further, as appropriate.
The answer is YES i.e. no prohibition. The issues are FTO-political as usual
Above posts by @Qalupalik are likely the most authoritative.
Well, there is this which makes totally ab initio PPL training difficult; it seems you would have to start off pretending to do an EASA PPL and do the solo portions in an EASA-reg plane, and then you could finish the PPL in the N-reg. I am not sure though, and the cases where this was done in Europe are very rare (because most candidates would already hold a Euro license which then meets 61.3, so they would need only the additional training) and would have been done “under the table” which of course is always possible with freelance instruction.
