I think the actual answer is you could use an EASA licence with IR(R) on any EASA registered aircraft in UK airspace only, a national UK Licence with IMCR would be valid on UK registered aircraft only in UK airspace only (and since 2014 only on Annex 2 aircraft for IFR so virtually none in reality). I don’t know much about N reg stuff but I would think IR(R) has no validity.
Is an EASA license limited to a specific aircraft reg?
I have never seen such a limitation, on any license.
From the ANO, the IFR privilege of the IR(R) is limited to UK airspace, which is not in dispute.
But the ANO does not limit the IR(R) to any aircraft reg. I think the CAA writer just invented this. The CAA has no authority to change the ANO by paraphrasing it. What the CAA is able to do is to generate new rules where the ANO is silent, and that is for example where the old LASORS book came from.
The CAA are of course making it up as they go along, primarily because they have now lost their technical expertise, and secondly because their incompetent management does not have a clue and does not check anything. They have issued hundreds of licences incorrectly.
The IMC IR(R) is a UK rating that is restricted to UK Airspace, but only because it is not issued in accordance with ICAO standards. If any other State agreed to accept it then that is outwith the authority of the CAA. Similarly, it is the State of Registration of the aircraft who determine what qualifications may be exercised in an aircraft they register. The CAA can only state what the licence/rating is valid for within their Baliwick, they have no authotity to comment regarding aircraft that are not under their control.
IN2015-009 clearly states that Examiners who are not UK Examiners may not test for the IMC rating yet a recent email to to the CAA produced another answer, saying that non UK Examiners can be authorised! They don’t even read their own documents. Staff are totally demoralised, morale is at rock bottom and they have left in droves; whilst the man at the top is there to save money, like Dr Beeching he started with railways, where he had no expertise either. He has received a wacking pay rise for rendering the place unfit for purpose.
Sadly, the text cited exemplifies the adage that the writer “doesn’t know enough to know they know nothing.” Clearly, the writer does not understand the difference between writing-up a 5th form project and changing the legal status by an incompetent sweep of the pen. I would be astonished if the text cited has any validity in law – no doubt there will be a below the radar retraction in the near future.
The comments on the residual abilities at the CAA is also apposite: I recently made an enquiry about my helicopter license, having carried out some preliminary research. To each question I posed I received an answer contradicting the information of which I was in receipt. When politely challenged, the YTS* candidate (or so it seemed) replied “I’ll go and check” returning to negate their previous comments and confirm my understanding, three times in succession this occurred – it is sad to think that general aviation pilots probably have a greater grasp of the legislation than those expected to advise them, goodness only knows what advice they give to professional pilots.
By contrast, I have found counter staff at Gatwick to be helpful and frequently very knowledgeable.
