Originally Posted by
Newhairdo
As someone (who is smart enough to have a conversation without swearing) has already mentioned, one would not need a ‘local’ licence if flying into other countries on own reg aircraft. But if you are going to base yourself there, and work for a local airline, then you do need a licence from that country.
If nothing else, it will mitigate against issues when being checked by local examiners.
Except I live and am based in the UK, flying EI and 9H - reg aircraft out of the UK on a daily basis, with no problems. But apparently am unqualified to go near a G-reg aircraft without resitting all the theory exams again, on the basis of the fact my ATPL theory passes originate from after an arbitrary date when nothing materially changed in terms of the licence or exam content. This is nonsensical. Especially as, if I want to go and fly an A6 or 9V or a large number of other jurisdictions aircraft from their countries of registration, all I need is to sit an airlaw exam and meet some minimum experience criteria. Many people might well see this as just being a 'me' problem, but I think its telling that UK airlines are more than happy to sponsor visas for non-Brits who hold or are able to get a CAA license. It makes sense to me that airlines in the UK would want to have a more accessible talent pool.
What is it that makes UK CAA licences so highly attractive??!
To be honest, in my opinion, not much really. I'm hoping to leave CAA land in the nearish future and not come back to it. The one thing that might convince me to stay is if it were easier to make my EASA license a CAA one. There are pilots who would consider staying or coming to work in the UK if the license conversion process wasn't ridiculous, but it is, so those pilots will go and work elsewhere. Which is possibly why UK airlines might have an interest in changing the status quo?