Clearly, Justiciar, you do not fully appreciate the European intellectual superiority in these matters
Of course I agree with you. If they meant sitting exams, why not say so?
Page 5
here is interesting too:
Third country licences and ratings
1. Without prejudice to Article 1, Member States may accept licences and associated ratings and/or qualifications and medical certificates issued by or on behalf of third countries, in accordance with the provisions of Annex III to this Regulation.
2. An applicant for a Part–FCL licence and associated ratings, certificates and/or qualifications already holding at least an equivalent licence issued in accordance with ICAO Annex 1 by a third country shall meet all the requirements of Part–FCL, except that the requirements of course duration, number of lessons and specific training hours may be reduced.
The credit given to the applicant shall be determined by the competent authority of the Member State to which the pilot applies, on the basis of a recommendation from an approved training organisation. [my bold]
3. The holder of an ATPL issued in accordance with ICAO Annex 1 who has completed the experience requirements for the issue of an ATPL in the relevant aircraft category established in Subpart F of Part-FCL may be credited in full with the requirements to undergo a training course prior to undertaking the theoretical knowledge examinations and the skill test, if his/her licence contains a valid type rating for the aircraft to be used for the ATPL skill test.
4. An aeroplane or helicopter type rating may be issued to the holder of a Part-FCL licence that complies with the requirements for the issue of that rating established by a third country.
Such a rating will be restricted to aircraft registered in that Member State and
excluded from the scope of the Basic Regulation in accordance with Article 4 thereof.
This restriction may be removed when the pilot complies with the requirements in paragraph C.1 of Annex III to this Regulation.
which, to my non-EU-trained and intellectually non-superior brain, appears to suggest that any EASA member state will be free to accept any ICAO license/rating, anyway, for planes registered in that member state...........
hey ho hey ho, does this sound like
what I think it sounds like?
I cannot find the proposed regs defining this
Pilots shall apply to the competent authority of the Member State where
they reside or are established, or, if they are not residing in the
territory of the Member States, where the operator for which they are
flying or intend to fly has its principal place of business
(page 16 of above PDF).
This takes us into all kinds of areas such as residence for tax purposes (whose determination, as anybody involved knows, is a minefield for many), and which country you pay corporation tax in, etc. I find it hard to believe that the final enforcers of this dross (the national CAAs) will be willing to get stuck into what HMRC thinks of somebody's tax residence, etc etc.
I also wonder what the motivation behind this
(f) have a minimum experience of at least 100 hours of instrument flight time
as pilot-in-command in the relevant category of aircraft.
was. Given it is obviously trivial to forge instrument time (but such forging of logbooks is undetectable only if the forgery is consistent with one's actually provable flying e.g. aircraft maintenance records, airport records, etc) the purpose of this requirement must be purely to kill off the "get the FAA IR in the USA, do the EASA IR validation, and fly in Europe straight away in your brand new SR22" market; those people will not be able to pull out 100hrs instrument time without doing an awful lot of spamcan rental, and all of that will have to be dual time because without an IR (let's set the UK "IMCR remaining" aside for the moment) you cannot log instrument time in the first place.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall where this was drafted.