Whopity :
The UK has recognised ICAO licences since the late 1940s, there is no fee and no work involved.
Agreed. But I was referring to a conversion. That is, you have someone who has lived and flown all his life in Brazil and now wants to fly G-reg in Europe. It would be reasonable for the UK CAA to charge a small conversion fee for that (i.e. issuing a new UK CAA license).
Maybe the rest of the World should tell EASA that their licences will not be acceptable as EASA is not a member of ICAO; we could then forget them and continue with our National ICAO licences.
Yeah but even when you fight the Neazis, you still try to abide by (the Geneva and) the Chicago convention. Otherwise you become a bit like them.
Fuji :
If you have flown in various parts of the world there is no doubt that some of the local practices can be quite alien.
True. But that is even true inside Europe.
- I got b*llocked at an Italian regional airport when I was requesting taxi to the fuel pumps without having requested a startup clearance first.
- I've flown to airfields in Germany and France where the local language is required for A/A communication
- You can file IFR departures (not just Zulu) from VFR only airports in the Netherlands
- etc...etc...
Are you arguing that a G-reg PPL (IR) should go through differences training to fly in Italy / Germany / the Netherlands ??? No of course you're not. And what evidence do you have that that G-reg PPL knows f*ck all about Italian Air Law ? Makes the right circuit calls in German ?
But the N-reg flyer should sit an Air Law Exam ? Come off it, mate...
I am afraid Martin struggles to get to grips with these sort of issues after his debacle over the IMCr and EASA changes in general but I suspect he has been more expertly guided by AOPA US who really do know their business. We can only hope it produces some results.
That I hope too. What bugs me is that he writes the underlined as if it is "commonly accepted". To any logical logically thinking pilot without some sort of pecuniary conflict of interest, it is not.
I agree with regards the annual instrument check flight - its a complete nonsense but realistically I suspect you would be paddling against a very strong tide to get that changed!
I agree with all the lobbying and the artificial job creation it is a strong tide to row against. Nevertheless, if the EASA board claims that in any GA-relevant regulation safety has to be weighed against burden and cost and that safety arguments have to be supported by real statistics, one can only point that out to them. At the very least, they will look ridiculous in front of everyone if they persist.