@Malibuflyer, this is – sorry for bluntness – not true. In fact, it would be interesting you hear where you got this misinformation from, almost single paragraph in your post is wrong.
Every EASA licence has a “state of issue”, which is clearly shown under item I of the licence. That is what matters internationally, as the EU is not a country.
And it IS automatically validated by all other EASA countries by virtue of EU law, and because of this, EASA ARA.FCL.200 has recently been changed to say that
If a pilot intends to fly outside Union territory on an aircraft registered in a Member State other than the Member State that issued the flight crew licence, the competent authority shall:
(1) add the following remark on the flight crew licence under item XIII: ‘This licence is automatically validated as per the ICAO attachment to this licence’; and
(2) make the ICAO attachment available to the pilot in print or electronic format.
and the ICAO attachment is
here.
Malibuflyer wrote:
It is NOT the fact that all EASA states validate other state’s license! The reason for that is quite simple: There is no such thing as “other state’s license”*
Then what does this document mean?
I think that Malibuflyer’s and Lionel’s arguments are persuasive, but not sufficiently so. The tipping point would be when my EU passport states “Nationality: European Union” and/or when the EU has a single “seat” at the ICAO table.
Well, till a short while ago, my EU passport issued by Poland was not enough to get me into the USofA without an explicit promissory note called a visa, whereas an EU passport issued by eg. Germany would have been sufficient…
Peter wrote:
I would argue it is far easier for an aircraft owner, who actually flies “a bit” to keep an FAA IR valid than to keep an EASA IR valid.
Why would you say that? It’s pretty simple to “renew”your IR in EASA land. It probably becomes a bit more complicated once you start adding multi engine and single engine etc but otherwise it’s a few approaches with an IRI…
With the FAA IR rolling currency system, you just have to fly IAPs and some holds and the IR stays valid all by itself. If one flies to suitable places, this is zero extra effort. One might fly a longer distance compared with a visual approach, or compared with flying VFR. But one needs to do this only six times every six months, which IMHO is a good idea if one wants to be safe under IFR. I could not pass the annual EASA IR test with an examiner unless I had some currency.
Peter wrote:
One might fly a longer distance compared with a visual approach, or compared with flying VFR. But one needs to do this only six times every six months.
Gotcha, thought you had to do a renewal flight as well. Interesting, think flying approaches whenever they’re available is good practice either way to stay current.
To maintain FAA IFR currency one must conduct the approach under actual weather conditions or simulated instrument conditions. Actual means “in the soup” and simulated means flying with a view limiting device and a safety pilot. There is a recent AC dealing with this AC 61-98C.
NCYankee wrote:
To maintain FAA IFR currency one must conduct the approach under actual weather conditions or simulated instrument conditions. Actual means “in the soup” and simulated means flying with a view limiting device and a safety pilot. There is a recent AC dealing with this AC 61-98C.
Indeed. Needs to be in real IMC until some substantial way into the approach (during the final approach segment) or simulated with safety pilot.