A friend has bought and is shipping an experimental from Holland to the USA, where apparently it can be based indefinitely and am guessing as an experimental he can continue with the maintenance locally.
He has a piggy back FAR61.75 PPL with a seaplane rating, and apparently this is OK while the aircraft is used in the USA. However if he flies abroad he will need EASA papers: PPL and Seaplane rating.
My understanding this will mean some kind of medical, some theory exams and prep for a practical test. Presumably any EASA licence will satisfy, but it will be interesting to know if anybody has recently navigated getting a EASA PPL on the back of a foreign ICAO licence. His native PPL and Seaplane is from Argentina.
My thinking, in part on language grounds, Como Flying Club might be the best option, or is a Dutch PPL available to english only speakers?
I’d choose a different direction. Operation of any experimental category aircraft outside of its country of registration can be problematic, unless there is a bi-national treaty allowing it. If the plan is to operate a PH-registered experimental aircraft in the US and neighboring countries, the issues with the certification of the plane itself might negate the purpose of getting an EASA license to match the plane’s registration.
Also, I knew of a certified light plane that was imported and operated similarly on foreign registration for an extended period in the US. Operation anywhere did not prove to be a problem for the owner because it was a very simple KZ (a Danish type) and was not operated in the en-route ATC system, nor transmitting ADS-B, so attracted little attention over time. However I have been led to believe that the FAA regs require that all flights of a foreign registered aircraft in US airspace be on a flight plan, even when it’s a certified plane, and if you felt it necessary to comply that would be a huge PIA. The details of that issue would be worth checking carefully if the intent were long term US operation versus a single trip across US airspace, during which nobody would pay any attention to flight plan status. Also an experimental aircraft on foreign registration would have little market value in the US, if that mattered to the owner.
I’d consider re-registering, if it were possible. If the plane is amateur built, and if there is a build record that shows the plane when originally built in Holland was compliant with the FAA 51% rule etc, the plane could be N-registered as Experimental Amateur Built, as if it were a newly US-built plane. There is no significant engineering approval required. I’ve known a UK built homebuilt that was imported and re-registered by that method and afterward like any FAA E-AB he could fly it without hassle in the US and per treaty in Canada and Bahamas without any new license being needed (Mexico was in flux last time I checked, unclear to me).
The other route if 51% etc documentation is not available would be N-registration as Experimental Exhibition, which can be easy or hard to achieve depending on the type of plane – ex-military and aerobatic is relatively easy, mass produced foreign certified four seat light plane not so easy.
@Silvaire many thanks, it is a Seawind 3000 so not your average tube and fabric homebuilt. Is the requirement for a flight plan the main obligation?
Is there a bi national treaty with the Netherlands? It is a USA design which might help.
I’m not aware of any treaty that would allow operation of a Dutch registered experimental aircraft in the US. I could be wrong, and flying European registered homebuilts in the US is clearly done at least for trips. @Dan flew his Swiss registered RV around the US, a similar situation. USCIS customs inspectors are not FAA Flight Standards experts.
The US flight plan requirement for foreign registered aircraft is unclear to me but I believe it exists. I also believe it isn’t widely enforced. ATC has nothing to do with US VFR flight plans, so the existence (or not) of a VFR flight plan is never obvious to them.
In relation to N-registration of an E-AB light aircraft the design background of the plane is irrelevant – each plane is an individual entity produced by its builder and there is no requirement that any plane be proven to be a good design. This plane would be registered as though it had never flown and had never received any foreign registration. Therefore the owner has to document that it meets the 51% rule and other requirements, just as if it been completed recently within the US. Also just like a newly built US Experimental a short flight test period would apply, but no assessment of the design or airworthiness other than in relation to an obvious quality of construction deficiency.
Yes, im here and following this thread as well 
As a starter, it is one thing to operate on a what’s called a SFA (Special Flight Authorization) as I did, which is time limited and based on the original PTF, and importing and then operating said homebuilt for an indefinite period of time… same for customs or any import duties.
I had to buy and display the CBP customs decal, but again, AFAIK this is only valid for a temporary vehicle import into the US, and the validity of said sticker is 12 months.
Never heard of a FPL obligation for foreign homebuilts in the US, and never filed one lest border crossing.
Multiple equations problem here:
Aircraft
import, as in customs, tax etc. Airworthiness certificate for the airplane, either on the PH or N register.
Pilot
Pilot’s licence, extension(s), validation, etc.
shipping an experimental from Holland to the USA
Interestingly enough, this is the first case I know off, all the others were rather the other way round 
