EASA licence and insurance

Le mardi 28 février 2017 16:18:05 UTC+1, Ross a écritÂ*:
The EASA say that the glider licence is valid worldwide, but the US say it is not. NZ is the same.

So why did we all go to the hassel of getting EASA licences? It does make you wonder...

First, there are two EASA gliding licences: the SPL that is ICAO-conform and is thus "valid" wordlwide; or the LAPL(S) that is non-conform and is only valid in EASA countries.

But "valid" doesn't mean you can use it exactly like at home. You have to adjust to local regulations. It's the same the other way round: you'll need a validation for an American licence in Europe. This is what EASA says:

ANNEX III
CONDITIONS FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF LICENCES ISSUED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THIRD COUNTRIES
A. VALIDATION OF LICENCES
General
1. A pilot licence issued in compliance with the requirements of Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention by a third country may be validated by the competent authority of a Member State. 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..
2. The period of validation of a licence shall not exceed 1 year, provided that the basic licence remains valid.

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 3:25:22 PM UTC-5, wrote:
... Pilots shall apply to the competent authority of the Member State
where they reside...

Bummer, we don't have one of those.

Two countries divided by a common language, Dave. Actually, in thgis
context 'competent' doesn't mean they know what they are doing, it's Euro
bureaucrat speak for an official body - not one that knows what they are
talking about.

At 21:43 28 February 2017, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 3:25:22 PM UTC-5,
wrote:
... Pilots shall apply to the competent authority of the Member State
where they reside...

Bummer, we don't have one of those.

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 5:00:05 PM UTC-5, pete purdie wrote:
Two countries divided by a common language, Dave. Actually, in thgis
context 'competent' doesn't mean they know what they are doing, it's Euro
bureaucrat speak for an official body - not one that knows what they are
talking about.

I'm well aware...

My experience has been as follows:

In Australia, my US license was not valid to fly an Australian
registered powered aircraft. I was told that I could fly a US
registered aircraft (if I could find one) or take a written test on
Australian rules and a check ride to get an Australian license. No
license was required to fly a glider. After being signed off by a GFA
instructor, I was allowed to carry passengers in an Australian
registered glider.

When I bought my Stemme in Mexico, I was not allowed to fly it as pilot
in command within Mexico with my US license and had to hire a Mexican
pilot to get me across the border. After that, I was legal in the US to
fly the Mexican registered aircraft until I was able to get it
registered in the US.

On 2/28/2017 3:16 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 5:00:05 PM UTC-5, pete purdie wrote:
Two countries divided by a common language, Dave. Actually, in thgis
context 'competent' doesn't mean they know what they are doing, it's Euro
bureaucrat speak for an official body - not one that knows what they are
talking about.
I'm well aware...

--
Dan, 5J

On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 7:47:32 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
My experience has been as follows:

In Australia, my US license was not valid to fly an Australian
registered powered aircraft. I was told that I could fly a US
registered aircraft (if I could find one) or take a written test on
Australian rules and a check ride to get an Australian license. No
license was required to fly a glider. After being signed off by a GFA
instructor, I was allowed to carry passengers in an Australian
registered glider.

When I bought my Stemme in Mexico, I was not allowed to fly it as pilot
in command within Mexico with my US license and had to hire a Mexican
pilot to get me across the border. After that, I was legal in the US to
fly the Mexican registered aircraft until I was able to get it
registered in the US.

On 2/28/2017 3:16 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 5:00:05 PM UTC-5, pete purdie wrote:
Two countries divided by a common language, Dave. Actually, in thgis
context 'competent' doesn't mean they know what they are doing, it's Euro
bureaucrat speak for an official body - not one that knows what they are
talking about.
I'm well aware...

--
Dan, 5J

All over the World, this has "results may vary" written on it.
Heard of others having a similar time with CASA. Mostly it is due to security checks.
Have witnessed the same with CAA in South Africa.
But it took me two days from application to being handed a printed CASA (Australian) PPL-A based on FAA stuff. For gliders, it is even easier.
Imagine the EASA to FAA route would have similarly varied sets of results.
Jim

After some superb help from the folk on this and the UK uras forum, plus a
load of help off-forum, I've followed the British Gliding Association (BGA)
verification route instead of the EASA licence and it all seems to be
coming together. I do struggle to understand the value of holding an EASA
SPL, but the value of these forums (when used for good) is huge.

The FAA have been truly awesome. Their compliance specialists and
foreign-verification team have been responsive, speedy, helpful and patient
with my phonecalls. Would that I could say the same about the UK CAA!
Hopefully I'll have the right papers early next week (thanks also to a
quick turnaround from Lizzie at the BGA).

I'm grateful to everyone who's chipped in on the topic. The list is long
but particularly Paul Jessop in the UK (Charlie's Dad), Uncle Hank,
Franklin Burbank at Citrus Soaring, and most especially Andrew Ainslie. All
very, very much appreciated. Anyone who wants some advice and tips on the
path I've followed please feel free to send me a private message and I'll
be delighted to explain/help.

Jon