General Aviation

A Holder of an ATPL with CR A330 want to fly non commercial, SEP aircraft with LAPL prerogative (Vorrecht)
Is it possible ?
Does he need another licence?

Same question
Does a PPL pilot which want to fly under LAPL prerogatives need a new licence ?
TKS

Hello everyone. I have a question regarding Forms of PMA parts.
There is a Technical Implementation Procedure (TIP) for Airworthiness and environmental Certification, as a bilateral agreement between the FAA and EASA (https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/international/bilateral_agreement…)

Section 3.3.4 states the cases in which a FAA PMA part can be accepted by EASA, with the information that needs to be present in the Form 8130-3 (for example, a statement that the part is not a critical component).

I believe this is clear for new parts. However, my question has to do with when those parts are subjected to an inspection, repair or overhaul. I believe that a repair shop that carries out an overhaul, for example, on a component that is a PMA part, can't add to the Form 1 or Form 8130-3 a statement such as "is not a critical component". Only the part's manufacurer can do it.

So, my question is: Are the requirements of the TIP out only applicable for new parts? What should a Form 8130-3 or Form 1 of an inspected/repaired/overhaul PMA part have, in order for us to be able to install it on an aircraft?

FI(A) privileges according to Part-FCL.
As Opinion 05/2017 was filtered into Part-FCL there was consideration towards FI(A) holders who do not have a (national) commercial pilot history or a commercial pilot license. In Finland, these persons generally only hold a PPL(A) due to medical and age reasons. As a rule they have not even converted their long time ago acquired national CPL privileges into EASA licenses. Some of them have fulfilled the age old ICAO CPL knowledge requirement during their FI(A) courses as an addendum to the instructor course.
As new instructors are emerging who do NOT hold or have held commercial licenses there will be a diversification of instructors arising in the future, as the requirements for a CPL license or the required knowledge will prevent them even from attempting to remove the LAPL only limitation from their licenses. We will have retirement age "senior" instructors and Young instructors, but no path to cross the abyss.
As a result, as GA people are reluctant to switch from PPL(A) holders to LAPL(A), there is a possible lack of instructors who are proficient and not legally qualified to extend SEP(land) or SEP(sea) privileges. The LAPL only FI(A) privilege is interpreted as to limiting to only LAPL license instruction and nothing further AFAIK.
The Part-FCL limitations will also put an end to separate Class rating instruction, as the group of pilots who are legally able to instruct in SEA class rating will be scarce in the future.
The purpose of the opinion was to improve GA instruction in general, but the result ended quite short of the runway.
The Opinion 05/2017 can be deemed a failure as far instructor privileges for PPL(A) license holders are considered.