Dear David, what would be the additional safety benefit of limiting the licence holder to fly only the aircraft registered in the state that issued that person's licence? When we go abroad, we can rent a car that is registered in the host country with our national driver's licence, and there is no issue with that. If the licence is valid, and the aircraft is airworthy, one can fly.

I think it is an interesting question, and I'm curious to know what others think about it.

@ David
For me it´s the scope of all the rules and regulations EASA cares for. It is one of the advantages that an FCL-licence entitles to any fly aircraft registered in whichever "Memberstate" (MS).
This applies as long as there are no explicit rules or articles by which authority over any class of aircraft is transfered to MS.

Thanks for your responses. I'm not calling in to question the suitability of the rules. I'm looking for someone to point me to the article in the regulation where it actually states that this is the rule. ICAO Personnel licencing refers to licences being used on an aircraft which is registered in the State which has issued or validated the licence. So I am looking for the relevant EASA provision that describes the ability of a Part-FCL licence holder to operate an aircraft that is registered in any EASA member state and not only of the state that issued the licence.

I would think this is implicit in the Basic Regulation. But it only applies to EASA-aircraft, not to Annex I aircraft. E.g.n Sweden, you are not even allowed to fly Swedish-registered Annex I aircraft on a straight EASA license issued by Swedish authorities – you need an additional validation document.

From the practical side, you can check the validation document in AMC1 to ARA.FCL.200(a)(2) which clearly shows that it is allowed to fly any EASA aircraft on any EASA license. That document is intended to be carried if you fly outside EASA-land as only the individual EASA member states and not EASA itself (or even the EU) are entities recognised by ICAO.

me again ...

If looking to USA, FAA says issuer state must be same as registration state. They don´t consider EASA-Land as one state Look back the discussion around this: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/220997. The pilot who held a FRA-issued FCL-licence was not entitled to operate N-registered aircraft in G-airspace.

For every state outside EASA-Land, all EASA-documents are of third country state.

The answer to this question is in an ICAO attachment to automatically validate licenses...

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/Automatic%20validati…

Thank you all. This is very helpful

I never heard of a rule limiting a pilot's license to one EU member state, unless it is an Ultralight. The document "Gerhard Hoogeslag" mentions refers itself to license conversions from 10 years ago. The problem is that the regulatory changed over the last decade a lot and there is so much old information out there that the confusion is inevitable. IMHO the latest requirement for any pilot flying in Europe to possess an EASA conform license makes the license and the licensing universal. Like in the States where I get a license let's say in Utah, I can rent and fly a plane in California - after a checkout of course. So If I get my license in let's say Poland, I should of course be entitled to fly a French registered aircraft. Why not? The licensing of a pilot should not be bound to the registration country of an aircraft.

I believe that the wording is most likely in some preamble that states that the EASA rules pertain to all member states. Yes, if flying outside of EASA it would be a good idea to carry something that explains this (thus far this is not an issue for me so have not bothered to find any information). Do not understand what Class G airspace has anything to do with it...it has everything to do with which authority has jurisdiction over that airspace, period.

@Jürgen, the issuer state does not have to be the same as the registration state, but the registration state must recognise the license. That's exactly what the document I referred to does. (And to which @Gerhard provided a link -- thanks!) In the case you referred to the US was the registration state so the EASA mutual recognition does not apply.