JAR Compliant PPL vs JAA PPL - Difference? [Archive]

Hour Builder

2nd Jan 2006, 20:36

Ok, from what I gather with this site, is that you get a FAA licence.

Check out this link to their site

http://www.ukft.com/AboutUs.htm#JAAExaminer

It shows that this school cannot conduct JAR training any longer, but use to be able too until they voluntarily stopped providing that service. However, there is a procedure to convert a FAA licence over to the JAR licence by doing the theory and flight test blah blah, which I can only guess is what happens at this school, as they have a UK JAR Flight examiner.

Its basically a loop-hole they have found, not shelling out the cost for a UK JAR school approval/renewal fees, and doing it as a FAA licence and then converting it over by having an JAR examiner on the payroll..

I may (and more often then not am) be totally wrong, but thats what it looks like to me.

HB

leonbrumsack

2nd Jan 2006, 20:58

OK - now I don't want to sound like a total cretin, but could somebody briefly explain the differences between JAR and JAA? Sorry to sound thick... but I am! :}

BEagle

2nd Jan 2006, 21:02

Caveat emptor!

Yes, an FAA PPL can be 'converted' into a UK-issued JAR-FCL PPL(A). But to do so, you will need:

1. To pass all the JAR-FCL PPL(A) theoretical examinations plus the FRTOL practical test. (If you have more than 100 hours on aeroplanes, then it'll just be Air Law, Human Performance, Communications (PPL) plus the FRTOL practical test.).

2. To hold a JAA Class 2 (or Class 1) medical certificate.

3. Meet all the JAR-FCL 1.125(b) experience requirements (not required if you have more than 100 hours on aeroplanes).

4. Pass the full JAR-FCL PPL(A) Skill Test with a JAR-FCL Examiner.

Bearing in mind that you can fly in the UK under Day VFR conditions using an FAA PPL, my recommendation would be (if you really must go to the USA) to train for the plain vanilla FAA PPL, then build up to 100 hours in the US or UK before converting to a JAR-FCL PPL(A).

And ask yourself why any school would 'voluntarily' stop JAR-FCL PPL training in the US...............

Hour Builder

2nd Jan 2006, 21:02

The JAA stands for Joint Aviation Authorites, and are all the authorities that are members of the JAA such as UK, France, Germany......etc etc

check out the www.jaa.nl (i think) and click on "licensing"

JAR are the Joint Aviaiton Regulations, which are the regulations that all the JAA's adhere to.

Does that help

Hour Builder

2nd Jan 2006, 21:04

And ask yourself why any school would 'voluntarily' stop JAR-FCL PPL training in the US...............

all of this guys post was true, non more so then the comment I've highlighted above. :hmm:

BEagle

2nd Jan 2006, 21:07

JAA = Joint Aviation Authorities
JAR = Joint Aviation Requirements
JAR-FCL = Joint Aviation Requirements-Flight Crew Licensing

It's all in LASORS 2006 - see http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/LASORS_06_WEB.pdf and download it FREE!

leonbrumsack

2nd Jan 2006, 21:33

Thanks for all the info, guys. I will do some reading and try to fathom out what is going on! JAA, JAR, CAA, PPL - my brain is just saying BLX to me :}

dublinpilot

2nd Jan 2006, 22:10

While all in their FAQ may be correct, you would have to wonder why they don't just come out and say that they are training for a FAA-PPL, and stop trying to confuse their customers with "JAA compliant PPL".

Two thought come to mind.

1. If you have an FAA PPL, you can not necessarily rent a European registered aircraft an fly it out of that country, as you could with a JAA PPL. For example, if you had access to an Irish registered aircraft, you could not fly it outside Ireland on your FAA PPL, without getting specific permissions. Some other JAA countries may allow you take their aircraft abroad on an FAA PPL, such as the UK does. This probably isn't such a big deal, as if you're based in the UK, you'll probably always be flying UK registered aircraft. Should you happen to be in Ireland, or France, or any other JAA country, and want to rent an aircraft there, you're unlikely to want to fly it out of that country. And you should be fine flying it with that country.

2. The second thing that comes to mind is the IMC rating. For a PPL flying in the UK, an IMC is a very valuable thing to be able to get. I really wish the IAA would introduce something similar here! :{ As far as I know you can't get an IMC rating with an FAA PPL. You can of course do an FAA instrument rating, and if you fly an American registered aircraft in the UK, you will have instrument privileges. If you have a FAA Instrument Rating, I understand you can get an IMC for some paperwork, but I'm assuming you would need to have a UK issued PPL to attach it to. Someone else can better advise you on that.

Just some food for though. The site seems to give you all the pro, I just wanted to highlight the cons that I see ;)

dp

englishal

3rd Jan 2006, 07:06

Bearing in mind that you can fly in the UK under Day VFR conditions using an FAA PPL, my recommendation would be (if you really must go to the USA) to train for the plain vanilla FAA PPL, then build up to 100 hours in the US or UK before converting to a JAR-FCL PPL(A).

Ah ha, that old chestnut. There is no "Day" restriction on an FAA ticket.

And ask yourself why any school would 'voluntarily' stop JAR-FCL PPL training in the US...............
Cost. The CAA charges 000's if not 10's of 000's to "inspect" these schools and certify them, plus a jolly for the inspector who has to be flown to the USA (business class no doubt), put up in a hotel, and all expenses paid. So frankly I don't blame them.

Although I don't agree with the term "JAR Complient PPL" as it is a little misleading, what these schools do is offer the FAA PPL, but also the UK exams and RT exam are taken as well. So you are perfectly legal to fly in the UK, and it is a sinch to convert to a "full" PPL once you have the FAA PPL.

Although schools like these are not entitled to carry out an initial JAA PPL skills test by virtue of not being certified, they can carry out licence conversions. So, you guessed it, when you have the FAA PPL + exams, you could in theory do another flight test with the resident UK examiner, and you walk away with (well 2 months later) a full blown JAA PPL.

I have no connection by the way, though I have talked with these people about this subject, and to be honest it does seem a cost effective way of getting a ticket.
;)

leonbrumsack

3rd Jan 2006, 12:20

Well, I have emailed the flying school who kindly sent me various PDF brochures and the following explanation:

Both Licenses are accepted and thee is no conversion needed on return. The JAR Compliant PPL is a FAA PPL with UK aviation law and RT procedures ground school and knowledge test. The JAA PPL is a PPL issued from the CAA. The only difference is that the JAR Compliant PPL is easy to maintain.

So - would going down the 'JAR Compliant Route' (AKA FAA PPL + extras) be a bad move? I do like the fact that it works out cheaper, being a poor student! :confused:

englishal

3rd Jan 2006, 14:18

Swings and roundabouts. Once you have the FAA ticket, you essentially can't loose it. With a JAA ticket, you must keep it up, or do a test every few years.

You cannot add national ratings to an FAA ticket in the UK, so no chance of an IMC. You can of course get an FAA IR and fly an N reg plane in IMC though.

You can fly at night on an FAA ticket by default - even in the UK.

FAA ratings (like ME) can be used in the UK no problem, even on G reg aircraft.

You can always convert to a full JAA PPL later on if you wanted.

BEagle

3rd Jan 2006, 14:30

"The JAR Compliant PPL is a FAA PPL with UK aviation law and RT procedures ground school and knowledge test."

That means you have a FAA PPL only. However, when you finally achieve 100 hours total time, you will also have covered some of the conversion requirements towards the JAR-FCL PPL. You will still need to take the JAR-FCL PPL(A) Skill Test, however, as well as the Human Performance exam which the flying school seems to have forgotten about.

I cannot find any reference to the validity period of the Air Law, Human Perfomrnace and Communications (PPL) exams in this context; normally you have to pass them all within an 18 month period and they will then be valid for 2 years for licence application.

So, if you think that you'll achieve 100 hours fairly quickly, then it might be worth paying the extra to do the FRTOL training and Air Law exams with that school, before (presumably) finding a JAR-FCL approved Flight Examiner to conduct your JAR-FCL PPL(A) Skill Test. And guess what, there happens to be one at that school....

To me it looks like a simple business opportunity - particularly for the Examiner, of course. Get a JAA Class 2 medical, then go to the US for a FAA PPL course. Then do the Air Law, Human Performance, Communications (PPL) and RT practical. Then top up to 100 hours, before taking the JAR-FCL PPL(A) Skill Test. In addition to paying for the FAA PPL, you would thus also be paying for:

1. 3 JAR-FCL PPL exams.
2. The FRTOL practical test.
3. Additional flight time to achieve 100 hours on aeroplanes.
4. The JAR-FCL PPL(A) Skill Test

If you wish to 'convert' with less than 100 hours, the difference is that you will additionally need both to take the other 4 JAR-FCL PPL exams and to meet the relevant JAR-FCL 1.125(b) experience requirements. These are:

'(b) Flight instruction. An applicant for a PPL(A) shall have completed on aeroplanes, having a certificate of airworthiness issued or accepted by a JAA Member State, at least 25 hours dual instruction and at least 10 hours of supervised solo flight time, including at least five hours of solo cross-country flight time with at least one cross-country flight of at least 270 km (150 NM), during which full stop landings at two aerodromes different from the aerodrome of departure shall be made. When the applicant has been credited for pilot-in-command flight time on other aircraft in accordance with JAR–FCL 1.120, the requirement for dual instruction on aeroplanes may be reduced to not less than 20 hours.'

If I were you, I would ask the flying school (and the CAA) to confirm whether the JAR-FCL 1.125(b) requirements can be carried out at the school to which you refer. If not, then you'll need obviously 100 hours on aeroplanes before you can convert.

But wouldn't it be a whole lot simpler just to do the FAA PPL in the US, then build up your hours wherever before doing the 3 exams, RT practical and JAR-FCL PPL(A)Skill Test when you're back in the UK?

2Donkeys

3rd Jan 2006, 14:35

All a bit silly really isn't it. The School concerned is using confusing language to market its product and the frequency with which this question arises demonstrates the confusion created.

With an FAA PPL and an FAA Medical, you are fully entitled to fly G-reg aircraft all over the world thanks to the ANO rendering all ICAO PPLs valid.

Why would you bother going through the subsequent rigmarole of getting a JAA licence unless you had a particular need to add later JAA ratings to it? And if that is the case, then why not simply go to a JAA school (in the UK or US) and get your JAA licence directly.

Keygrip

3rd Jan 2006, 14:43

<<Once you have the FAA ticket, you essentially can't loose it. With a JAA ticket, you must keep it up, or do a test every few years.>>

JAA requires a test every two years - unless you have the relevant currency experience. FAA requires a test every two years no matter how much experience you have. Tell me again why you think it's easier to maintain an FAA licence?

BEagle

3rd Jan 2006, 14:48

JAA licences now have to be re-issued every 5 years, whereas the old UK PPls were for life. All that is needed for that process is a valid JAA medical and Type or Class Rating - and a cheque to the CAA, of course. Currently, for a PPL, that's £63 :mad:

englishal

3rd Jan 2006, 15:32

FAA requires a test every two years no matter how much experience you have. Tell me again why you think it's easier to maintain an FAA licence?

Ok,

The FAA does not require a test at all. Once you have passed the PPL check ride, you never need to fly with an examiner again, unless the FAA dictates you need to for some reason. The FAA requires a BFR every 2 years more or less, and that is all. A BFR is roughly translated to an hours ground school, and a 1 hour flight with an instructor. You need not have logged any time at all in the previous 2 years, if you were a natural.In fact, you need not fly for 10 years, then turn up, do a bit of practice, do the BFR and off you go.

If you maintain currency under JAR then you also do not need to fly with an examiner either but if you don't get that piece of paper signed by an examiner by the due date, thats it, you now require a "skills test". Orf if you don't meet the currency requirements.

Regarding ME currency - the same BFR will maintain your ME rating. It does not need to be tested annually, you do not need to complete any route sectors etc.

I agree the wording of "JAR Complient" is misleading in order to drum up business and I don't agree with it.

leonbrumsack

3rd Jan 2006, 20:57

Cheers for the feedback, all. Will have to do some thinking. I guess if I decide to go for it (a PPL) a 'JAR Compliant'/FAA one would probably do me fine.

DFC

3rd Jan 2006, 21:16

You can fly at night on an FAA ticket by default - even in the UK.

Does the FARs not require a pilot to hold a vadid IR ticket before flying IFR?

Unless one restricts onself to circuits and bumps within a zone where ATC give you Special VFR, then US PPL holders without an IR can not fly enroute in the UK at night.

As for "JAR Compliant PPL". Only licenses with "Issued oin accordance with JAR-FCL" or words to that effect are JAR compliant. Next thing this type of school will be doing is advertising ICAO compliant NPPL Microlight Licenses. After all if you get a microlight licence and do lots of extra training, exams and tests, one can get an ICAO PPL!

Regards,

DFC

IO540

3rd Jan 2006, 21:33

"Unless one restricts onself to circuits and bumps within a zone where ATC give you Special VFR, then US PPL holders without an IR can not fly enroute in the UK at night."

More fiction, DFC.

BEagle

3rd Jan 2006, 21:44

Exercising the privileges of a Non-UK
Licence in UK registered aircraft

Article 26, of the ANO 2005, states that a pilot must
hold an appropriate licence granted either by the CAA
or by a foreign authority and rendered valid under the
ANO to fly a UK registered aircraft.

A JAA licence is deemed to be a licence rendered valid
under the ANO unless the CAA in the particular case
gives direction to the contrary. A JAA licence is a
licence issued in accordance with licensing and
medical requirements of JAR-FCL by a full JAA
Member State that has been recommended for mutual
recognition by Central JAA (JAA Headquarters).

A licence issued by any other ICAO Contracting State
(including a JAA State that has not yet been
recommended for mutual recognition) is also deemed
to be valid under the ANO for the purposes of flying a
UK registered aircraft, providing that the licence and
medical are valid in accordance with the rules/laws of
the issuing State, and the CAA does not in the
particular case give direction to the contrary.

However, the ANO2005 Article 26 (4) (a) states that
the holder of such a licence cannot:

1) act as a member of the flight crew of any aircraft
flying for the purpose of public transport or aerial
work or on any flight in respect of which he
receives remuneration for his services as a
member of the flight crew; or

2) in the case of a pilot’s licence, to act as a pilot of
any aircraft flying in controlled airspace in
circumstances requiring compliance with the
Instrument Flight Rules or to give any instruction
in flying.

DFC

3rd Jan 2006, 22:26

IO540,

Here is a small but relevant part of BEagles quote;

A licence issued by any other ICAO Contracting State
(including a JAA State that has not yet been
recommended for mutual recognition) is also deemed
to be valid under the ANO for the purposes of flying a
UK registered aircraft, providing that the licence and
medical are valid in accordance with the rules/laws of
the issuing State, and the CAA does not in the
particular case give direction to the contrary.

and for FAA licences, here are the US requirements for holding an IR quoted from 61.3

(e) Instrument rating. No person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR flight unless that person holds:

(1) The appropriate aircraft category, class, type (if required), and instrument rating on that person's pilot certificate for any airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift being flown;

So the CAA say FAA licence holders must comply with FAA requirements and the FAA says you need an IR to fly IFR or when the weather is less than VMC so Special VFR in less than VMC.

Basically, while the CAA rules say you can fly IFR outside controlled airspace, the FAA who issue a licence say you will not. One must comply with the most restrictive requirement.

Same as France allowing VFR over an overcast but the UK CAA not allowing UK PPLs with no IMC or IR to fly out of sight of the surface whenever they exercise the licence.

Regards,

DFC

Keef

3rd Jan 2006, 23:53

Interesting point. My FAA PPL is valid at night (they almost all are). Under UK law, I need no IR or IMC rating, but a night qualification, to fly at night. So can I fly at night on my FAA PPL with its inbuilt night qualification?

Or do I need an FAA IR, too?

Can I confuse you with SVFR?

englishal

4th Jan 2006, 07:15

I believe you can fly at night, as you FAA ticket includes night privileges, something that the JAA or EASA or whoever should include (less money making opportunities then of course).;)

DFC

4th Jan 2006, 11:23

A basic FAA PPL holder is entitled to fly Night VFR.

The FAA require FAA licence holders to hold an IR before flying under IFR (no mention of weather or time of day) or in weather that is less than VMC.

My understanding of that is that since the UK requires all night flights outside a control zone to be IFR, and the FAA require an IR for IFR flight a basic VFR only FAA pilot can not fly visually at night outside a control zone.

As for Special VFR. Well the FAA again require an IR for flights in weather less than VMC. So provided that the basic VMC requirements are complied with, a FAA PPL holder could accept a special VFR clearance. This would only make a Special VFR request necessary for a FAA PPL at night in a zone or in a class A zone at any time.

The FAA are not unique in thie regard. Many European countries require any flight under IFR regardless of weather to be done by the holder of an IR.

Regards,

DFC

IO540

4th Jan 2006, 15:38

This one has been done to death here before.

Superficially, all of the following

a) FAA PPL holder, G-reg, UK airspace
b) FAA PPL holder, N-reg, UK airspace
c) JAA PPL holder, N-reg, UK airspace

are illegal at night.

However, if one contacts the FAA (as I have done) it is quickly established that b) and c) are OK. And a) is probably OK too, but I don't have time now to dig through the stuff. If the "night = IFR" stuff was interpreted in the totally anally retentive manner, lots of non IFR certified aeroplanes would not fly at night, etc, etc.

There is a distinction in the FARs between an aircraft flying IFR requiring a pilot with an IR, and the FAA-licensed pilot flying IFR requiring an IR. Again, no time to look at it now.

BEagle

4th Jan 2006, 15:54

"However, if one contacts the FAA (as I have done) it is quickly established that b) and c) are OK."

And the CAA's view was?

Personally I agree with DFC's interpretation. Still, perhaps it won't be long before all imported UK-based non-CAT aircraft will only be permitted to fly on a non-UK registration for a limited period of time? Clarification of restrictions applicable to non-JAA licensed aircrew flying in JAA airspace would not go amiss, however.

IO540

4th Jan 2006, 20:25

Beagle

That one has been done to death, too. I know Pprune runs on a fast server nowadays; just as well :O

An example of case c) might be flying an N-reg on a UK PPL with the IMC Rating, and asking the CAA if the license+rating privileges work on an N-reg. I did this, and their reply was that the IMC Rating is not restricted to any particular reg, and that it is for the FAA to decide. So I wrote to the FAA and they said it's equivalent to their IR (implicitly, this is within the limits which the ANO puts on the IMCR). The FARs also enable foreign license privileges to apply. People may disagree but one can't really get much beyond asking and getting an official reply.

Case b) concerns the CAA even less.

Case a) is much more CAA territory. There just happens to be an awful lot of "common practice" stuff. Night flight in the UK, which is supposedly IFR, is actually treated as VFR. You can night depart from a Class D field in the UK and ask for a VFR departure (or just a "departure") and IME they won't bat an eyelid. I've done it in error myself. The departure you get is a VFR one (i.e. take off and bye, see you again) not an IFR departure with the extra protection that involves. You could probably file a VFR flight plan during official night and the mistake is unlikely to be spotted. And take a plain PPL with the night qual - how much IFR navigation training does he get? Practically zilch. I also never knew I was supposed to fly under some sort of IFR rules at night, and I wonder if the instructor knew it. You just fly a hopeful heading, looking for clusters of street lights and hope to start/stop the stopwatch at the right time (which of course doesn't really work at night, you'd use a GPS, but that's another story).

If there was a whole load of prosecutions in this area (and there certainly could be, if anybody cared, just in the plain UK G-reg scene) then we might have something concrete to talk about.

BEagle

4th Jan 2006, 20:37

All 3 cases require the CAA's consideration far more than the FAA's. Because they all refer to operation within UK airspace.

Perhaps when EASA comes along, all this nonsense of 'interpretation' rather than clear regulation will be cleared up.

How many US-registered cars are there in the UK driven by UK residents who don't have UK driving licences? So why should there be US-registered aircraft flown by UK residents who don't have UK (or JAR-FCL) pilots licences?

slim_slag

4th Jan 2006, 21:06

Because the UK is allegedly one of those countries where legal residents are free to go about their lawful business without being hassled by the Gov'mint. If you cannot demonstrate an overwhelming safety based case why decent people shouldn't be able to spend their own money in the way they see fit then you should leave them alone.

(Doubt the FAA care about whether it's IFR at night in the UK, it's not in the US when VMC and that's what counts to them, IMO)

englishal

5th Jan 2006, 07:20

Someone posted on the flyer web site about this, and it appears you can indeed fly at night on an FAA ticket. I just can't be bothered to find it ot the reasons behind it. Anyway I can, and I have no JAA NQ, because I hold an FAA IR and AM allowed to fly at night and IAW IFR....:) In fact, my mate is picking me up in his N reg, and we're going to fly the good old European airways, without holding a JAA IR between us. We may even do it at night, just because we can......;)

IO540

5th Jan 2006, 09:25

Beagle

You are forgetting a small detail: ICAO.

There is NO safety issue with foreign reg planes operating in UK airspace. Lots of people have looked, looked hard because it would suit their agendas, and none was found. I sincerely hope that you are not one of those.

Cars don't come into it. Why don't bikes pay road tax? They use the same road, and they have wheels. Why don't you pay road tax when crossing a road with a pram? It has 4 wheels, so should pay the same road tax as a car.

You actually can drive a foreign reg car in the UK, indefinitely. Just change it every few months :O

DFC

5th Jan 2006, 10:44

IO540,

You are correct. ICAO does come into the argument. If everyone did everything according to ICAO we would not be having this debate because the system could be consistent and regardless of country of registration, country of operation or country of licence issue the rules would be the same. That unfortunately is not the case but it sounds very like what EASA is trying to acheive.

The fact that questions like these arrise and while we all can quote the rule books, no one including the CAA or the FAA can it seems put in writing exactly what the real situation is. While that and oher similar situations do not have any real effect on the safe, careful and competent pilot, it can leave a hole open for the unscrupulous pilot, operation or school to do things which can lead to dangerous situation or general confusion.

It all comes down to adequate supervision (other wise known as money!). If the FAA are happy to state that they at their own expense will provide adequate supervision of N reg operators based in Europe and FAA pilots in Europe then everyone is happy. If they are not then it will fall on the CAA to provide the supervision. That is going to cost money. Why should European operators pay more so that American Operators can continue to operate despite the FAA washing it's hands of them?

When a question arrises about what an FAA licence holder can do, that question should be addressed to the FAA and the FAA after making whatever checks it needs to do can tell the FAA licence holder what to do. That is their responsibility alone because it is an FAA licence. FAA licence holders asking the CAA what they can do with an FAA licence is simply increasing the costs of the CAA which are paid by G reg/UK licence holders and operators.

Regards,

DFC

IO540

5th Jan 2006, 11:03

DFC

"can leave a hole open for the unscrupulous pilot"

Did you draft the DfT consultation document by any chance? :O

Basically, it said "we have no evidence of any problems, we have no evidence of any loss of safety, we see a theoretical problem due to the lower oversight, so we propose to ban it just in case this became a problem". A really good way to form govt policy...

There are far far more poorly maintained planes on G than there are on N. Just pop along to your local flying school for a pleasure flight (called a "trial lesson" due to another quirk in the regs, or a "loophole" if somebody wants to grind an axe) and see what piece of wreckage, maintained by a JAR145 company of course, you go up in.

If I was based on a farm strip, and flying between farm strips (i.e. generally avoiding plane spotters) I could fly a completely fictitious G-reg (the number obviously identical to a real one, in case anyone checks it on G-INFO), running on petrol out of the farm tank, and with oil changes every year. Oversight??? People don't do this because they value their life.

The oversight argument doesn't wash at all.

dublinpilot

5th Jan 2006, 12:53

I asked a similar last Oct http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=194158wondering if my Irish issued JAA PPL would allow me to fly at night in the UK, given that I (or anyone else) was not allowed fly an Irish registered aircraft under IFR, unless they held an instrument rating, according to Irish Regulations.

No one was able to quote anything that made me think that I would be allowed fly at night in the UK, in an Irish registered aircraft.

Interestingly, I sent the CAA an email (as someone suggested I should do), and the only reply I got, was an email acknowledging my query. :ugh:

On the face of it, it seems a similar enough position to the FAA licence holder + N reg aircraft, in the UK at night (although I know very little about the FARs).

While I'm sure that no one could care less, so long as there was no incident, I'm not so sure people wouldn't mind, if there was some sort of incident.

dp

slim_slag

5th Jan 2006, 16:23

It all comes down to adequate supervision (other wise known as money!). If the FAA are happy to state that they at their own expense will provide adequate supervision of N reg operators based in Europe and FAA pilots in Europe then everyone is happy.

Adequate supervision or over regulation? Land of the Free or Nanny State?

Ask somebody who has to get his N-reg through an annual given by a mechanic who has his own ticket to consider, or get through a BFR given by a CFI who also has his ticket to protect. That's at the pilot's expense, not the FAA's. The FAA provides the framework for more than adequate supervision. Sure you can break the law but that's possible in CAA-lland as well. I also would suspect you are more likely to be ramp checked by the authorities in Europe if flying an N-reg than a G-reg, but that's a guess.