I mention Switzerland only because it has never been a member of the EU nor the EEA. Before joining EASA it had a very simple agreement whereby a pilot was, in the main, simply required to complete paperwork as were UK CPLs and PPLs although the UK were full members of the EU and founding members of EASA. Very rational because the pilots training and background were of similar standards. It should not be beyond a possibility that such arrangements can be agreed and may even happen yet. We may even remain a member of EASA, who knows. The UK CAA have already stated that they will recognise the EASA training for at least two years. EASA have so far not reciprocated but this is irrational other than to be difficult. It cannot be ignored that many UK owned schools are already established, wholly or in part, within the EU countries and particularly in Spain and increasingly in the eastern european block. There are considerable tax advantages to benefit from operating and/or training in low tax countries such as Spain, USA, Poland and Czechoslovakia for example. The EU is not a level playing field in this regard. I do not need the current pilot qualifications and training explained, I've been immersed in it for 35 years. What I don't yet fully understand is the rushed commercial decisions these schools are making in the short term which may lead to considerable complications for them in the foreseeable future.
The EASA conversion standards that are quoted are completely unreasonable and irrational. They are simply anti-american and are there for no other purpose. Note: there is no such thing as: a CPL IR because they are two very separate qualifications, The use of the CPL is the choice of the holder, it makes no difference to the training and the testing. The 'frozen ATPL' that has been referred to doesn't exist.
Last edited by Fl1ingfrog; 5th Nov 2020 at 17:32.