IAOPA-Europe and AOPA-US have made a joint presentation to an EASA-FAA conference on harmonisation of licences between America and Europe which it is hoped will lead to a simple, low-cost route to recognition of qualifications at the PPL level across the Atlantic. Craig Spence of AOPA US and Martin Robinson of AOPA UK outlined IAOPA's position on licensing to European and American delegates at a conference in Cleveland, Ohio, which is part of the process of establishing bilateral agreements on aviation between the continents. Both sides have agreed to make action on recognition of private pilots licences a priority.
IAOPA is asking that recognition processes be kept simple, and that unless there are serious safety issues to address, the regulations of one authority should hold good in the territory of the other once they have been validated. Validation is important because it allows a national authority in Europe to 'take ownership' of an individual's qualifications, and to amend or suspend them as necessary – something national authorities complain they cannot currently do.
In an ideal world, the holder of an American PPL would be able to take a European Air Law exam, have it certificated by a local examiner and pay a small fee to a national authority before it can be used in Europe. In the case of holders of FAA Instrument Ratings, they could be validated for use in Europe on the condition that the holder undergo an annual check ride with an instructor. European authorities look on the rolling renewal system used by the Americans as a game-stopper and an annual renewal may be the price that has to be paid for recognition.
From the American standpoint, there is a problem with validation because under their law, licences are only valid in the state in which they are issued. If, say, an FAA licence was validated in France, the holder would only be able to fly within the boundaries of France; America does not recognise Europe as a political entity. But the FAA representatives in Cleveland are willing to look at solutions to this problem and Craig Spence will be pursuing the issue. The presentation was positively received by both sides; IAOPA has been asked to write to the FAA and EASA setting out our proposals, and Craig Spence and Martin Robinson are working on that document, which will pertain solely to private licences and ratings – professional tickets will be dealt with separately.
IAOPA is also talking to the FAA about the position of holders of FAA 61.75 licences, issued on the basis of their European qualifications. These will lapse because they are issued on the basis of the number of your European licence, and this will change when you get an EASA licence. IAOPA is working on ways to get 61.75 licences reissued without the holder having to go through the security clearances and other hassles now involved.
In the ideal world, you would set licensing standards at ICAO level and you would recognise ICAO licenses and convert them at national level for a fee, commensurate with the administrative work involved (i.e. something like £ 10 -20 max). There would be no additional air law exam, there would be no "certification" by a local examiner.
I fail to see why an annual renewal of an instrument rating would be a necessary condition to ensure flight safety. There obviously is no safety statistic to support this. And despite the recent announcements by the EASA supervisory board to the contrary, the "authority" continues to use bogus safety arguments to perpetuate job schemes for flight examiners.
By contrast, I would have nothing against national authorities wanting to "take ownership" of individuals' qualifications. But is there a history of the FAA actually acting up when a European CAA comes along with a reasonable claim ? Is the processing time inordinately long ? Lets take the example of the Dutch CAA wanting to take action against an American licensed Dutch citizen flying an N-reg into class D airspace without establishing two-way radio communication (I'm taking a typical offence for which your run of the mill CAA would like to see a license suspended for 3 months or so). Is that now "not happening because Dutch CAA can't be bothered" or "not happening because the FAA FSDO in Brussels can't be bothered" ? Or is this "take ownership" complaint yet another example of Eckard Seebohm style dog**** ?