FAA vs EASA ME/IR test requirements
Hi
I hold an FAA CPL / IR / ME and am thinking of converting to EASA.
I was recently reading an accident report from the 1990s (Bandeirante at Leeds) which made reference to the limited amount of "partial panel" training which the pilots had received - which surprised me as it felt like half of my FAA IR checkride was done "no gyro" with a simulated Vac pump failure (so no AI or DI, just the electric turn co-ordinator), and the checkride included a "no gyro" approach (can't remember if it was an ILS or Localiser, but you get the idea).
Another difference I (think) I have noted is that during my FAA ME training it was drummed in to me that "there is no such thing as a single-engine go-around or missed approach" - so once you start your single engine approach you are going to land - and if you don't make the runway then you will crash it in the usual manner somewhere in the vicinity of the runway. I always assumed that that this was taught on the basis that you are better off on the ground in approximately the right place rather than crashing during the course of a botched asymmetric go-around. If I have understood correctly what I have heard about an EASA ME/IR test then that includes asymmetric go-arounds/missed approaches.
I know that the EASA IR test includes NDB procedures which aren't part of the FAA test, and probably doesn't include GPS approaches which are a staple of FAA-land.
So .... is my thinking right about the differences regarding partial-panel and asymetric approaches, and are there any other differences (other than NDB / GPS) which I ought to know about?
This isn't intended to start an FAA vs EASA bun-fight, I'm just trying to understand what the key differences are in the training and the test so that I have a better idea of what to expect.
Thanks