I admit, it's not the most logical thing to do. Indeed, the missus' initial reaction was not unlike Hughes500's. It's 48 degrees C in the shade where I am at the moment, so I'm not ruling out the possibility that I fried my brain a wee bit!
I suppose the Bell 47 is as big an attraction as getting the PPL, hence Canada. I was indeed looking at Chinook -- Bell 47s, up in the mountains, it would be rather nice! To put things into perspective, if I were to do a PPL(A), it would most likely be in the UK somewhere with a Chipmunk instead of the much cheaper C152 option.
When I first started looking, I knew that it would be more expensive, especially after taking flights to and from Canada and accommodation into account. I thought that after completing the PPL over there, it would be a simple exercise of getting dual instruction on an S300 or R22 over here, then pass medical, sitting the theory exams and a check flight. Sadly, this is not the case -- hence my original post.
Putting economic sense to one side for the moment, I've noticed that some UK flight schools advertise FAA courses, from PPL onwards. For example, FAA PPL(H) -> FAA IR)H) -> EASA PPL(H). How does this work in the EASA legal framework? Does this mean that getting a Canadian PPL(H) and converting it to an FAA PPL(H) -- according to
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...AC_61-135A.pdf it's sitting a couple of tests and medical, but no need for a check flight -- would allow me to fly under the auspices of an FAA school registered in EASA/CAA, and build time while doing an IR, gaining hours and knowledge. Keep in mind, what with shift work and family commitments, I'll probably only be able to fly around two to five hours a month, anyway.
P.S.
I've re-read both the original post and this one, and realise how silly I sound. Please humour me.