FAA License Conversion Advice: Regionals or I Pay by myself??

[amonghtus]

Hi Everyone,

I am new to this forum. My apologies if you have already discussed this topic; my wife has also posted some things in this forum, concerning my situation.
I am currently flying with A330 with an Easa ATPL and I have accumulated more than 2000 hours in total.
I am holding a green card and my wife and I want to immigrate to the USA if I can find a competitive offer from one of the legacy airlines such as American or United etc.

As far as I understand there are two options available for me to do that.

1) I can start with a regional airline, which would force me to change my type rating. On the other hand, some of these regional airlines will pay the cost of my license conversion and other training stuff. Of course, this means that I will have to fly with a regional airline for a couple of years and then (hopefully) move on to the legacies.

2) I can go to a flight school and convert my licenses and everything by myself, paying between $10,000-$15,000 upfront. This option provides me with the opportunity to apply to the legacies. As I have read in this forum, the possibility of getting a job offer from a legacy is not guaranteed, due to my lack of flight experience in the USA.

I would really appreciate honest advice here. I am struggling with this decision. Which option makes more sense?
-Do I start with a regional airline and let them pay the license conversion costs, change my type rating, fly with them for a couple of years, build hours in the USA and then try to apply to the legacies changing my type rating again? Or

-Do I pay the conversion costs upfront and apply to the legacies, risking not getting a job offer and forced to apply to a regional airline anyway?
The second option is a big financial risk on my part, but it gives me that opportunity for a possible job offer from one of the legacies.

Thank you to everyone for all of your answers.

[havick]

Honestly with only 2000 ish hours you’re not even close to getting a call from a legacy. If you don’t have any FAA part 121 time, you’re going to have to get a track record on that front first.

in the USA airlines don’t really care about types flown like they do in other countries.

[Sunrig]

Difficult question here. If your total time is 2000 hours you will NOT be competitive at the legacy level even with your A330 type. So do you have 2000 hours A330 and a couple of thousand hours more total time? That would change things. Though not necessarily required, but the legacies like to see 1000 hours of jet/turbine PIC time. Even if you get hired by a legacy you will absolutely not fly the A 330, as you’re at the bottom of the seniority list expect 737/320. Because of your low total time you might have to go to a Regional. Not ideal but on the other hand you get part 121 time and can upgrade after have flown 1000 hours in the US. Then you can start building jet 121 pic time. That will increase your chances at a legacy job.
Another option would be to convert your license on your own and apply to the LCC like JetBlue, Spirit, Allegiant or Frontier. Those jobs offer way better QOL and also better pay than the Regionals. That might be an option to wait for a legacy call while building your total time and experience in the US.
I hope I could be of help, feel free to ask more...
Best of luck!

[bafanguy]

amonghtus,

I can appreciate the difficulty of your decision. What I can say is the competition at the career-destination, legacy level in the USA is beyond fierce; things are apparently done with a difference focus than other parts of the world. Just getting an interview is almost a miracle and each carrier seems to have its own peculiar emphasis. Your A330 time will be a positive but your total time appears to be a bit low.

It's not what you want to hear but your best path is probably a regional for a few years to get some FAA Part 121 experience...and...get an FAA ATPL without parting with $10+K to do it. I'm not sure all regionals will take you straight in without an FAA license. It requires a different process than the typical US applicant and most regionals just aren't inclined or set up to do it.

aviator35 has some posts on here and is in circumstances very similar to yours. He hasn't posted in a while so I don't know what he decided to do. His experience would be instructive.

Best of luck...keep us posted on your decision.

[havick]

amonghtus,

I can appreciate the difficulty of your decision. What I can say is the competition at the career-destination, legacy level in the USA is beyond fierce; things are apparently done with a difference focus than other parts of the world. Just getting an interview is almost a miracle and each carrier seems to have its own peculiar emphasis. Your A330 time will be a positive but your total time appears to be a bit low.

It's not what you want to hear but your best path is probably a regional for a few years to get some FAA Part 121 experience...and...get an FAA ATPL without parting with $10+K to do it. I'm not sure all regionals will take you straight in without an FAA license. It requires a different process than the typical US applicant and most regionals just aren't inclined or set up to do it.

aviator35 has some posts on here and is in circumstances very similar to yours. He hasn't posted in a while so I don't know what he decided to do. His experience would be instructive.

Best of luck...keep us posted on your decision.

there’s no difference not having an FAA certificate so long as the applicant has an ICAO license and meets the part 61 mins and has a letter of validation that not expired going in to the type rating test. There’s literally no difference in training or paperwork as far as the regional airline is concerned.

[bafanguy]

havick,

That makes things easier for amonghtus. Other than those regionals taking E3 visa holders, are there any other Part 121 operators known to be taking people straight in without FAA tickets ? Air Wisconsin appears to have taken an H1B or two but I'm unaware of what the license status of those pilots was.

[havick]

havick,

That makes things easier for amonghtus. Other than those regionals taking E3 visa holders, are there any other Part 121 operators known to be taking people straight in without FAA tickets ? Air Wisconsin appears to have taken an H1B or two but I'm unaware of what the license status of those pilots was.

no idea, but the FAA process is the same from any icao country as far as licensing goes. Right to work in the USA is a different can of worms entirely.

[bafanguy]

Right to work in the USA is a different can of worms entirely.

For sure. I have no idea how many expat pilots aiming at the USA already have Green Cards or dual citizenship but if they do, they sure have a leg up on things.

[misd-agin]

Don't spend your money on the conversion. If you don't have more total time, and some PIC, especially TPIC time, preferably 121 TPIC time, you're not competitive for a legacy job. Some lower time people get in but that's not normal and often times they have some connections. In the U.S. experience matters but specific experience doesn't. What that means is they like seeing experience in various types of flying, and aircraft, but the major airlines aren't looking for specific qualifications (ie 330, 777, 787, etc). And having a resume primarily on long haul aircraft, with fewer sectors and landings, isn't a positive. We don't gain that much experience in cruise. Going to Spirit, Jet Blue, etc, might pay more initially but it will delay acquiring TPIC or 121 TPIC time. What is your long term goal? If you're older I'd recommend applying at the non legacy carriers. If you're younger, and your heart is set on doing the long haul international flying, I'd recommend going the regional route and gaining experience in the U.S. domestic system, getting 1-2 more type ratings and showing you're ability to learn while gaining additional experience. The typical civilian new hire at a legacy has 5-7K hrs TT, several thousand hours TPIC, and often 1,000+ 121 TPIC. If the legacies are your goal build your resume in a manner that achieves those numbers as quickly as possible. That's the regional path with a 3-5 yr projection. That would be a resume bump of 2-4K hrs and 500-2,000 hrs TPIC. If you don't necessarily want a job at a legacy I'd apply to the non legacy airlines as soon as you finish training at the regional and you have your FAA licenses. Training failures might be hard to overcome. It's a competitive market. Additional training, which occurs at about 10% of the time at my company, isn't a bust. It's just additional training. A 'bust' occurs when you take a check ride and don't pass.

[733driver]

I believe a four-year college degree is almost a must-have for the legacies. And yes, 2000 hours total and no turbine PIC won't cut it, I'm afraid.

[amonghtus]

Thank you to everyone for your responses. From my recent research I noticed that Allegient and Frontier are also hiring. Obviously I would need to convert (out-of-pocket) all of my licenses per FAA regulations. However, both Frontier and Allegient have airbus fleets. So no need to change my type-rating. It looks like I fulfill all of their requirements on their hiring webpage. Is Allegient and Frontier at the same level as the legacies? Do they also require 121 TPIC flying hours, or would they accept my TPIC flying hours? I have accrued more than 1,000 TPIC hours under my EASA license?

Btw, I have 770 hours of Airbus A320 family fleet, 1020 hours of Airbus A330 family fleet, 220 hours of prop. Total PIC Jet is 1000 hours and I am still building more hours everyday. And also I have 4 years bachelor degree in business administration.

[umop apisdn]

As Havick said, it's just a box ticking exercise to convert while doing your sim checks. To do it yourself is a total waste of money.

Spirit is said to be hiring 60 per month now. Sign up for a meet the chiefs event, take a trip to Florida for that and see how you go from there.

[733driver]

Thank you to everyone for your responses. From my recent research I noticed that Allegient and Frontier are also hiring. Obviously I would need to convert (out-of-pocket) all of my licenses per FAA regulations. However, both Frontier and Allegient have airbus fleets. So no need to change my type-rating. It looks like I fulfill all of their requirements on their hiring webpage. Is Allegient and Frontier at the same level as the legacies? Do they also require 121 TPIC flying hours, or would they accept my TPIC flying hours? I have accrued more than 1,000 TPIC hours under my EASA license?

Btw, I have 770 hours of Airbus A320 family fleet, 1020 hours of Airbus A330 family fleet, 220 hours of prop. Total PIC Jet is 1000 hours and I am still building more hours everyday. And also I have 4 years bachelor degree in business administration.

I'm confused. You have 2000 hours total time. Is that correct? If so, how can you have 1000 hours jet PIC as well? Do you mean proper PIC or PICUS (PIC under supervision). The latter won't count as PIC I'm afraid.

[amonghtus]

I'm confused. You have 2000 hours total time. Is that correct? If so, how can you have 1000 hours jet PIC as well? Do you mean proper PIC or PICUS (PIC under supervision). The latter won't count as PIC I'm afraid.

Actually we call it PIC but it is PICUS. Because even when I am PF (Pilot flying) commander is supervising me. Maybe this is different in USA I am not so sure. We log this hours to our logbooks as PIC.

[733driver]

Actually we call it PIC but it is PICUS. Because even when I am PF (Pilot flying) commander is supervising me. Maybe this is different in USA I am not so sure. We log this hours to our logbooks as PIC.

PIC is when you are legally in command. Nothing to do with PF or PNF/PM.

[amonghtus]

PIC is when you are legally in command. Nothing to do with PF or PNF/PM.

Ok then, which means I can start to build my PIC time only when I am upgraded to captain (commander). Right? So, I am a little confused how F/O in the US can accrue PIC hours. By flying with single engine prop aircraft in flight schools or something?

[misd-agin]

If you try and say PICUS time is PIC on your resume, or in an interview, in the U.S. it won't be accepted. It might be a bad idea. Your resume and log book time needs to reflect the standards for the country or company where you are applying.

[misd-agin]

Allegiant and Spirit aren't considered to be at the same level that the U.S. legacies are. The primary difference, ignoring past contract differences, is the ability to fly wide body international flying. It can be a very good deal in the U.S. Actually sitting reserve on w/b fleets is one of the most desired jobs in the U.S. The larger planes pay more and you work less on reserve. Non-commuters drool at that option.

[zondaracer]

Just to clear things up:

Sole manipulator of the controls, you can log PIC for the purposes of FAA certification if you are certified and rated in the aircraft. You can make a column such as “FAA Sole Manipulator PIC” so that when you show it to a DPE/ADP, they can accurately assess if you qualify for the rating or not.

This does NOT mean that you can put it down as PIC on your résumé/CV. *In the US, you are expected to only put PIC time if you were the commander that signed for*the aircraft.

I made a digital logbook and after a category for FAA PIC for the purposes of certification. *Once I got my FAA ATP, I no longer maintained this column. *I also had a column for EASA PIC, since EASA rules varied. It is important to know what the regulation says and also what is expected by potential employers.

[rudestuff]

Btw, I have 770 hours of Airbus A320 family fleet, 1020 hours of Airbus A330 family fleet, 220 hours of prop. Total PIC Jet is 1000 hours and I am still building more hours everyday. And also I have 4 years bachelor degree in business administration.

This guy sounds like a dreamer. Under EASA you cannot command an Airbus without at the very least an ATPL and in most cases at least 3000 hours. So to claim 1000 hours PIC with 2000 total is obviously nonsense. Under EASA all of those jet hours should be logged as P2 so if he's trying to pass off pilot flying time as P1 he'll be laughed out of his next job interview.

[anson harris]

Just out of interest, where would you think someone like me would stand? 8000hrs total, 3000 on the 737 and 5000 a mixture of 777 and 747, all at a large EASA legacy carrier. All P2 time except for a few hours here and there on light aircraft.

[zondaracer]

Just out of interest, where would you think someone like me would stand? 8000hrs total, 3000 on the 737 and 5000 a mixture of 777 and 747, all at a large EASA legacy carrier. All P2 time except for a few hours here and there on light aircraft.
Those are competitive times for all the majors as long as you have a 4 year degree, some internal letters of recommendation, some volunteer activity, and maybe some line instructor experience (known as line check airman). The 4 year degree is pretty much a deal breaker, the rest you may or may not need.

4000+ total time is where I start to see most become competitive. Some are competitive with less due to who they know.

[amonghtus]

This guy sounds like a dreamer. Under EASA you cannot command an Airbus without at the very least an ATPL and in most cases at least 3000 hours. So to claim 1000 hours PIC with 2000 total is obviously nonsense. Under EASA all of those jet hours should be logged as P2 so if he's trying to pass off pilot flying time as P1 he'll be laughed out of his next job interview.
Yes you are right rudestuff. I am a dreamer. Also, in the airline I work for, we reference PICUS as PIC. We even enter it as such in our JAR-FCL log book. So, until I received clarification on this forum, I was unaware that most of my PF hours are actually considered SIC. That's why I am here and asking for advice via this forum. Making comments like I'll be 'laughed out of his next job interview' seems a little unnecessary and definitely unhelpful. I appreciate all of the help and useful advice that I have received on this forum. But comments like yours are just a bunch of hot air.

[pilotchute]

Amonghtus,

If the majority of your time is PICUS you won't meet the requirement for 250 hours PIC with ref to the ATP license minimum. Your license conversion may be more complicated than you anticipate.

[bafanguy]

Amonghtus,

If the majority of your time is PICUS you won't meet the requirement for 250 hours PIC with ref to the ATP license minimum. Your license conversion may be more complicated than you anticipate.

pilotchute,

Yes, and IllinoisDavidson raised the question in this thread, post #4. So she may be aware of this...solution unknown:

"2) 250 PIC (It looks like none of my husband's turbine flying hours, under his EASA license, will be considered PIC. However, he did train in the US, flying under an FAA PPL, accruing 105 PIC hours with a propellor aircraft. Would this be considered? If so, he would need to somehow accrue another 145 PIC hours to fulfill this requirement.)"

https://www.pprune.org/north-america/625079-ohana-hawaiian-airlines-agreement.html

[bafanguy]

pilotchute and IllinoisDavidson,

I'm NO expert on FARs related to pilot licensing but something about this issue of PICUS and licensing jogged my feeble memory and I found this in Part 61. Can any of you comment on how or if this might help amonghtus and his potential application for an FAA ATPL ? Could his EASA PICUS fill that FAA square ?:

(5) 250 hours of flight time in an airplane as a pilot in command, or when serving as a required second in command flightcrew member performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command, or any combination thereof, which includes at least—
(i) 100 hours of cross-country flight time; and
(ii) 25 hours of night flight time.

§61.159 Aeronautical experience: Airplane category rating. Part 61.159(a)(5)

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp&r=PART&n=14y2.0.1.1.2 (https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp&r=PART&n=14y2.0.1.1.2)

[IllinoisDavidson]

pilotchute and IllinoisDavidson,
(5) 250 hours of flight time in an airplane as a pilot in command, or when serving as a required second in command flightcrew member performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command, or any combination thereof, which includes at least—
(i) 100 hours of cross-country flight time; and
(ii) 25 hours of night flight time.

The wording in bold that bafanguy just posted definitely applies to my husband's situation (amongtus). I think this is really what has muddied the waters for us. I have also been in touch with a former FAA employee and he referred us to the FAA regulation Title 14 CFR part 61.55(e) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.55). This regulation focuses on SIC qualifications. My huband's PF (and PICUS) experience certainly falls under the specifications of that regulation. We are trying to find definitive answers on this subject through multiple resources (and contacts). We will definitely let this forum know the final answer, especially for any foreign pilots considering transferring to the aviation business in the US. This seems to be a key component to clarify before even moving ahead with license conversion. My husband may even need to keep a second (electronic?) log book moving forward so that he can log his hours properly according to his airline's policy and FAA regulations. And I thought just flying a plane was difficult. Ha!

[bafanguy]

ID,

I'm not sure what part of 61.55(e) would apply to your husband. I'll restate my lack of expertise on this and just ask a question: To my knowledge, the Part 121 operators no longer issue SIC type ratings as such. There was a time when they did but I think it was pre-1500 hour rule. Part 121 isn't listed in 61.55(e):

(e) A person (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.55) may receive a second-in-command pilot type rating (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.55) for the type of aircraft (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.55) after satisfactorily completing an approved second-in-command training program, proficiency check, or competency check under subpart K of part 91, part 125, or part 135, as appropriate,


So wouldn't Part 61.159(a)(5) be the defining reg with the remaining question being if EASA PICUS would satisfy the FAA for an initial ATPL ? Just playing jail house lawyer here ! ;)

[bafanguy]

And this:
If FAA recognizes foreign flight time as logable in Part 61:

(j)Aircraft requirements for logging flight time. For a person to log flight time, the time must be acquired in an aircraft that is identified as an aircraft under § 61.5(b), and is -

(1) An aircraft of U.S. registry with either a standard or special airworthiness certificate;


(2) An aircraft of foreign registry with an airworthiness certificate that is approved by the aviation authority of a foreign country that is a Member State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation Organization;

...AND...

c)Logging of pilot time. The pilot time described in this section may be used to:

(1) Apply for a certificate or rating issued under this part or a privilege authorized under this part; or(2) Satisfy the recent flight experience requirements of this part.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.51

Why can't foreign PICUS flight time be applied toward the 250 hour PIC requirement for an FAA ATP ?

[havick]

The wording in bold that bafanguy just posted definitely applies to my husband's situation (amongtus). I think this is really what has muddied the waters for us. I have also been in touch with a former FAA employee and he referred us to the FAA regulation Title 14 CFR part 61.55(e) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.55). This regulation focuses on SIC qualifications. My huband's PF (and PICUS) experience certainly falls under the specifications of that regulation. We are trying to find definitive answers on this subject through multiple resources (and contacts). We will definitely let this forum know the final answer, especially for any foreign pilots considering transferring to the aviation business in the US. This seems to be a key component to clarify before even moving ahead with license conversion. My husband may even need to keep a second (electronic?) log book moving forward so that he can log his hours properly according to his airline's policy and FAA regulations. And I thought just flying a plane was difficult. Ha!

does your husband have a PIC type rating on his EASA license for the jet he was flying?

[IllinoisDavidson]

Havick,

I don't know the answer to this specific question. I just looked through my husband's license and also asked him and he is unaware of such a rating for EASA. He is going to ask some of the captains at his airline to see if they have such a rating on their licenses.



does your husband have a PIC type rating on his EASA license for the jet he was flying?

[misd-agin]

Just out of interest, where would you think someone like me would stand? 8000hrs total, 3000 on the 737 and 5000 a mixture of 777 and 747, all at a large EASA legacy carrier. All P2 time except for a few hours here and there on light aircraft.

So zero command time? Not FO flying the flight logging ‘PIC.’ But never a Captain anywhere? That isn’t a very competitive resume. They’d be more interested in a 4-5K TT regional pilot with 500-1000 hrs PIC.

Unlike overseas U.S. carriers don’t put any value on resumes that include their current fleet types. Everyone will go through a full training course to be an FO, even a TRE/TRI/CKA current in type.

[bafanguy]

does your husband have a PIC type rating on his EASA license for the jet he was flying?

Are you asking because you feel if he had an EASA type rating somehow limited to SIC-only that it might affect the FAA's opinion on whether he could use that time as PICUS to meet the 250 hour requirement here ?

I found this regarding logging PIC time. It appears that SIC time is still SIC time in regards to meeting the 250 hour requirement:

"This requirement should not be confused with §61.159 (a)(4), which permits a pilot to count second-in-command (SIC) time toward the 250 hours of flight time required to apply for an ATP certificate. See Legal Interpretation to John Duncan (April 13,2012)."

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2012/Morris%20-%20(2012)%20Legal%20Interpretation.pdf


https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2012/Duncan-AFS-200%20-%20(2012)%20Legal%20Interpretation.pdf

[zondaracer]

I could be wrong, but I don’t believe that they have SIC type ratings in EASA. The FAA came up with SIC type ratings because back in the day, FO’s weren’t required to have a type rating (they still went through training that was basically a type rating), and then there was an interpretation about needing a type rating for international flights (mostly going to Canada, that’s another story in itself), and they came up with the SIC type rating to meet ICAO requirements.

[Sunrig]

In EASA you have either a PIC or COP rating. So I assume he has a COP A330 rating since he flies as FO. And there’s no such thing in EASA where you log your PF hours as PIC time. It’s simply SIC PF. So he cannot use those hours for his resume as PIC time, it’s simply FO time.

[havick]

In EASA you have either a PIC or COP rating. So I assume he has a COP A330 rating since he flies as FO. And there’s no such thing in EASA where you log your PF hours as PIC time. It’s simply SIC PF. So he cannot use those hours for his resume as PIC time, it’s simply FO time.

this is what i thought to be the case too

[rudestuff]

In EASA you have either a PIC or COP rating. So I assume he has a COP A330 rating since he flies as FO. And there’s no such thing in EASA where you log your PF hours as PIC time. It’s simply SIC PF. So he cannot use those hours for his resume as PIC time, it’s simply FO time.

It might be true in some EASA countries, but in the UK there is no PIC or COP - it's just a type rating. The company decide if you're left seat or right seat

[Sunrig]

It might be true in some EASA countries, but in the UK there is no PIC or COP - it's just a type rating. The company decide if you're left seat or right seat
My apologies, I am not familiar with UK rules. My experience is from the mainland.

[anson harris]

So zero command time? Not FO flying the flight logging ‘PIC.’ But never a Captain anywhere? That isn’t a very competitive resume. They’d be more interested in a 4-5K TT regional pilot with 500-1000 hrs PIC.

Unlike overseas U.S. carriers don’t put any value on resumes that include their current fleet types. Everyone will go through a full training course to be an FO, even a TRE/TRI/CKA current in type.

No, 'fraid not. I've got a couple of years TRI under my belt. Unfortunately you need a lot of seniority at my outfit for a command.

[misd-agin]

No, 'fraid not. I've got a couple of years TRI under my belt. Unfortunately you need a lot of seniority at my outfit for a command.

Applying is free but don't be stunned if you don't get called by a large U.S. major airline. People without TPIC time do get called but it's a distinct minority of the candidates. The typical candidate has 1,500+ hrs TPIC.

[bafanguy]

What is a "...COP rating" (where it exists) under EASA rules ?

[Sunrig]

What is a "...COP rating" (where it exists) under EASA rules ?

It’s a Copilot/ First Officer rating. As opposed to have a PIC rating. It exists for example in Germany.

[bafanguy]

It’s a Copilot/ First Officer rating. As opposed to have a PIC rating. It exists for example in Germany.

Sunrig,

Thanks for that. Is there a list of which EASA countries have such a rating ? And how would it be indicate on the license ?

On an FAA license it would say, "[airplane type] SIC privileges only", and be listed in the Limitations section of the license. The specific airplane type would be listed under "Ratings".

[Sunrig]

Sunrig,

Thanks for that. Is there a list of which EASA countries have such a rating ? And how would it be indicate on the license ?

On an FAA license it would say, "[airplane type] SIC privileges only" and be listed in the Limitations section of the license.

You’re very welcome. Unfortunately I have no idea if such a list exists anywhere.
In my EASA license it is indicated with my current Rating saying PIC IR. So for example B737 300-900 PIC IR. I have seen that the First Officers have e.g. B737 300-900 COP IR. As I only know EASA licenses from my previous company, I assumed they were common for all EASA countries. Maybe someone else can chime in on that matter.
On a side note be advised, that you only keep your type rating in EASA if you do your annual LPC. That’s a big difference to the US, where you keep your type ratings displayed on your FAA certificate, regardless if you still fly the specific aircraft type or not. Usually the average European pilot has only the current aircraft type displayed on his license. Unless you choose to renew all previous ratings with a annual checkride out of your own pocket.

[zondaracer]

Just for reference, American Airlines has some hiring statistics for 2019:

1 Jan - 1 Aug
593 new hires
318 are flows from Envoy, PSA, Piedmont
275 are off the street of which
- 242 are military trained pilots
- 33 non-military/non flow.

Very small chance of getting hired at AA as a non-military/non-flow pilot.

[bafanguy]

Just for grins & giggles, here's the scoop on FAA SIC-only type ratings in the Part 121 world:

C. Part 121 Exclusion. On July 15, 2013, the FAA issued a final rule (78 FR 42323) requiring an SIC (first officer) in domestic, flag, and supplemental operations to hold an ATP Certificate and airplane type rating for the aircraft to be flown. Part 121 requires an aircraft type rating not limited to SIC privileges for all crewmembers exercising SIC privileges (refer to part 121, § 121.436). Since an SIC type rating cannot be used in part 121 operations, a revision to § 61.55(e) removed the ability for a pilot to receive a pilot type rating limited to SIC privileges based on completion of a part 121 air carrier training program.

fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=8900.1,Vol.5,Ch2,Sec22

[amonghtus]

Hey guys.
I have recently communicated with a pilot training center in US which specializes in converting foreign licenses. He told me that if your foreign license does not include a specification like PIC/SIC/COP etc. your pilot flying hours as first officer are considered as PIC and I am good to go for license conversion. Thanks to everyone for your comments and insight.

[Global Aviator]

Hey guys.
I have recently communicated with a pilot training center in US which specializes in converting foreign licenses. He told me that if your foreign license does not include a specification like PIC/SIC/COP etc. your pilot flying hours as first officer are considered as PIC and I am good to go for license conversion. Thanks to everyone for your comments and insight.
:E

I find this advice hard to believe, I would be verifying with the FAA.

[pilotchute]

amonghtus,

I can tell that isnt true. Myself and 4 other people converted our licences to FAA at the same time. Our log books were scrutinized heavily and unless you were the PIC listed on the flight plan or acting in command under supervision for the pupose of upgrade training it isnt PIC.

[bafanguy]

I find this advice hard to believe, I would be verifying with the FAA.

I sure don't understand Part 61 at the functional level where it gets applied to an individual. I never had to mess with it as that's the job of the training department. But I got curious when amonghtus and IllinoisDavidson began asking about it. So I noodled around and found the following. Is it an explanation ? No idea...I'm just playing jailhouse lawyer:

If FAA recognizes foreign flight time as logable in Part 61:

(j)Aircraft requirements for logging flight time. For a person to log flight time, the time must be acquired in an aircraft that is identified as an aircraft under § 61.5(b), and is -

(1) An aircraft of U.S. registry with either a standard or special airworthiness certificate;


(2) An aircraft of foreign registry with an airworthiness certificate that is approved by the aviation authority of a foreign country that is a Member State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation Organization;

...AND...

c)Logging of pilot time. The pilot time described in this section may be used to:

(1) Apply for a certificate or rating issued under this part or a privilege authorized under this part; or(2) Satisfy the recent flight experience requirements of this part.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.51

Why can't foreign PICUS flight time be applied toward the 250 hour PIC requirement for an FAA ATP ?



Could his EASA PICUS fill that FAA square ?:

(5) 250 hours of flight time in an airplane as a pilot in command, or when serving as a required second in command flightcrew member performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command, or any combination thereof, which includes at least—
(i) 100 hours of cross-country flight time; and
(ii) 25 hours of night flight time.

§61.159 Aeronautical experience: Airplane category rating. Part 61.159(a)(5)

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp&r=PART&n=14y2.0.1.1.2 (https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp&r=PART&n=14y2.0.1.1.2)

[rudestuff]

I can't believe this has gone on so long - the FAA allow a pilot to "log" PIC any time they are sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which they are rated. PICUS on an EASA aircraft obviously satisfies that.

The only grey area is if the EASA type rating has a "no pic" endorsement, which could be construed as you can't log PIC. A bit of logical reasoning will conclude that's bollocks: it simply means you can't sit on the left. EASA specifically allow you to log PICUS from the right seat to get the hours for an ATPL so that you CAN sit on the left - which is exactly what the issue is here.

[bafanguy]

PICUS on an EASA aircraft obviously satisfies that.

The only grey area is if the EASA type rating has a "no pic" endorsement, which could be construed as you can't log PIC. A bit of logical reasoning will conclude...

I would assume his EASA PICUS does satisfy the FAA 250 hour PIC requirement (and have tacitly assumed that from the get-go) but that's only an amateur assumption on my part. So, I asked questions in lieu of making definitive statements. And I can tell you "A bit of logical reasoning..." doesn't always work with the FAA and their FARs. That's why there are countless pages of legal interpretations put out by the Chief Counsel of the FAA in DC; logical reasoning failed to actually answer the question.

amonghtus has a big decision to make: whether to cut bait from where he is and come over here assuming he'll proceed to an FAA ATPL with few snags and no deal breakers.

Hope it all goes as it appears it should. :ok:

[pilotchute]

The other option is contact a sim centre (Pan Am, Flight Safety etc) and tell them your interested in doing an ICAO to FAA license conversion type rating and check ride.

They will ask to see your flight hours breakdown to decide if your eligible. If your hours satisfy the regs to take the ATP check ride then you are ok.

[raysalmon]

I can't believe this has gone on so long - the FAA allow a pilot to "log" PIC any time they are sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which they are rated. PICUS on an EASA aircraft obviously satisfies that.

The only grey area is if the EASA type rating has a "no pic" endorsement, which could be construed as you can't log PIC. A bit of logical reasoning will conclude that's bollocks: it simply means you can't sit on the left. EASA specifically allow you to log PICUS from the right seat to get the hours for an ATPL so that you CAN sit on the left - which is exactly what the issue is here.

Actually, it's not a grey area. FAA Interpretation to Glenn Counsil dated Apr 13, 2012 specifically outlines that a type rating limited to SIC privileges only is not a "rating" for the purposes of 61.51(e)(1). Thus the only avenue for logging time when the SIC does not hold a full PIC type rating is under 61.159(a)(5) for the purposes of earning an ATP.

The FAA has answered all the questions in the past regarding the "performing the duties of PIC while under the supervision..." in their now discontinued FAQ. The SIC who is "performing the duties of PIC" does not have to be in the left seat, nor does he have to be undergoing any kind of PIC training at the time. He does not have to have a PIC type rating under this provision. The FAA does recommend that the actual PIC sign the logbook of the SIC performing the duties of PIC, but this particular provision does not require such an endorsement. He DOES have to be serving as a REQUIRED second-in-command in order to qualify under this provision.

Mine is a little more than an amateur opinion. I am a former airline Aircrew Program Designee (examiner) responsible for scouring through logbooks and making sure airline pilot trainees met the requirements of the FARs before conducting an ATP/Type Rating check ride and (if all went well!) issuing them a certificate. While we did not see a lot of candidates with foreign experience, there were a few.

[raysalmon]

:E

I find this advice hard to believe, I would be verifying with the FAA.


Short of requesting a formal letter of interpretation from the Chief Counsel's office, you would be hard pressed to find anyone at a publicly-accessible FAA office (FSDO) with reliable enough information to give an accurate answer. His best bet is the training facility who will issue his ATP/type rating as they employ the designee that will evaluate his qualifications.

[IllinoisDavidson]

I just wanted to add to this already long conversation about my husband's flight hours. The 'pilot training center' that amonghtus contacted is an accredited 'certificate holder' for Part 61. He got the information for this training center from FAA sources. He is in direct contact with the head of the training center. This person specializes in converting foreign licenses according to FAA protocol. According to him, because my husband's license does not have some kind of SIC limitation on it, when he is pilot flying (PICUS) those hours can be counted as PIC.

Perhaps we are getting wrong information here, but just like raysalmon stated, it seems like answers even from the regulators themselves can be a mixed bag. It may be too much to ask for true clarification from a government agency. Ha!

Not that this makes a big difference, but my husband just received his verification letter from the FAA, for his foreign license. So I guess we are going to keep moving forward with this process. Thanks to everyone for your insight and detailed information.

[pilotchute]

A friend of mine had to go back home for an instrument proficiency check after the check airman doing his ATP check ride decided that just having "instrument rating" written on his certificate wasn't enough. He had to be instrument current. There didn't appear to be anything in the regs stipulating this it was just his interpretation.


​​​​​​

[bafanguy]

Not that this makes a big difference, but my husband just received his verification letter from the FAA, for his foreign license. So I guess we are going to keep moving forward with this process.

Best wishes to your husband in his decision...and you too, of course ! :ok:

[misd-agin]

“(1). Thus the only avenue for logging time when the SIC does not hold a full PIC type rating is under 61.159(a)(5) for the purposes of earning an ATP.”

Thats my recall from decades ago. SIC as PM counts towards the requirements for your ATP.

On your resume it is NOT PIC time. The interview might go down hill, rapidly, if they found out your using SIC time to meet any PIC requirements they have.

Keep a separate entry for SIC/PF time.

[flyby71]

All USA legacies require a minimum of a bachelor degree besides unrestricted ATP and at least 5000 TT. I know this for a fact because i fly for one of them.

[havick]

All USA legacies require a minimum of a bachelor degree besides unrestricted ATP and at least 5000 TT. I know this for a fact because i fly for one of them.

except AA.

[Sunrig]

All USA legacies require a minimum of a bachelor degree besides unrestricted ATP and at least 5000 TT. I know this for a fact because i fly for one of them.

Let me add, that only Delta and FedEx require a bachelors degree. For the rest of the big six it’s only preferred. But in reality you won’t get a call if you don’t have a degree.

[flyby71]

very true, bachelor degree not required but preferred, just like the minimum hours flown.
i haven't flown with any fo without a 4 year degree nor minimum hours required on their websites.

[misd-agin]

except AA.

UA's hired civilians pilots with less than 2500 TT. DL has hired civilian pilots with barely more than 2,000 hrs TT.

So there's no '5,0000 TT' requirement. But frequently the person hired is someone 'connected' if they have less than 3000 hrs TT.

The typical new hire is more like 5,000+ hrs TT and 1,000 hrs (1,300+?) PIC (TPIC?).

[flyby71]

United CPP (http://www.airwis.com/united_cpp.html)

[zondaracer]

All USA legacies require a minimum of a bachelor degree besides unrestricted ATP and at least 5000 TT. I know this for a fact because i fly for one of them.

I got hired at a legacy with less than 5000TT. There were also several flow throughs in my class without bachelor degrees. Having said that; no bachelor degree makes it next to impossible to get hired unless you have a flow program.

[IllinoisDavidson]

To Sunrig, flyby71, and zondaracer, thank you all for this information. My husband amonghtus does have a 4-year degree. But, of course, it is a foreign degree. We are actually right now looking into the process for accrediting his foreign degree. So far, all I can find for certainty is that US carriers accept degree accreditation from companies which are members of the NACES credential evaluation organization. However, the directory list is quite long and research into each of the companies results in a mix of confusing and contradictory customer reviews. Considering you all mentioned degrees in this thread, perhaps, do you know specifically of which accreditation companies the majors would accept (or prefer)?

Also Misd-agin, concerning your comment, yes, my husband has started keeping two logbooks (his original paper copy and an electronic one). So now, during his interviews, he can show the US carriers his flying hours according to FAA regulation and according to his company's standards. To avoid any miscommunication or misrepresentation of his flying hours.

[Flys4Funs]

I notice that some legacy carriers seem to be dropping the PIC requirements in their stipulated minimums. Some now specify SIC and 1,000 TT. Is this a a sign of pilot shortage impacting available qualified candidates? Not sure what the actual recruitment minimums are in practice but would be interested to hear.

I’m starting my training soon on the EASA route, with a jet job (A320) lined up when I qualify in Europe. I also have a greencard and was thinking about coming back to the US after I get the 1,500 hours TT, but wondered what routes would be open to me. Anybody know what level of hours LCC’s like Jetblue, Southwest, Frontier are after?

Cheers

[bafanguy]

I notice that some legacy carriers seem to be dropping the PIC requirements in their stipulated minimums. Some now specify SIC and 1,000 TT. Is this a a sign of pilot shortage impacting available qualified candidates? Not sure what the actual recruitment minimums are in practice but would be interested to hear.
...wondered what routes would be open to me. Anybody know what level of hours LCC’s like Jetblue, Southwest, Frontier are after?

F4F,

Those are good and logical questions. Problem is, little reliable data is available to answer them and some answers would require clairvoyance. If carriers are posting actual quals of those they hire, I haven't seen them. Perhaps someone with access to ALPA data might be able to locate this info. And then, by the time you finish school and become competitive, it all may have changed.

As for your potential future return to the US with 1,500 hours to fly at the airline level, your best planning parameter would be to think in terms of a regional.

The data we do have is mandatory retirements for many of the US carriers (see Airline Pilot Central for airline profiles). Attrition out the top of the food chain will drive hiring demand (not factoring in a recession or other major negative event which could slow or even stop hiring...growth is too much of a wild card to call). The data I can lay my hands on quickly says that for AA and DL, as examples, the retirement bell curve peaks somewhere around 2024/2025(+/-) with impressive numbers after that but still the downside of the curve.

As for "legacy carriers" dropping requirements, not too sure about that; min requirements aren't reflective of who actually gets hired. FARs here require an ATPL for F/Os in Part 121 ops so r-ATPL min flight times would be required. While ex-mil can get a r-ATPL at 750 hours, I'd opine that legacy carriers aren't hiring them or any applicants at min FAR flight times. The competition is just too fierce for min time to be competitive. There may be some alterations such as dropping the turbine PIC time requirement for example but that doesn't make the competition less intense in terms of total experience.

I'll venture a guess that the LCCs are similar with essentially equal competitive factors at work. Some of these LCCs are morphing into career-destination spots. No airlines at the legacy/LCC/ULCC levels are hard up for qualified applicants.

I wish I could answer your questions with some confidence in the accuracy of the answers but I can't. Other opinions will follow.

Hang in there and stay tuned.

[Flys4Funs]

Thanks for the detailed response Bafanguy. You are right, it is a bit of a shot in the dark to try and predict how recruitment will be in a few years time either side of the Atlantic. It will certainly be interesting to watch it unfold....... hopefully positively.....

The decision I’m ultimately looking at with 1,500 hours TT with a EASA LCC is to stay Euro side and either progress on to left seat or; join a flag carrier here (which seems a well trodden path from my future employer - even for those with minimal TT and a frozen ATPL); or take a punt in the US market probably regional maybe LCC.

I’d rather be based in the US and the US legacy carriers to me seem to be pretty much top of the tree, but getting there seems to be a something of a crap shoot.......Will see I guess....

[bafanguy]

The decision I’m ultimately looking at with 1,500 hours TT with a EASA LCC is to stay Euro side...or take a punt in the US market probably regional maybe LCC.

...the US legacy carriers to me seem to be pretty much top of the tree, but getting there seems to be a something of a crap shoot.......Will see I guess....

F4F,

You're in an enviable position with the ability to live and work either side of the Atlantic. Options are precious.

And, yes, it's a crap shoot getting to the top of that tree. Some really good people get left behind for silly reasons.

[Sunrig]

@ Flys4Funs
I think to get hired at a Legacy today, you should have around 5-6000 hours TT with a preferred 1000 hours TPIC and of course a 4-year degree with a clean trainings background. Additional experience like being a check airman, sim instructor or being a chief pilot helps a lot to get on top of the application stack. They also like to see some volunteer/ community work. For the LCC you should be able to get a call around 3000 hours total time. This reflects the hiring right now, nobody knows what it looks like in a couple of years. If your goal is really to fly in the US I don’t understand why you start the EASA training? Why not get all your FAA licenses right away? That would not also save you all the conversion costs from EASA to FAA but also give you valuable pt 121 experience in the US. If you apply with 1500 hours from Europe no HR person is going to know what kind of background/training quality you come from. They will also choose-prefer someone from a Regional where they know what kind of standard they can expect. In a nutshell- I think you would be progressing faster if you get all your training and required experience in the US.

[Flys4Funs]

Thanks for the insights Sunrig very helpful. Those hours seem pretty reasonable, especially the LCC entry point. As Bafana mentioned I would certainly see the likes of JB/SW as career destination airlines.

Your question is a fair one and we each have our own circumstances, and both routes certainly have their pros and cons.

For me personally I managed to get onto an airline scheme with a reputable LCC in Europe that will guarantee me a job in the RHS of a 320 in 18 months time (assuming I pass the course with no issues). So in four years time I hope to have around 2000 hrs TT plus my original 250 training hours.

If I was younger I probably would have gone the US route, and tried to join one of the legacy feeder regional airlines. But given this is my second career, time is of the essence, and the way I looked at it in four years time if I trained in the US I’d have completed my training in about 10 months then instructed for the next 3 years to build the required 1,500 hours. Then I would have to hope that regional airlines are still in a good position to start building some 121/TT.

Going the European route in four years time I could convert to FAA (which seems more straightforward than converting the other way - albeit still painful and expensive) and if it was still a good option at that point try and get a job in a regional or LCC stateside.

If things have changed or I don’t get any luck in the US then I would not be far off a command in the Euro LCC.

Not sure there was a right answer - but that’s my thought process and where I’ve ended up.

[misd-agin]

Thanks for the insights Sunrig very helpful. Those hours seem pretty reasonable, especially the LCC entry point. As Bafana mentioned I would certainly see the likes of JB/SW as career destination airlines.

Your question is a fair one and we each have our own circumstances, and both routes certainly have their pros and cons.

For me personally I managed to get onto an airline scheme with a reputable LCC in Europe that will guarantee me a job in the RHS of a 320 in 18 months time (assuming I pass the course with no issues). So in four years time I hope to have around 2000 hrs TT plus my original 250 training hours.

If I was younger I probably would have gone the US route, and tried to join one of the legacy feeder regional airlines. But given this is my second career, time is of the essence, and the way I looked at it in four years time if I trained in the US I’d have completed my training in about 10 months then instructed for the next 3 years to build the required 1,500 hours. Then I would have to hope that regional airlines are still in a good position to start building some 121/TT.

Going the European route in four years time I could convert to FAA (which seems more straightforward than converting the other way - albeit still painful and expensive) and if it was still a good option at that point try and get a job in a regional or LCC stateside.

If things have changed or I don’t get any luck in the US then I would not be far off a command in the Euro LCC.

Not sure there was a right answer - but that’s my thought process and where I’ve ended up.

In the U.S. the most common path is 10-12 months of training, 1.5 years CFI and move to a regional with 1,500 hrs TT.

The majors have stated in the last they really like 1,000 hrs of 121 Captain experience. There’s always exceptions but people should try to get their resumes to agree with the majority of the new hires vs choosing a path few get hired from.

The path to getting 1,000 hrs Part 121 TPIC starts with upgrading to Captain about 2-3 years after starting at a regional. TT would be in the 3-4,000 range. Add in 1,000 hrs 121 TPIC in the next 1.5-2 years and it’s a 7-9(?) year path. 4-5,000 TT and 1,000 hrs Part 121 TPIC.

Check out airline pilot central.com. It’s specifically focused on U.S. airlines.

US legacies have required an avg of 4-6,000 in TT in recent years.

[Cheftheo]

Hey guys and gals! Faced with the same dilemma that the original post author faced back in '19. FO with 3000+ turbine hours looking to hopefully get into the majors. 40 years old and family of 4 restricts me a bit when it comes to salary, otherwise I wouldnt mind doing a few years with regionals/LCC until my time comes. Any direction/advice is most appreciated.