Licensing: can you have your cake and eat it? FAA/EASA

[Minotaur12]

Good afternoon all,
I am currently in flight training in the USA and have been so for around 6 months now. I am a British national, working towards an EASA airline transport pilots licence on an integrated course and have around 6 months to go now till completion. I have absolutely fallen in love with the USA though and I'm thinking I'd like to live out here permanently but I don't want to lose my EASA licence as I believe its a licence that will open many many doors whereas the FAA licence seems a little sequestered. So:

Is it possible to hold both ATPL licences simultaneously?
What does the conversion process look like?

I completed the 750hrs classroom time or whatever it was in 7 months and attained all 14 groundschool exams, so I believe that there would be a requirement to sit the FAA exams which I believe are nowhere near as in depth? would it be possible to come and just sit the exams as a distance learner? after that do you need to do FAA flight training or could I just come and sit the check rides for the ME IR?
Im aware you need 1500hrs to get taken on by the airlines over here in the states but I can get 1500hrs turbine time back in Europe.

Thanks to anyone who's taken the time to read and respond to this.

[JumpJumpJump]

Wow this will be moved quickly

[MarkerInbound]

Yes, it is possible to hold both an EASA license and a FAA certificate. There’s only one written test for the FAA ATP and most folks just do a few weeks of online studying and pass the test. There is no requirement for flight training for the ATP checkride unless it is also a type rating ride. Then o would have to complete a flight training course. There is also a requirement to complete an ATP Certificate Training Program before you take the ATP written exam. It’s a 40 hour class that includes 10 hours of simulator time. It’s designed to fill in the knowledge gap between a 1470 hr CFI and a 1550 hour regional jet co-pilot. It’s really redundant (to be polite) for someone who has flown in jets but that’s the requirement.

Yes, didn’t think where it’s posted.

[rudestuff]

Have you got a green card? You can't just go to the States and get a job... That said, at the moment someone with the right to live and work coming with a foreign licence and 1500tt would have their FAA conversion paid for in full by a regional airline.

[Minotaur12]

MarkerInbound thanks ever so much for taking the time to respond to this!!! any idea on schools which can handle this kind of request? and any idea how much it will cost? sounds like you could all in all probably complete the entire process of training within a couple of weeks or something and then it'll be just a matter of waiting around for the licence ...

As it stands I have no right to live and work here but Im pretty optimistic if I could persuade an airline to take me on I could be granted a green card, and whatsmore as Im fulfilling a student visa right now it would probably put me in good stead for getting a green card

[Minotaur12]

rude stuff - gees really?! I know I can't come across and just do that but in my school there are a lot of european CFI's and they got taken on here on the EASA training programme so I shouldn't think its so difficult provided you have a job to go to? my intention would be to come across with 1500tt in around 2 - 2.5 years time
I should think the FAA will admire an EASA licence as our standards are also v high - different philosophy with regards to training as we do much more theoretical training whereas you do more practical training but I get the impression that once you've got your 1500hrs, they don't really care about your training anymore

[rudestuff]

It's relatively easy to get an instructor job if you've got a J1 or whatever visa they use nowadays, as it generally counts as an internship. You could also get a visa to be an EASA flight instructor at an EASA school. It's very different to getting an airline job. At the moment only Australians can get a work visa for pilot jobs. As for FAA admiring EASA...

[paco]

"I should think the FAA will admire an EASA licence as our standards are also v high"

Actually, the FAA (and Canadian) systems are superior. It amazes me how the Europeans look down on them.

[stilton]

MarkerInbound thanks ever so much for taking the time to respond to this!!! any idea on schools which can handle this kind of request? and any idea how much it will cost? sounds like you could all in all probably complete the entire process of training within a couple of weeks or something and then it'll be just a matter of waiting around for the licence ...

As it stands I have no right to live and work here but Im pretty optimistic if I could persuade an airline to take me on I could be granted a green card, and whatsmore as Im fulfilling a student visa right now it would probably put me in good stead for getting a green card


Thats simply not the way it works, you have to be preferably a US Citizen or at a minimum a green card holder to be hired by any US based airline, they’re not going to assist you in that regard. Plenty of ‘home grown’ applicants still



Not sure why you think having held a student visa gives you an advantage in attaining a green card either, one has nothing to do with the other

[custardpsc]

You can get the training a lot easier than you could get the right to work in the usa. You can sit the FAA writtens in a few days. The path to an FAA ATPL starts with either a private certificate or a 61.75 private certificate if you already have an easa ppl. You will need additional specific training requirements. But it's very do-able. Right now the big advantage is that you have a visa so you aren't forced to use a school that will issue a visa, which opens your options up a lot. Find a local FAA instructor and fly with them, plus study the 14CFR part 61 requirements for pilot certification which will tell you in detail what you will have to do to get a CPL and IR done. Then hour build for atpl. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-61

[NEDude]

"I should think the FAA will admire an EASA licence as our standards are also v high"

Actually, the FAA (and Canadian) systems are superior. It amazes me how the Europeans look down on them.

Agreed, and I have all three - FAA, Canadian, EASA.

The data does not back up the idea that the EASA system is superior either, as the FAA airlines do have a better safety rate than their European counterparts. FAA airlines have an 11 year (2008 - 2018) average accident rate of 2.579 per million departures, whereas EASA airlines are showing a 3.039 rate over the same time frame (source - ICAO accident statistics: commercial operations, aircraft weight greater than 5.7 tons). EASA beat the FAA only in the year 2017 over the 11 year time frame.

I like many aspects of the EASA system, but I do think many EASA pilots get bogged down in the minute details instead of focusing on the big picture first, and I think that is caused by the foundations laid during the training.

[Minotaur12]

correct but I know from previous experience with a different visa authority, if you have successfully fulfilled the obligations of a visa before and didn't bifurcate from them, then it builds a reputation for yourself that the authorities look more favourably upon.

[Minotaur12]

thanks ever so much custardpsc

[Minotaur12]

"I should think the FAA will admire an EASA licence as our standards are also v high"

Actually, the FAA (and Canadian) systems are superior. It amazes me how the Europeans look down on them.

never once did I ever insinuate that i look down upon FAA licences - I merely said that our standards very high which they are ... doesn't mean to say FAA standards are any less its just a different philosophy regarding the training

[Minotaur12]

NEDude - just to re-iterate, I never once said that I thought the EASA licence was superior but looking at the theoretical knowledge requirements, they're a million miles apart whereas the FAA licence is more practically based. Its interesting you noted that you think this is the cause of the statistics but what are the statistics based on? is it actually EASA airlines or on European airports? I should suspect due to our geographic location, if its based on airport incidents then it could be influenced by different airlines from afar flying in!
So how come youve ended up with all three licences? is there any restriction for holding multiple licences?

[paco]

"never once did I ever insinuate that i look down upon FAA licences - I merely said that our standards very high which they are ... doesn't mean to say FAA standards are any less its just a different philosophy regarding the training"

I said Europeans. And the European standards are not high. Transport Canada's standardisation is light years ahead.

[Intrance]

Funny how a thread involving the different aviation authorities always seems to end up in people arguing about which is best.

As for the green card issue, here’s a fun/interesting take on how complicated, weird and sometimes broken the US system for assigning those cards can be:

https://youtu.be/tXqnRMU1fTs

[NEDude]

NEDude - just to re-iterate, I never once said that I thought the EASA licence was superior but looking at the theoretical knowledge requirements, they're a million miles apart whereas the FAA licence is more practically based. Its interesting you noted that you think this is the cause of the statistics but what are the statistics based on? is it actually EASA airlines or on European airports? I should suspect due to our geographic location, if its based on airport incidents then it could be influenced by different airlines from afar flying in!
So how come youve ended up with all three licences? is there any restriction for holding multiple licences?

The accident statistics come from ICAO. They are the accident rates involving commercial operators, based on area of regulatory authority, with aircraft weighing greater than 5.7 tons. So for EASA, it does not count a Canadian airline operating into a European airport, but it will count a European operator operating into a Canadian airport. I do not necessarily know that there is a cause and effect relationship with the type of training and the accident rates, but I don't know of any other way of measuring the training success other than looking at the end results, in this case which areas have safer operations. If you can think of a better way, feel free to advise.

Regarding the restrictions, the only restriction is that within EASA, you are only permitted to have one EASA license. You cannot hold an EASA license from Ireland and one from Sweden, only one at a time. But as far as different regulatory authorities, there are no restrictions. I actually have a Chinese ATPL as well, so I actually have four different licenses in total. But none of them come from overlapping jurisdictions or regulatory authorities so there are no restrictions.

[Minotaur12]

thank you NEDude

[Minotaur12]

Funny how a thread involving the different aviation authorities always seems to end up in people arguing about which is best.

As for the green card issue, here’s a fun/interesting take on how complicated, weird and sometimes broken the US system for assigning those cards can be:

https://youtu.be/tXqnRMU1fTs

intrance - yeah my sentiments entirely!! especially as I never specifically said that I thought an EASA was better - I merely said they have high standards. But anyway - I am not getting into 'willy waving' over who has the better licence as Ive come on a fact finding mission.

But thanks for that video ... just goes to show how brutal of a journey its gonna be :-( anyway ... anything is possible if you put your mind to it!

[paco]

That's the point - they do not have high standards.....

[bulldog89]

That's the point - they do not have high standards.....

Please explain why.

[paco]

Don't get me started, but here goes.... :)

They think they do, in that they make it more difficult to get a licence, and people confuse that with higher standards. Taking Canada and the US as examples, they are more interested in ensuring that you are safe rather than stopping you.

Probably around 30% of the knowledge required to get your EASA licence is completely useless - and I speak as one with an ATP in helicopters and aeroplanes and has got my boots muddy from bush flying to IFR, and who has been on the RMT 595 committee for revising the syllabuses (who cares how many atomic clocks a satellite has?) Having established a fairly poor set of Learning Objectives, they proceed to compound things by creating questions that are deliberately long and difficult to read instead of being short, snappy and to the point. Apparently, this is because they don't think the question writers produce value for money if they do short ones. The point is, that the only reference for the schools to teach the subject properly is in the question which they are not allowed to see. It is a fact that you cannot pass the exams without a nod to the various question databases - you will not pass on knowledge alone. One of our first students, 11 years ago, was both a CFII and a consultant heart surgeon and he failed the lot. We had another from the US Navy who had a high level math degree and found that all of the answers in many Nav questions were wrong. etc. etc. The original idea was to have the exams at college level, but there is no way the procedures for these exams fit those criteria - I do wonder about all those "aviation degrees" that involve a pilot licence. This will apparently change in the new courses due in August 2020, so we will see.

You also require a PPL to start modular training - the FAA randomly inspect schools and have your training in your logbook, I'm told - nothing like that happens in Europe. Each country has their own methods and, in the UK at least, the schools administer the exams. That is shortly to change, however as they are all going on to the same system as the professional ones.

OK, so now you have struggled through your exams and are ready for your check ride. Every one is different - there is hardly any standardisation, aside from the checklist of things to be covered, and they don't even do confined areas with helicopters any more. Anywhere you go in Canada, you will get the same check ride - not so in Europe.

Your exposure to the examiner in Europe is probably around 2.5 hours, and it is almost guaranteed that they will have hardly any theoretical knowledge themselves. You will be given 20 minutes or so to prepare the flight, do it, debrief, and that's it. In Canada and the US, you will not even go flying for 4 hours while you are given a thorough grilling, so the check ride will last almost the whole day. And believe me, the check airmen know their TK.

Does that answer your question?

[bulldog89]

Don't get me started, but here goes.... :)

They think they do, in that they make it more difficult to get a licence, and people confuse that with higher standards. Taking Canada and the US as examples, they are more interested in ensuring that you are safe rather than stopping you.

Probably around 30% of the knowledge required to get your EASA licence is completely useless - and I speak as one with an ATP in helicopters and aeroplanes and has got my boots muddy from bush flying to IFR, and who has been on the RMT 595 committee for revising the syllabuses (who cares how many atomic clocks a satellite has?) Having established a fairly poor set of Learning Objectives, they proceed to compound things by creating questions that are deliberately long and difficult to read instead of being short, snappy and to the point. Apparently, this is because they don't think the question writers produce value for money if they do short ones. The point is, that the only reference for the schools to teach the subject properly is in the question which they are not allowed to see. It is a fact that you cannot pass the exams without a nod to the various question databases - you will not pass on knowledge alone. One of our first students, 11 years ago, was both a CFII and a consultant heart surgeon and he failed the lot. We had another from the US Navy who had a high level math degree and found that all of the answers in many Nav questions were wrong. etc. etc. The original idea was to have the exams at college level, but there is no way the procedures for these exams fit those criteria - I do wonder about all those "aviation degrees" that involve a pilot licence. This will apparently change in the new courses due in August 2020, so we will see.

You also require a PPL to start modular training - the FAA randomly inspect schools and have your training in your logbook, I'm told - nothing like that happens in Europe. Each country has their own methods and, in the UK at least, the schools administer the exams. That is shortly to change, however as they are all going on to the same system as the professional ones.

OK, so now you have struggled through your exams and are ready for your check ride. Every one is different - there is hardly any standardisation, aside from the checklist of things to be covered, and they don't even do confined areas with helicopters any more. Anywhere you go in Canada, you will get the same check ride - not so in Europe.

Your exposure to the examiner in Europe is probably around 2.5 hours, and it is almost guaranteed that they will have hardly any theoretical knowledge themselves. You will be given 20 minutes or so to prepare the flight, do it, debrief, and that's it. In Canada and the US, you will not even go flying for 4 hours while you are given a thorough grilling, so the check ride will last almost the whole day. And believe me, the check airmen know their TK.

Does that answer your question?

It does, but it doesn't reflect my experience in the EASA environment so far, except for the poor ATPL syllabus: I think 3 questions out of 4 are totally useless to a pilot, and a lot of fundamental concepts are being lost in a sea of uselessness.
I also agree that it's impossible to pass an ATPL subject without practicing on some kind of exam bank.

I won't even talk about "aviation degrees" as having a "real" engineering degree I have some strong opinions about them, and yes, a lot of calculations are either wrong or make assumptions which are not specified in the question...that's why you need at least one question bank.

BUT about the practical training I have to totally disagree with you.
Of course I can speak only for my home country, but even the PPL is standardized, so you get the same training in every Italian FTO. Of course, THE QUALITY of instructors varies a lot. I went to a school with really experienced instructors and a lot of both ex and current military pilots. I'm totally confident in saying that my training was top notch, and I'm sure there are a lot of small schools in Europe just like mine. After that I flew both in Spain and in the US, and on both check rides the instructor said I had to thank my previous instructors because it was obvious I had a really high standard training.
So the quality training is there if you want it, and after quality training came a "quality" examination. It was just the standardized exam prescribed by ENAC, with standard grading...and even if I had only a 2 hours interrogation on the ground, it continued for the full length of the flight (2.5 hours). Believe me, I would have preferred 4 hours on the ground.
This was for the PPL. CPL/IR takes 6 hours between ground and air.
The examiner was a current airline captain.

So I think the problem lies elsewhere, specifically in the fact that there is no "EASA license", but a lot of national licenses following MINIMUM EASA standards. So there is no consistency in the quality of the training across the EU, and better training doesn't imply better job offers. Airlines historically recruiting from my school are Ryanair and Air Dolomiti.
Airlines like easyJet, which is probably the best company for a low hour right now only get graduates from the "big three" where instructors, especially for the initial basic training, are ex-students waiting for their place with a partner airline.
So more money implies better jobs but not better training, and maybe this is the wrong aspect of EASA training, but it's more due to airlines hiring practices rather than EASA making it happen.

[paco]

I take your points, but EASA is supposed to be the equivalent of the FAA for Europe. Of course, there are schools that do it right, but that doesn't come from the legislators.

[NEDude]

Don't get me started, but here goes.... :)

They think they do, in that they make it more difficult to get a licence, and people confuse that with higher standards. Taking Canada and the US as examples, they are more interested in ensuring that you are safe rather than stopping you.

Probably around 30% of the knowledge required to get your EASA licence is completely useless - and I speak as one with an ATP in helicopters and aeroplanes and has got my boots muddy from bush flying to IFR, and who has been on the RMT 595 committee for revising the syllabuses (who cares how many atomic clocks a satellite has?) Having established a fairly poor set of Learning Objectives, they proceed to compound things by creating questions that are deliberately long and difficult to read instead of being short, snappy and to the point. Apparently, this is because they don't think the question writers produce value for money if they do short ones. The point is, that the only reference for the schools to teach the subject properly is in the question which they are not allowed to see. It is a fact that you cannot pass the exams without a nod to the various question databases - you will not pass on knowledge alone. One of our first students, 11 years ago, was both a CFII and a consultant heart surgeon and he failed the lot. We had another from the US Navy who had a high level math degree and found that all of the answers in many Nav questions were wrong. etc. etc. The original idea was to have the exams at college level, but there is no way the procedures for these exams fit those criteria - I do wonder about all those "aviation degrees" that involve a pilot licence. This will apparently change in the new courses due in August 2020, so we will see.

You also require a PPL to start modular training - the FAA randomly inspect schools and have your training in your logbook, I'm told - nothing like that happens in Europe. Each country has their own methods and, in the UK at least, the schools administer the exams. That is shortly to change, however as they are all going on to the same system as the professional ones.

OK, so now you have struggled through your exams and are ready for your check ride. Every one is different - there is hardly any standardisation, aside from the checklist of things to be covered, and they don't even do confined areas with helicopters any more. Anywhere you go in Canada, you will get the same check ride - not so in Europe.

Your exposure to the examiner in Europe is probably around 2.5 hours, and it is almost guaranteed that they will have hardly any theoretical knowledge themselves. You will be given 20 minutes or so to prepare the flight, do it, debrief, and that's it. In Canada and the US, you will not even go flying for 4 hours while you are given a thorough grilling, so the check ride will last almost the whole day. And believe me, the check airmen know their TK.

Does that answer your question?

I would say probably 60% to 70% of the stuff on the EASA theory exams is useless. I had been flying professionally for over 20 years, and had been an A320 captain and check airman (TRI/TRE) for seven years when I got to the EASA ATPL theory exams. While a lot of it was interesting, gee wiz type of stuff, most of it was completely useless in the real world of modern airline flying, and a most of it I had never seen prior to, and have not seen since the EASA theory exams.

[C-141Starlifter]

NEDude - just to re-iterate, I never once said that I thought the EASA licence was superior but looking at the theoretical knowledge requirements, they're a million miles apart whereas the FAA licence is more practically based. Its interesting you noted that you think this is the cause of the statistics but what are the statistics based on? is it actually EASA airlines or on European airports? I should suspect due to our geographic location, if its based on airport incidents then it could be influenced by different airlines from afar flying in!
So how come youve ended up with all three licences? is there any restriction for holding multiple licences?

no restriction for holding multiple licenses...i hold both an EASA ATPL w/737 type and FAA ATP w/737 type...

[MADMAX190]

Hi Minotaur,
To answer your original question.
No, no restrictions to hold multiple licenses.
However, different licenses have different recency requirements. For example; On some, type ratings expire, on others, They don't.

​​​​​​I can't stress this enough. Get your EASA licence first, then convert to FAA. No matter how much you love the states, you never know what life might hold and when you may want to work in Europe. EASA is fairly easy to convert to all other licenses, including FAA.

Conversion process.
EASA (or any ICAO) > FAA
Main points:
​​​​​​1. Meet ATP hour requirements
2. Get FAA first class medical
3. Do TSA fingerprinting
4. Sit ATP CTP
5. Pass ATP written (recommend using Sheppard air software)
6. Pass ATP flight test - this can be done on a light twin such as a baron or Seneca, but for best value, get yourself an A320 or 737 rating and do that at the same time.

Alternative to the above. Get yourself hired by a regional and they'll pay for (most of) the above.
That will be easier said that done without a green card. Sorry to say that no regional here is going to sponsor you at the moment. But you never know, they hire Aussies on E3 visas now, so maybe in the future, they'll do H1Bs too.
You could also try the green card lottery, or meet a nice American and get hitched.

Canada is also an option, they have a skilled migration scheme, and pilot is on the shortage list. If you have a degree, you may qualify.

Good luck. Feel free to PM me if you want any further info on conversion.

=============================

Until you have a posting history you don't have access to private messaging and adding urls.

[paco]

I believe also there's a fast track scheme for Canada if you speak French.

[bulldog89]

I believe also there's a fast track scheme for Canada if you speak French.

I think it's the Quebec fast track or something like that. Do you confirm there are airlines willing to sponsor a visa to ATP license holders?
Last time I've checked this was not the case, but it was more than a year ago.

[MADMAX190]

I think it's the Quebec fast track or something like that. Do you confirm there are airlines willing to sponsor a visa to ATP license holders?
Last time I've checked this was not the case, but it was more than a year ago.
In Canada? No, as far as I know, none are sponsoring...however, their migration system is based on points. Last time I looked it was something like 70 points to qualify, For example: 15 points for a job offer (it's not mandatory if you qualify via other catagories), 10 points for fluent English/French, 5 points for upper intermediate level French/English (second language), 15 points for a degree, 10 points for 5 years work experience, 5 points for your spouses language skills etc etc etc etc. Those values aren't exact, it's a while since I've looked at it, but you get the Idea.

[selfin]

There's an abbreviated LMIA process for pilots in numerous administrative regions of Quebec (Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean, Capitale-Nationale, Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Montérégie, etc). See eg
https://www.canadavisa.com/quebec-regional-list-occupations-simplified-processing.html#gs.fh7a8v and list here (https://www.immigration-quebec.gouv.qc.ca/publications/fr/divers/LIS_region_Ete2019.pdf).

Database of flight training units here (https://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/2/cas-sac/ftaefveas.aspx?lang=eng). Canada and several European countries, among others, participate in a youth mobility scheme allowing admission with an open work permit for a year or in some cases two years. See IEC working holiday permit here (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/work/iec/eligibility.asp). See also Post Graduation Work Permit and in particular the information at the bottom of this webpage (https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/temporary-residents/study-permits/post-graduation-work-permit-program/institutions.html).

[NEDude]

Hi Minotaur,
To answer your original question.
No, no restrictions to hold multiple licenses.
However, different licenses have different recency requirements. For example; On some, type ratings expire, on others, They don't.

​​​​​​I can't stress this enough. Get your EASA licence first, then convert to FAA. No matter how much you love the states, you never know what life might hold and when you may want to work in Europe. EASA is fairly easy to convert to all other licenses, including FAA.

Conversion process.
EASA (or any ICAO) > FAA
Main points:
​​​​​​1. Meet ATP hour requirements
2. Get FAA first class medical
3. Do TSA fingerprinting
4. Sit ATP CTP
5. Pass ATP written (recommend using Sheppard air software)
6. Pass ATP flight test - this can be done on a light twin such as a baron or Seneca, but for best value, get yourself an A320 or 737 rating and do that at the same time.

Alternative to the above. Get yourself hired by a regional and they'll pay for (most of) the above.
That will be easier said that done without a green card. Sorry to say that no regional here is going to sponsor you at the moment. But you never know, they hire Aussies on E3 visas now, so maybe in the future, they'll do H1Bs too.
You could also try the green card lottery, or meet a nice American and get hitched.

Canada is also an option, they have a skilled migration scheme, and pilot is on the shortage list. If you have a degree, you may qualify.

Good luck. Feel free to PM me if you want any further info on conversion.

=============================

Until you have a posting history you don't have access to private messaging and adding urls.

Having gone the other way, FAA--->EASA, I agree with this whole heartedly. Get the EASA license first. It is much easier to convert to an FAA license after that.