Licence recognition

[JO17736]

What licence (FAA, UK CAA, EASA, ICAO) is the most recognised internationally? i.e. what licence will provide me with the most opportunities for work worldwide? I am aware that training in the US and obtaining a FAA is cheaper than training in the UK or Europe for an EASA licence.

If I were to obtain the FAA licence, would I be able to work in more places than if I had an EASA or ICAO licence and visa versa?

[RedDragonFlyer]

This isn't half a strange question.
The real one you need to think of is where you are from and where you have the right to work. That should determine what licence you get, not the perceived recognition or cost of getting one.

If you are a British citizen (Oxford), your best choice is to get a UK CAA licence. If you have the right to work in the US, say a green card, then getting an FAA licence would be a reasonable proposition (better job market - but you do have to get those 1500 hours). The tough choice to make is if you have the right to work in the UK and EU. My personal choice in that case would be to go EASA, but others probably have the opposite idea.

[Duchess_Driver]

Firstly, there is no such licence as an ICAO licence. ICAO set (or recommend) standards and recommended procedures/practices and as such an FAA, U.K. CAA and EASA licences are ICAO compliant - as are most other countries.

The two most widely acceptable licences are FAA and EASA but most countries will “validate” an ICAO compliant licence for use for a limited period and allow conversion with limited study/testing. That may change once the U.K. CAA re-establish a reputation within the industry (cough)!

So, as has been said, it more boils down to your nationality, where you can live and work, or where your spouse is from.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Avoid UK CAA at all costs. A licence from Zambia is worth more than one from the UK right now.

Go for EASA if you can live and work in the EU, or expect/intend to do so.

[rudestuff]

Don't listen to this nonsense. The most sensible licence to have is the one for the place where you have the right to live and work. If you're a UK citizen you need a UK CAA licence. If you have the right to live and work in Europe then you need an EASA licence. If you can do both then start with the EASA licence - the UK will recognise it and no doubt convert it in due course. (The EU won't reciprocate - spot the good guys!)

[FlyingStone]

UK had every right to remain an EASA member state after Brexit, but decided not to exercise that right.

[paco]

Not so sure about that - it would involve the European Court of Justice as I understand it.

[Central Scrutinizer]

If you have the right to live and work in Europe then you need an EASA licence. If you can do both then start with the EASA licence

You are agreeing with me that an EASA licence is superior to a UK licence.

If OP can't live and work in the EU, he better focus on solving that first rather than getting a UK licence which is useless at the moment.


the UK will recognise it and no doubt convert it in due course. (The EU won't reciprocate - spot the good guys!)

Well... who started this whole -completely avoidable- mess in the first place?

Come on...

[rudestuff]

You are agreeing with me that an EASA licence is superior to a UK licence.
No. I'm saying an appropriate licence is superior to an inappropriate licence. For example, in the US an FAA certificate is superior to EASA, in Canada a TC licence is superior to CASA etc... It's not rocket science.

[rudestuff]

...a UK licence which is useless at the moment.
A UK licence is perfectly useful if you work in the UK and/or fly G-Reg. By your definition FAA, TC, SA, CASA and NZCAA are all useless. It may be useless to you, but there's tens of millions of people for whom it is the perfect licence!

[awair]

FAA ATP is “good enough” for most of the world.

Many countries will either validate or convert ANY ICAO license, with minimum fuss. I think EASA is the exception.

Middle East will validate/convert after an Air Law exam, license issued after Type Training. Much of the Far East is the same. The UK will validate a license, and even reciprocate with EASA - even though the reverse is not true.

FAA & Transport Canada readily reciprocate (but you still need an ATP-CTP cour$e).

My recommendation would be for FAA, or EASA only if you have to live and work there. I haven't run the numbers recently, but still believe an FAA>EASA conversion would end up being more cost-effective, and more fun.

This is not 2019, and 300 hours will get you on to an A320!

Good luck.

[Central Scrutinizer]

It seems things will be getting easier for FAA to EASA licence conversion thanks to the recent Bilateral Agreement between both authorities. I think this is a route very worth exploring. Go to the USA and get an FAA licence, then come back to Europe and convert to EASA.

If doing so, I would recommend OP check very very carefully what the different flight logging rules are in each authority as there are some important differences. It might be best to record each flight with all the details required by BOTH FAA and EASA, keep an Excel spreadsheet to make things easier. Or two logbooks, one for each authority.

[Droste]

Many countries will either validate or convert ANY ICAO license, with minimum fuss. I think EASA is the exception.
I do not understand this sentence. You mean, EASA will not validate or convert any ICAO license. Is that correct?

Middle East will validate/convert after an Air Law exam, license issued after Type Training. Much of the Far East is the same. The UK will validate a license, and even reciprocate with EASA - even though the reverse is not true.
Do you mean, Middle East prefer EASA license?

[Climb150]

For those who aren't following, EASA will sometimes validate your ICAO/FAA licence if you meet a set of requirements. Don't ask me what they are I don't know. The EASA validation will only be for 12 months I believe. It's not widespread and not a long term option.

Converting any licence to EASA isn't easy. It's expensive and time consuming. There is no way to avoid the 14 exams. Those alone will take at least 12 months. Unless you have right to work in EU it's not worth it.

Most Asian and Middle East countries will convert your licence to a local one after an airlaw exam and a sim ride. Usually you have to be employed by an airline in that country. Some licences aren't accepted but usually this is stated clearly on the job ad.

My suggestion would be to get the cheapest and easiest to maintain licence. FAA is much cheaper than EASA and there are FAA check airman literally all over the world. Type ratings don't expire with FAA and you don't need 500 multi crew for ATPL issuance. Also, you can do the FAA ATP checkride in a piston twin.

Make up your own mind but just think twice about getting a licence from a country with a poor safety record.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Droste

EASA does convert ICAO licences but the process is very tedious and expensive. It involves going through an ATO, passing the ATPL exams in most cases, skills tests etc. There are also minimum experience requirements.

You can find the process laid out in Commission Delegated Regulation 2020/723:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32020R0723&from=EN