FAA to EASA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA to EASA
Hello all,
I'm trying to find out if there is a conversion process for FAA qualified A&P's to change to the EASA system.
What's the best way to do it?
Is it as involved as converting a FAA commercial pilot's licence to an EASA one?!
If anyone can steer me in the right direction I'd appreciate it.
PB
I'm trying to find out if there is a conversion process for FAA qualified A&P's to change to the EASA system.
What's the best way to do it?
Is it as involved as converting a FAA commercial pilot's licence to an EASA one?!
If anyone can steer me in the right direction I'd appreciate it.
PB
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 55 degrees north ish.
Age: 53
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Short answer is no. There is no conversion process and no reduction in the exam passes needed.
You may get a reduction in the experience required due being a 'skilled worker'.
You may get a reduction in the experience required due being a 'skilled worker'.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hard words 
AFAIK the EASA - licenses comply with the minimum standards described in ICAO Annex 1, so it's possible to convert it into another ICAO-"based" license.
The FAA uses another kind of system which doesn't comply to ICAO, so there is no easy way to convert/transfer the licenses.
(I don't want to "rate" the licenses)
AFAIK the EASA - licenses comply with the minimum standards described in ICAO Annex 1, so it's possible to convert it into another ICAO-"based" license.
The FAA uses another kind of system which doesn't comply to ICAO, so there is no easy way to convert/transfer the licenses.
(I don't want to "rate" the licenses)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
seems a shame
I am all for higher testing to cut out the wage lowering riff raff. Bottom line in the USA there is a general disparity between Techs that change parts in MRO's and those who have solid systems knowledge who maintain aircraft from blue water to avionics day in day out..
Airlines provide continual training for most AMT's that provide more information than can be retained in our day to day lives and much of it is useless (those who can not do..TEACH) is the saying.
All that dope and fabric crap I learned in AP school decades ago is still being taught. Still doubt any CAA or EASA liscence was earned to teach a fellow anything more than years of systems training and experience will.
Most take issue with immigrant labor. The largest issue is un licenced labor working in repair stations... Globally.
I for one being a systems/avionics tech.. Blue water to avionics wish there was a global standard. Sure an A&P is a liscence easy to obtain... BUT only with the drive to do so. I am sure that there are as many slugs with a CAA/EASA liscence out there who did well testing but still can not T/S a problem for ****e.. Just a rant...
Airlines provide continual training for most AMT's that provide more information than can be retained in our day to day lives and much of it is useless (those who can not do..TEACH) is the saying.
All that dope and fabric crap I learned in AP school decades ago is still being taught. Still doubt any CAA or EASA liscence was earned to teach a fellow anything more than years of systems training and experience will.
Most take issue with immigrant labor. The largest issue is un licenced labor working in repair stations... Globally.
I for one being a systems/avionics tech.. Blue water to avionics wish there was a global standard. Sure an A&P is a liscence easy to obtain... BUT only with the drive to do so. I am sure that there are as many slugs with a CAA/EASA liscence out there who did well testing but still can not T/S a problem for ****e.. Just a rant...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: EGSS
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having done the B1 like many through the Section L A&C route I won't disagree that the A&P was easier. However, there is an opportunity to get tripped up on the oral/practical if you don't know your stuff and have just learn't the questions.
Amazing how many people on here like to "A&P bash" on here though??
Amazing how many people on here like to "A&P bash" on here though??
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: bahrain
Age: 35
Posts: 353
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi flighmech
My ex mentor used to be an A&P and he not so long ago managed to convert but I wouldn't really call it a conversion since the same thing can be done by a none A&P mech.
What he did was, Being as he already has 15 years of experience all he did was writing the EASA B2 examinations and showing the UKCAA all the appropriate documents of his working experience.
My ex mentor used to be an A&P and he not so long ago managed to convert but I wouldn't really call it a conversion since the same thing can be done by a none A&P mech.
What he did was, Being as he already has 15 years of experience all he did was writing the EASA B2 examinations and showing the UKCAA all the appropriate documents of his working experience.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Space
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From my dealings with the CAA, no matter the extent of the experience that you may have, experience earned from working on N registered aircraft will not count towards the issue of a Part 66 AML. One such inspector told me that it at the end of it all, it does not fulfil the requirements of EASA.
However I have spoken to other licenced guys whose MRO's maintain American carriers and they have not had an issue with the CAA accepting N registered worksheets. I guess the level playing field is not so level!
I obtained all of the B2 modules but the CAA will not recognise the experience I have gained purely because of the letter on the tail.
I agree with Flightmech, the A&P system is regularly knocked by most. For me, it will do just fine!
However I have spoken to other licenced guys whose MRO's maintain American carriers and they have not had an issue with the CAA accepting N registered worksheets. I guess the level playing field is not so level!
I obtained all of the B2 modules but the CAA will not recognise the experience I have gained purely because of the letter on the tail.
I agree with Flightmech, the A&P system is regularly knocked by most. For me, it will do just fine!
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Quahog
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grounded27, unlicensed labor isn't necessarily a problem per se if suitably managed. Remember, many of these will be competent guys who are simply building their hours towards a licence. Others may be connies with many years experience and no desire to get licensed. In component repair companies there wil be no licensed guys because the company holds the approval not the individuals.
If your observation relates to maintaining an acceptable ratio of experienced to inexperienced staff then you might hope the company's own procedures and the regulators' oversight would keep this within acceptable limits. Hope perhaps being the operative word...
If your observation relates to maintaining an acceptable ratio of experienced to inexperienced staff then you might hope the company's own procedures and the regulators' oversight would keep this within acceptable limits. Hope perhaps being the operative word...
Airplane repairs move to foreign shops - Travel - msnbc.com
Not just unliensed, but with possibly non-standard and non-compliant procedures and processes. (To include QA and QC).
If you filter out some of the chauvinism in the article I posted the link to, it appears that the public are being made aware, yet again, of the aggregate costs of lower cost air travel, and the risks (increased?) made in pursuit of that. (How many of you recall Frank Lorenzo's union busting moves at Continental? 80's vintage, as I recall) But I digress.
What gets me is this part, from the article:
Non-certified shops
The outsourcing isn't the problem if the standards are maintained, and can be shown to be maintained.
Where's the audit trail?
Most take issue with immigrant labor. The largest issue is un licenced labor working in repair stations... Globally.
If you filter out some of the chauvinism in the article I posted the link to, it appears that the public are being made aware, yet again, of the aggregate costs of lower cost air travel, and the risks (increased?) made in pursuit of that. (How many of you recall Frank Lorenzo's union busting moves at Continental? 80's vintage, as I recall) But I digress.
What gets me is this part, from the article:
Non-certified shops
The number of outsourced airplane repairs is no doubt much larger than the FAA numbers indicate. That's because they only account for repairs done at certified shops.
The FAA certifies more than 4,100 maintenance facilities in this country and more than 700 abroad to work on U.S. aircraft. But the FAA doesn't require airlines to use those shops. Airlines can go to non-certified repair stations that are inspected only by the airlines that use them — not the FAA.
The mechanics there must follow the airline's manuals and guidelines.
"Why do we have certified repair stations if people aren't required to use them?" McCaskill said.
In 2007, the Department of Transportation sampled 19 airlines and found that all of them were outsourcing to non-certified facilities.
In its report, the DOT's inspector general identified more than 1,400 non-certified shops performing maintenance for those aircraft, 100 of which were foreign stations in countries such as Aruba, Belize, Bermuda, Haiti and Mexico.
The FAA certifies more than 4,100 maintenance facilities in this country and more than 700 abroad to work on U.S. aircraft. But the FAA doesn't require airlines to use those shops. Airlines can go to non-certified repair stations that are inspected only by the airlines that use them — not the FAA.
The mechanics there must follow the airline's manuals and guidelines.
"Why do we have certified repair stations if people aren't required to use them?" McCaskill said.
In 2007, the Department of Transportation sampled 19 airlines and found that all of them were outsourcing to non-certified facilities.
In its report, the DOT's inspector general identified more than 1,400 non-certified shops performing maintenance for those aircraft, 100 of which were foreign stations in countries such as Aruba, Belize, Bermuda, Haiti and Mexico.
Where's the audit trail?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lonewolf_50
How many of you recall Frank Lorenzo's union busting moves at Continental? 80's vintage, as I recall
DODO56
Grounded27, unlicensed labor isn't necessarily a problem per se if suitably managed. Remember, many of these will be competent guys who are simply building their hours towards a licence. Others may be connies with many years experience and no desire to get licensed. In component repair companies there wil be no licensed guys because the company holds the approval not the individuals.
As a result of the before mentioned factors I gave up on this career choice as soon as my avionics position with a reputable airline finally acceped me.
Lonewolf again,
The outsourcing isn't the problem if the standards are maintained, and can be shown to be maintained.
Where's the audit trail?
Where's the audit trail?
MORE OVERSIGHT!!!! Unfortunately the only time we get attention is from loss, loss of life and profit. We are a liability to the businesses we carry on our backs. Sorry bunch arn't we. We lack unification, we should support eachother globally as opposed to our snied, bull****, ego driven crap that justifies our position as opposed to each other.
One global system I say for all my brothers with solid knowledge of aircraft systems.
