EASA PPL IR/ En-route IR

[BigGrecian]

But there is no Training Course required for someone who holds a non-EASA ICAO IR and the relevant experience. The Candidate can go straight to an Examiner and take the Skills Test (and oral TK Check).
As there is no 'Course' there is no need for a 'Course Approval'.

Since when? The poster was talking about an FAA IR > EASA IR

The regulation states:

(2) Applicants for Part–FCL licences already holding at least an equivalent licence, rating or certificate issued in accordance with Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention by a third country shall comply with all the requirements of Annex I to this Regulation, except that the requirements of course duration, number of lessons and specific training hours may be reduced.
(3) The credit given to the applicant shall be determined by the Member State to which the pilot applies on the basis of a recommendation from an approved
training organisation.

Therefore the law requires an ATO to make a recommendation. The ATO must be approved to make that recommendation - that's just common sense.

Also FCL.030 requires a recommendation for test:

Except for the issue of an airline transport pilot licence, the applicant for a skill test shall be recommended for the test by the organisation/person responsible for the training, once the training is completed. The training records shall be made available to the examiner.

The UK recognising that the volume of conversion requests will be huge has released an AMC :
IN-2013/134: UK Alternative Means of Compliance for conversion of ICAO Pilot qualifications issued by Non-EASA Member States | Publications | About the CAA

The problem lies that you are flying a turboprop. You will find the number of ATOs across the whole of Euroe with a Single engine turbo prop approval will easily fit in one hand.

Now that's a lot of regulations for this time of night

[Level Attitude]

Since when?

Since March 2014

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 245/2014 of 13 March 2014

amending Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 of 3 November 2011 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew

(52) Appendix 6 to Part-FCL is amended as follows:

(b) a new Section Aa is inserted:
‘Aa. IR(A) — Competency-based modular flying training course

8. Applicants for the competency-based modular IR(A) holding a Part-FCL PPL or CPL and a valid IR(A) issued in compliance with the requirements of Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention by a third country may be credited in full towards the training course mentioned in paragraph 4. In order to be issued the IR(A), the applicant shall:

(a) successfully complete the skill test for the IR(A) in accordance with Appendix 7;

(b) demonstrate to the examiner during the skill test that he/she has acquired an adequate level of theoretical knowledge of air law, meteorology and flight planning and performance (IR); and

(c) have a minimum experience of at least 50 hours of flight time under IFR as PIC on aeroplanes

Also FCL.030 requires a recommendation for test:

Except for the issue of an airline transport pilot licence, the applicant for a skill test shall be recommended for the test by the organisation/person responsible for the training, once the training is completed. The training records shall be made available to the examiner.

No one responsible for training, hence no recommendation for test required

[BEagle]

No one responsible for training, hence no recommendation for test required

I agree. But it seems that the UK CAA Examiners require both a 'recommendation for test' and also that the Skill Test for an FAA IR being converted to a C-bM IR must be conducted by an allocated CAA Staff Examiner.

Gold plating, I would venture to suggest....

[cessnapete]

Definitely appears gold plating. Surely an FAA to EASA candidate who is current and flying regularly IFR/Airways in Europe, by definition,is obviously fit for test. Also I can't see why aircraft type used for the Test is a factor, as the candidate can be P1,he is exercising his FAA qualification during the EASA conversion. Therefore no requirement for the Examiner to be qualified on type either.
I doubt though if common sense will prevail.

[Level Attitude]

Therefore no requirement for the Examiner to be qualified on type either

Yes there is! The Examiner will be PIC during any Flight Test and must, therefore, be appropriately qualified.

the candidate can be P1,he is exercising his FAA qualification during the EASA conversion

No they cannot. EASA Single Pilot IR Test. Only one PIC allowed, and that will be the Examiner. In UK Candidate will be PUT if Test failed or PICUS if Test passed and Examiner agrees

[cessnapete]

EASA madness. An FAA IR rated fully qualified pilot is being tested purely because he lives in Europe and needs another piece of paper. He is already qualified and in our aircraft case, has in excess of 2000 hrs 800 on type and has flown all over Europe IFR in the same aircraft for eight years.
Competency is not the reason for a test but beurocratic bull..it!
Rant over!!

[eagleflyer]

What about the employees of an American company currently based and living in Europe flying N-reg jet aircraft. Do they have to obtain an EASA ATPL?

[Contacttower]

What about the employees of an American company currently based and living in Europe flying N-reg jet aircraft. Do they have to obtain an EASA ATPL?

That's an interesting one...

Where would the 'operator' consider itself to be based?

Gold plating, I would venture to suggest....

The whole issue of whether an FAA to EASA IR holder needs an ATO to recommend them for test seems to have got muddled by the CAA, there shouldn't in theory be a need for one but once again in their infinite wisdom the CAA seem unable to reconcile the new rules with their old way of doing things...

In practice I suspect most FAA IR holders will go to an ATO because it is the ATOs that know all about the EASA IR test and will be best placed to prepare the candidate for it.

[Whopity]

What about the employees of an American company currently based and living in Europe flying N-reg jet aircraft. Do they have to obtain an EASA ATPL?

No, because their company is the "Operator"

An organisation has now set up the facility for private "N Reg" pilots to set up an "Operator" outside the EU Papa Charly Aviation with a view to continue operating on FAA licences and ratings.

[cessnapete]

Why would a current IFR candidate need to go to an ATO to "prepare" for the EASA IR test?Surely a bit of tracking a hold or two and a couple of approaches is the same if you hold an FAA IR or another bit of paper.
As an NDB is no longer a legal requirement for IFR presumably another suitable non precision has replaced this on an EASA IR test?

[Contacttower]

cessnapete I hold both FAA and EASA IRs and I fly IFR a reasonable amount for a private pilot. For a revalidation flight I wouldn't normally bother doing any practice with an ATO or independent instructor if I'm feeling reasonably current. Although a reval is theoretically to the same standard as the initial I know that in the unlikely event of messing something up the examiner will probably just ask me to do it again so long as it wasn't anything too catastrophic.

If I had to do my initial EASA IR again I probably would go and do some practice with an instructor because the pass standard is quite high and if one hasn't done any holding recently you might be rusty at it - just better safe than sorry.

The approach requirement on the test is one precision and one non-precision. That could mean you get ILS and a GPS without vertical guidance or you could get ILS and NDB, it is entirely dependent on what the examiner feels like on the day and what is in the aircraft. Obviously if the aircraft has no ADF then you can't do one...

[cessnapete]

Contacttower

Hi,
Yes a bit of practice would be common sense before another Initial EASA test.

The biggest problem I can see for this new FAA to EASA IR route,is getting the test done in UK before the April deadline. I have now contacted 4 of the largest UK ATOs and asked for a test,with varying negative results.
1 We haven't got the training manuals back from the CAA. ?
2 We only test our own school candidates.
3 We only do test in conjunction with a Type Rating.
4 Would have to do the test in their aircraft, after some hours for checkout and test preparation. After pointing out that EASA don't require further training if suitable experience has been obtained, said you don't need an ATO then, just call CAA to allocate an Examiner.
I'll try the CAA next.

[S-Works]

This is a really sticky one. No ATO is going to put you forward for test unless they are happy you are going to pass as it reflects on them with the CAA. This means you are going to have to do some training with them. I now have approval to do this and send you for test but again I would not sign you off unless we had verified you were ready.

I have yet to fly with a single ICAO IR holder wanting to convert to an EASA IR that would pass the test without training regardless of how current you think you are. The EASA IR test standard is not like anything you have experienced before and the CAA take no prisoners when it comes to testing. This means that if you book with the CAA and fail it is going to be a very expensive exercise. The current test fee is about £935 and the CAA will only test in your aircraft if the Head of Training of an ATO has signed it of as suitable. Suitable means that it has to meet EASA requirements for IFR which includes the carriage of an ADF as substituting GPS for ADF is not currently permitted.

Anyone thinking they can just pitch up in their aircraft knock of a quick test and walk away with an EASA IR is seriously deluding themselves.

I hold an FAA CPL IR and UK EASA CPL IR and have trained hundreds of candidates for both initial and conversion IR and have yet to see any who could convert with out training.

I look forward to hearing the bragging rights of the first person to do so.......

[BEagle]

No ATO is going to put you forward for test unless they are happy you are going to pass as it reflects on them with the CAA.

But there is no such requirement in the AMC & GM for FAA-to-C-bM IR conversion.

[cessnapete]

Bose-x

This excellent,simple, long negotiated EASA requirement now seems to be turning once again into a gold plating money making exercise by UK training /CAA. Smacks of UK ATOs trying to prevent the FAA then EASA route to an IR.

How can the CAA insist on an ADF fit when it is not a legal requirement for IFR flight??

[S-Works]

How can the CAA insist on an ADF fit when it is not a legal requirement for IFR flight??

Thats a subject many times done to death and the same requirement always come out of it, while the majority of IAPS have an NDB an no alternate for the missed approach procedure you will need an ADF. There is little to no chance that the CAA are going to allow you to use a GPS to replace an NDB when it is not approved on the plate.

You do not need an NDB for enroute navigation but you need one for an approach or missed approach. catch 22....

But there is no such requirement in the AMC & GM for FAA-to-C-bM IR conversion.

Something else for you add to your list and tell the CAA that they are wrong about Beagle.

[Level Attitude]

Anyone thinking they can just pitch up in their aircraft knock of a quick test and walk away with an EASA IR is seriously deluding themselves.

Absolutely agree - But, according to the Regs, it is totally up to the candidate to decide when they are ready for test.

No ATO is going to put you forward for test unless they are happy you are going to pass as it reflects on them with the CAA. This means you are going to have to do some training with them. I now have approval to do this and send you for test but again I would not sign you off unless we had verified you were ready.

This is a totally unnecessary Catch 22 argument: Test failures only reflect badly on an ATO if the candidate(s) is(are) their student(s). They are only the ATO's student if the ATO HoT recommends them for test, which the HoT will only do if the candidate has trained with them. Training only being required in order to satisfy the HoT in order for them to confirm ready for test.

I now have approval to do this and send you for test.

Do you mean your ATO has an approved course for foreign SP ICAO IR Holders to convert to an EASA SP IR via the Competency Based Route?

bose-x,
That was quick! The Rules only came out about four weeks ago. Did you have a course ready to submit? As long as any course you want to offer meets the minimum required by EASA (in this case zero training) why wouldn't the CAA approve it?

Did you, perhaps, 'Gold Plate' the requirements yourself?

- - - - -

C-bM IR must be conducted by an allocated CAA Staff Examiner

I Genuinely don't understand how this works:

I didn't think Staff Examiners existed any more - just Examiners and Senior Examiners.

I understand that the CAA can (will?) allocate the Senior Examiner who a candidate must use for an initial IR Test?

Does the candidate not apply direct to the CAA for this Examiner allocation?

Where does an ATO fit in/why are they involved at all?

[Contacttower]

Well there are such things as VOR approaches...

But yes bose-x is generally correct, in many areas of the UK one will struggle to find a NPA within reasonable distance that does not require an NDB.

If one however goes to other EU states in which adoption of proper GPS approaches, which do not involve the use of ADFs...

[Cows getting bigger]

An IR is an international rating - not UK, not EU. I've personally flown to a number of (big) places around the world where the only approach available is an NDB. Of course, the sensible observation is that an NDB approach can be flown, with some significant accuracy, by GPS.

PS. Shhhh, don't tell anyone but I know of one ATO that has CB-IR approval.

[Contacttower]

The CAA guidance on the conversion process has disappeared.

There is clearly no requirement to use a "staff examiner", you can ask to have designated a foreign examiner if you like, assuming they do the briefing. The CAA can always object and designate another one but I don't think they usually do that.

There is a generic requirement in Part FCL for skills tests to be preceded by a recommendation by the organisation that conducted the training but that was written long before the latest amendment to the Aircrew Reg was passed. If no training has taken place does that render that requirement irrelevant? I'm not sure.

To settle this in the short term I suggest someone rings up Flight Test Bookings and simply asks them what their current understanding of the situation is, it may not reflect what EASA eventually decides is the correct interpretation but it will decide whether the CAA will currently designate/agree to a designation of an examiner without an ATO.