ATP Course

[bafanguy]

Originally Posted by A Squared

You'd be hard pressed to find a country issuing pilots licenses that *isn't* an ICAO signatory.

Apparently so. And there aren't many of them. I assume Taiwan issues pilot licenses but do the others ?:

https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/...ate_Categories

[zondaracer]

The FAA issued a light sport pilot certificate which does not meet ICAO standards, so it would not be an ICAO license. The UK used to issue a National PPL (NPPL) which was not valid outside the U.K. without prior permission from the country where it was intended to be used.

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by zondaracer

The FAA issued a light sport pilot certificate which does not meet ICAO standards, so it would not be an ICAO license. The UK used to issue a National PPL (NPPL) which was not valid outside the U.K. without prior permission from the country where it was intended to be used.

Certainly those would be examples of licenses which aren't ICAO compliant, but the whole "ICAO license" thing almost always comes up in the context of ATPLs. The US allows the substitution of of Flight Engineer time for pilot time on a 3 for 1 basis to meet the experience requirements, but those ATPLs are issued with a notation that they do not meet ICAO standards. Once you gain the experience, the certificate is re-issued without the notation. There also used to be a some sort of age waiver, for an ATPL and that may have had a "Non-ICAO" notation on it. Anyway, my point is that it's pretty common for people to proudly announce that they have an ICAO ATPL s it it's some thing special and exclusive, when in fact the overwhelming majority of ATPL's are issued byan an ICAO contracting country, and in the absence of someone saying that their ATPL is non ICAO compliant, it can rpetty much be assumed that an ATPL is compliant.

[zondaracer]

Yeah, and many say “I’d like to convert my ICAO license to an FAA license,” which is not correct in all sorts of ways.