Faa Ir

[IO540]

The FAA v. JAA IR picture has shifted in recent years.

The Visa/TSA issues have brought new overheads which waste time and reduce certain training options.

Since JAA came in c. 2000, when there was no PPL/IR ground school and one had to do the whole 14 ATP exams, things have firmed up and now there are 7 exams.

Then one has had variously "colourful" UK checkride options, over the years, as indicated by posts above.

The JAA question bank has been published which makes a big difference and enables one to go for the lot and re-revise and re-sit the failed ones.

Highly significant differences however remain in favour of the FAA route - as per my post earlier on. However, most of these disappear if you are not an aircraft owner, or it you are flying something very basic.

I absolutely do not accept the FAA IR is not good enough for Europe. I had 2 weeks of solid exhausting flying, partial panel with timed turns and every approach to minima. Anybody saying the FAA IR is not good enough is talking straight out of their ar*e.

Neither the FAA nor the JAA IR teach a lot of operational knowledge for the European IFR environment, and that remains a concern. It's a situation which is never likely to be addressed by the training scene and is left to mentoring, and the internet

[englishal]

8 out of ten equals 80% in one year : a bl**dy good success rate IMHO

Well as a comparison - I bought the Jeppesen Instrument Commercial manual and read a chapter per night in my own time. Then when I turned up to the USA I went to the testing centre, paid my $90 and sat the test - which came back as an instant pass at about 90something%. When I did the flight test, along with my licence, logbook and paperwork, this was given to the examiner to examine.

Why is a £1000 "exam" course even needed?

[Cusco]

Well as a comparison - I bought the Jeppesen Instrument Commercial manual and read a chapter per night in my own time. Then when I turned up to the USA I went to the testing centre, paid my $90 and sat the test - which came back as an instant pass at about 90something%. When I did the flight test, along with my licence, logbook and paperwork, this was given to the examiner to examine.

Why is a £1000 "exam" course even needed?

Been there, done that except that I sat the Lasergrade in Norwich

I too knocked off the FAA/IR flight training in 2 weeks and had the oral with the examiner after presenting him with my lasergrade prior to the test.

Not quite sure what your point is: I'm planning to convert to JAA/IR because I don't have access to a N reg over here to fly.

Consequently my hard earned FAA/IR is underused and only gets put into service when I hire in USA.

If you're whittling about £1,000.00 spent (BTW the flyer group didn't pay anything like that sum), that's what has to be done at present:

Roll on a better and simpler JAA/IR but I ain't holding my breath.

8 out of ten equals 80% in one year : a bl**dy good success rate IMHO

BTW my quote was to correct wild innacuracy by someone attempting, I think, to rubbish the brilliant achievement of the vanguard of the Flyer group:

The 'dropout' quote too is wrong: many Flyer members are proceeding at their own pace for the many reasons outlined in my original post.

I really hope this isn't going to degenerate into a characteristically PPRuNe-esque barney about the 'FAA/IR is better than the JAA/IR'

Cusco

[englishal]

Consequently my hard earned FAA/IR is underused and only gets put into service when I hire in USA.

If you're whittling about £1,000.00 spent (BTW the flyer group didn't pay anything like that sum), that's what has to be done at present:

My only point was why does it take the best part of a year and £1000 to gain some IR exams? Why not allow self study, exams taken at a local centre and not Gatwick, no residential courses, etc....Why not remove 90% of the extraneous bull from them and make them one "IR" paper? Yes I appreciate this is the way it is now, but that doesn't make it right.

As for the FLyer group, I have the costs somewhere as I was going to be one of them, may have been discounted to £900 I think due to the number of people enrolling. I pulled out as I wanted to wait and see what EASA would bring us - maybe they will end up recognising my FAA IR ? Who knows....

[IO540]

I'm planning to convert to JAA/IR because I don't have access to a N reg over here to fly.

Consequently my hard earned FAA/IR is underused and only gets put into service when I hire in USA.

Not having a dig, Cusco, but you have got only yourself to blame for this situation.

In this paper collection game, the way to go about things is to sort out the plane to fly, where it will be flown, and then to sort out the bits of paper needed to fly it to those places.

It's a bit like you specify the application, then sort out the software, and only then decide what hardware is required to run the software.

I started with a JAA PPL and NQ. After a year or two (which were spent on many abortive attempts to find a plane on which the on-off switch wouldn't come off in your hand, checking out a few syndicates only to find disputes over maintenance, etc) I bought the TB20 and finished off the IMCR in that. At around that time it was apparent the JAA IR was a non-starter for me, for several reasons, so I did the FAA PPL, then put the plane on the N-reg (and got a written confirmation from both CAA and FAA that my IMCR was good for an N-reg), then did the IR ASAP, then I could fly VFR or IFR worldwide, then did the CPL for good measure.

This route gave me a continuous "maximum privileges" situation.

Now, if I wanted to waste a bit more of my life for no purpose and do the JAA IR I could do it with 15hrs min dual training (zero, I believe, if done in some other places in Europe) and hit the exams with the question bank. I will do this if EASA forces it, but obviously not before.

Some owner pilots I know simply went to the USA and did everything there, then came back and bought an N-reg plane.

As I wrote earlier, non owner pilots face the possibility of having got the wrong bits of paper.

I wonder how much of the Flyer group are owners and non-owners?

Regarding taking one's time, one cannot totally do that because the written exams have an expiry date. At some stage you do have to bite the bullet and hand over the £££ for 50/55hrs.

Why not allow self study, exams taken at a local centre and not Gatwick

If one does the ICAO IR -> JAA IR conversion, the mandatory ground school is eliminated. The availability of the question bank makes self study more viable too.

As regards the locations, no idea why this is so restrictive. The CAA does run these exams at one remote centre (the UK High Commission in Thailand or some place around there) so it's obviously doable. They are after the examination fees, pretty obviously.

The worst bit perhaps is the mandatory "professional school" flight training; this is a blatent protectionist practice and inconvenient for most normal people because most don't have a professional school nearby. The de facto requirement to train from specific airports is because the CAA examiners fly specific airways routes which are trained over and over. If taking off hotel time to do this pantomine, one may as well take off 2-3 weeks and go to the USA (where, even today, flying is probably half the price).

[Cusco]

My only point was why does it take the best part of a year and £1000 to gain some IR exams? Why not allow self study, exams taken at a local centre and not Gatwick, no residential courses, etc....Why not remove 90% of the extraneous bull from them and make them one "IR" paper? Yes I appreciate this is the way it is now, but that doesn't make it right.

I agree with this sentiment and as I said I'd have liked to see a simpler, more PPL-friendly IR.

I'm, if you like, in the autumn of my flying career and, having spent a large part (15 years) using our airways equipped G-reg group aeroplane doing a great deal of bimbling, I decided to branch out and broaden my horizons.

It became clear that 1) the group wouldn't consider sticking the a/c on the N reg; 2) Than I couldn't afford to own outright an IFR equipped N-Reg a/c (or even G-Reg for that matter) and 3) If I waited for EASA to pull its finger out I'd be in a box pushing up daisies.

So when the Flyer Group hove into view I put plans to do aeros training and tailwheel conversion back into the drawer and joined up.

Some people when they retire and have time on their hands repair to the garden or do an OU degree, I chose the JAA/IR.

(When working I had very little spare time and a large part of that was spent catching up on sleep deprivation)

It has largely been great fun, but with moments of sheer frustration and misery, but if I ever get there I think I will be a better pilot for it and rather late in the day gain the ability to spread my European wings.

We'll just have to wait and see.

Cusco

[IO540]

Current work of things in EASA is towards a simplified IR ground school (basically removing all content which is jet transport specific), make the dual training hours requirements much smaller (i.e. in line with "demonstrated competence" which frankly is a hard one to argue against), and a few other bits.

The need to do the flight training in a professional school is likely to remain, but as I say it is likely to itself be significantly reduced.

The ICAO minimum dual time is 10hrs. The FAA requires 15hrs. The JAA requires 50/55hrs and that will come down. Obviously nobody can do it in 10 or 15hrs from ab initio but that is in line with going the demo competence route.

The medical requirements will also remain, JAA Class 2 for the PPL/IR but notably still with the stupid audiogram which ensures that anybody who fails it in one ear will never be able to do the IR. This has stopped a lot of older pilots (the majority of private IR intake are older people, 50+) going the JAA route. I guess the medical departments in the national CAAs are simply too powerful.

This is just committee work so could fail, partially or totally. In any case I don't expect implementation before 2012.

A slightly reduced (maybe 20%) ground school was developed in a committee 2-3 years ago but the UK CAA (which runs the IR writtens for much of Europe) has delayed the implementation of even this little bit till late 2009. The detail is on their website somewhere. They blame some tech issue to do with exam paper production or question bank standardisation. Hohoho.

Somebody who actually wants to fly IFR around Europe should not be waiting around. Life is too short. Get the FAA IR now, get an N-reg plane, and make sure it doesn't have any mods which would be impossible to certify under EASA. Then do some fun flights

[Mickey Kaye]

"My only point was why does it take the best part of a year and £1000 to gain some IR exams? Why not allow self study, exams taken at a local centre and not Gatwick, no residential courses, etc....Why not remove 90% of the extraneous bull from them and make them one "IR" paper? Yes I appreciate this is the way it is now, but that doesn't make it right."

I also totally agree with this statment.

If you can pass the written paper then you meet the required standard - Full Stop.

Why an earth do you have to jump through all the other hoops. My live is too busy to attend residential courses and the misses wouldn't let me take it as annual leave.

However if I could study in my own time at my own pace then it would be so much easier and I would still have to meet the same standard. So what is the point of residential courses?

[S-Works]

My only point was why does it take the best part of a year and £1000 to gain some IR exams?

It does not, that is just your perception gleaned no doubt from the usual rumour and misrepresentation that fill these boards on the FAA v JAA debate.

When I finally got around to doing my exam study I did it in 2 months over 2 exam sittings with a high 90's pass. I also know of a poster on here who did it in a couple of weeks and a single exam sitting. I also did not pay the magic grand you are quoting in fact I did not even pay that much for doing the IR and the CPL exams. I do agree that the CAA fee for sitting the exam is inexcusable but that has nothing to do with the difficulty of doing the JAA IR. If you are trying to make it about direct costs, maybe it is cheaper to get an FAA if you go to the US if you turn a blind eye to the cost of flights, accommodation, food, beer and all the other stuff that goes with it. Doing one in Europe is certainly not cheaper and the breathtaking charges made by European DPE's leave the CAA flight test in the shade.

The debate will no doubt go on for ever as those who have chosen one route over another will always defend it as being the best.

[IO540]

Why an earth do you have to jump through all the other hoops.

To protect the jobs in professional flying schools, and to protect the jobs in the CAA which gets fat fees from licensing these schools.

[421C]

why does it take the best part of a year and £1000 to gain some IR exams?

It doesn't have to take anything like a year. The notional study time is 200hrs, of which 20hrs have to be done in the classroom (unless you are a conversion candidate). The 180hrs of self-study is about 25hrs on average for each of the 7 papers. You can do it in much less than that. I suspect that the difference is people who book themselves into the exams, say 2months from now, will crack on and do it. If one waits to book the exams until you're ready it can easily drag on. I've been sitting on the book and software for an FAA exam since last November, just haven't got around to it.

The £1000 is an artefact of both the tiny number of people doing the IR only, and the JAA requirement for an approved course. We are very lucky that 3 good schools in the UK offer the IR ground, and anyone who thinks it's expensive can always make money by setting up their own TK school and getting all the approvals etc. No takers I suspect. As IO540 points out, when the JAA first started, nobody offered the IR exams!
But as much as I respect the Tk schools as an element in preparing youngsters to be 737 FOs with 250hrs, I absolutely agree there is no real requirement for the kind of cost base the JAA imposes for non ATPL candidates. The FAA is good enough to publish the entire theoretical knowlegde in it's various online handbooks - these are free and frankly the quality and illustrations are just as good as the commerical books. The method that works for the JAA PPL writtens could work just as well for the IR.

The irony with the gold-plate JAA ATPL TK method is that it is so long and laborious that cadets have forgotten much of the content by the time they put it into practice in modular training; especially the IR which may come many months after the final exams and CPL training. At an FTO I went to (having just done the IR exams) I couldn't believe the F170A process included completing a long open-book written test. I asked "how can this possibly be needed given everyone's done the JAA exams?" the answer was "oh, people have forgotten everything by now and they can get badly caught out by the examiners"

There is an article here on the JAA IR TK and a comparison with the FAA exam.
PPL/IR Europe - JAA IR Written Exams: Much easier than you think

Having said all that, I still think the difference between the 2 systems is not hugely meaningful in practice. The JAA system's bark is worse than its bite; from the outside it all looks terribly daunting. When you actually work through it, it's rather nice. The ground and flight schools are good, the question bank means that practically no-one fails a written exam, the 55hrs can be 40hrs of FNPT2 time which is not weather dependent and much cheaper than an aircraft and you can comfortably do 5hrs a day, the CAA examiners do their best to make the test relaxing and accessible.

The FAA training system is superbly flexible and efficient; its focus is developing comptency and demonstrating that to a DPE; how you do so is unshackled by paperwork and approvals and all the other JAA stuff that I think adds little to the end result of training. However, other factors can make it less convenient. The whole Visa/TSA/SEVIS/Part141 school thing is a nuisance for training in the USA. You book two weeks and inevitably will be nervous that something at the end will delay your check ride beyond your return flight. Training in the UK and getting the checkride done needs a fair bit of logistics and planning to line everything up (still need TSA approval, Dft waivers etc) and I think is difficult unless you own your own N-reg.

The key lesson I've learned is to avoid agonising over the optimal solution, and just to do something; all of these methods look difficult until you start working on them, chipping away at the requirements and then it comes together.

On the FAA vs JAA, it's down to what qualification will suit you most. If you already have an N-reg or the right aircraft to buy/share is on the N, then the FAA method is the obvious one. But I don't believe the FAA route is sufficiently quicker or cheaper (any longer) to make it worthwhile moving an airplane from G to N solely for that reason. If you have an IMCr and good IFR experience and currency, then getting to the JAA IR (if that is your end goal) may be quicker via an FAA IR and conversion. If you were ab-initio going for a JAA IR, I don't think the converison route would save any time or money.

EASA may well improve the situation but 2012 is a long way away. I waited for the JAA "Instrument Weather Rating" that was mooted sometime in the late 90s. I'd still be waiting today! If you actually need or want to fly IFR now, waiting for EASA-FCL is crazy.

removing all content which is jet transport specific

The JAA IR exams have been already been successfully purged of Jet/ATPL content. The problem that remains is depth of detail in places, rather than scope/breadth.

[421C]

To protect the jobs in professional flying schools, and to protect the jobs in the CAA which gets fat fees from licensing these schools

I half agree. I've no doubt the large school lobbies had a significant hand in JAR-FCL. However, the regulatory bit I disagree with. The JAA system, and to an even greater degree, the EASA system is based on a European ideology around "Organisational Approvals". In this model, the regulator's role is confined to a higher tier of overseeing organisational systems and processes and then trusting those approved organisations to do the rest pretty autonomously. This works great for the airline world, where the training and maintenance organisations are inherently large scale. Of course, it's hopelessly bureaucratic for the more fragmented world of GA, where a good independent engineer or instructor can deliver results just as well or better than a bad approved school or maintenance outfit. However, it results in fewer regulatory jobs, because it takes far fewer CAA people to approve a few schools than it does FSDO inspectors to oversee the independent operations of many instructors and examiners in the equivalent in the FAA.

[IO540]

To add to my earlier post; pprune crashed for a bit....

Why an earth do you have to jump through all the other hoops.

To protect the jobs in professional flying schools, and to protect the jobs in the CAA which gets fat fees from licensing these schools.

As regards costs in the USA; last time I trained there (2006) one could rent a PA28-161 for about $80/hr (plus instructor) and while that has gone up, it is still way below the UK rate.

I think I spent about $4k on the IR, and that figure includes 25hrs flying (all dual), accomodation in a cheap motel, food, airline tickets to/from Phoenix, Arizona.

This does not even begin to compare with a UK JAA IR package, where the minimum dual time is 50hrs (SE) which at the most charitable rate of an owner aircraft charged at the marginal hourly cost of say £80/hr, plus an instructor (through the IR FTO) at say £60/hr, will come to £6500 i.e. $10000, and on top of that you have

- exams
- travel to the school
- hotel residence if FTO not at local airfield
- checkride fee

I cannot see how one could possibly do a 50hr JAA IR under £10k and it will probably be nearer to £15k. If somebody has done it under £10k I'd like to see the accounting.

To be fair, one can never compare the UK with the USA on costs but the requirement to train via a professional pilot FTO results in a huge cost inflation, both direct and (for many pilots) through hotel residence for the flight training.

Also, to be fair, the 25hr FAA IR figure I give is based on my previous IFR experience which by then was substantial. My estimate for a truly ab initio FAA IR would be c. 40hrs TT. Still way cheaper than the JAA IR route.

I did not use any of my IMCR training time towards the FAA IR (did not need to).

[421C]

where the minimum dual time is 50hrs (SE) which at the most charitable rate

35 of those hours can be in an FNPT2. Of course, the full cost of a JAA approved twin FNPT2 with instructor in an approved school is pretty similar to the actual cost of a twin-engine aircraft and instructor in the US. But the FNPT2 is a lot quicker and more convenient, less weather and tech-dependent than the aircraft so you can crack on more efficiently.

[Cusco]

A word of warning about the FNPT2 to any oldies considering this route:

(BTW I'm converting so theoretically only need 10 hours FNPT2)

I was seduced by the apparent cheapness of sim vs aeroplane: There are very few FNPR2s in southern UK that are confugured/CAA certified for SEP/IR.

Haaving never used a SIM and not having MS flightsim I found it very difficult to get my ageing brain to believe I was flying an aeroplane. It didn't help that the FNPT2 I was using variously broke down (x2) and caught fire in my early days.

Add to that the fact that the FNPT2 was on the other side of the country and involved a three hour eachway journey and hotel stays

Upshot was I spent way over budget on the FNPT2 , money which in retrospect would have been better spent in my case doing all the flying in an aeroplane.

Of course, if you're 25 and were brought up on MS Flight Sim and are doing the full 55+ hour IR the above argument doesn't apply.

Cusco

[IO540]

35 of those hours can be in an FNPT2

OK, this is another fun one

The use of a sim depends much on whether one needs to actually learn IFR procedures.

Ex IMCR, I could fly every procedure straight off the plate, and IMHO so should every properly trained IMCR holder who can read. What I could not do is fly the IFR stuff to the required accuracy, at the required timescale, under the massive (relative to any real life flight) pilot workload, under a deliberately compromised situational awareness, in an aircraft which behaved very differently to mine.

Years back, I found real value in FS2000 for learning IFR procedures (worth many hours and a few grand) for the IMCR but I think an aircraft owner with an IMCR (I think IMCR holders are the big majority of FAA or JAA IR candidates, whether they are owners or not) is going to have an equal challenge in the following two cases

- training in a sim and doing the checkride in a real plane

- training in one's own plane and doing the checkride in a different plane

This was proved true (to me) when I went to the USA, when I found the PA28-161 like a matchstick on the sea swell, compared to the TB20, not to mention the suspect avionics (non slaved DI etc).

Pre-USA, this lead to me hunting down every UK checkride option so I could train in the same plane (mine) in which the checkride would be done, but I failed to find anybody who could credibly (credibly) promise a checkride.

What I can see a sim being good for is knocking off legit loggable hours, for somebody who is already checkride ready before they reach the 50hr mark. The Q is whether it is cheaper. And even then I wouldn't touch it, pre-checkride, unless it was the same type as the checkride type. Currency on type is most of the trick in this game, IMHO.

caught fire in my early days.

Did the sim catch fire, or did the instructor give you simulated fires?

I was sitting in a fairly fancy professional sim a few weeks ago, with an FMS, 2xG430. Used for training ATP candidates, JAA country. It's far removed from an aircraft in which a checkride will be flown.

[421C]

The use of a sim depends much on whether one needs to actually learn IFR procedures

What I can see a sim being good for is knocking off legit loggable hours, for somebody who is already checkride ready before they reach the 50hr mark.

I agree in an FAA course, but not in a JAA one. The latter has much more emphasis on a specific set of training routes and approaches and the little tricks and gotchas associated with them. Much easier to practice first in the sim. So if you do need to learn IFR procedures, then the Sim is useful. And if you don't, then you are good enough to only need the minimum time in the aircraft anyway, so the Sim is quicker and cheaper.

the following two cases
- training in a sim and doing the checkride in a real plane
- training in one's own plane and doing the checkride in a different plane

I refered to the FNPT2 in the JAA context. Those two scenarios are never going to happen. You integrate the Sim with aircraft training. You are never going to "train in a sim" and then "do the checkride in a real plane". You'll transition to training in the real plane for at least the last 10hrs. Likewise with your 2nd example, you won't get a JAA F170A or an FAA Instructor endorsement to do a test in an airplane you haven't done enough training in.

Any decent JAA school will have an FNPT2 which is representative of the cockpit and avionics of the training aircraft - I agree though, that this will be less representative if you do it on a SEP, especially if it's your own. But if you own your own SEP, then there is probably little to save going to an FNPT2. (but in your own aircraft you'll be clocking up IAPs at £50 a go, zero in the sim)

It's simply that the cost and effort of the JAA 50/55hrs is significantly reduced by using an FNPT2 in most cases, or the 15hr conversion for that matter.

Currency on type is most of the trick in this game, IMHO

We are talking light pistons here, not jets. IMHO currency on type is pretty neutralised by the time you have 10hrs or so on a training aircraft. I may lack finesse, but I find all (typical not exotic) light aircraft fly pretty much the same, you just have some different settings and speeds to learn and a few variations in procedures/checks for starting, fuel pumps etc. Basic stuff if you are going for an IR.

I was sitting in a fairly fancy professional sim a few weeks ago, with an FMS, 2xG430. Used for training ATP candidates, JAA country. It's far removed from an aircraft in which a checkride will be flown.

Was that because it was the MCC trainer used for the MCC course after the IR checkride? Most FNPT2s used for IR training are very similar to the school's training aircraft.

[Cusco]

Did the sim catch fire, or did the instructor give you simulated fires?

Having been faulty for a week (faulty brake, therefore unable easily to taxi: Sorties started at 1000ft) One of the 'cards' failed (Don't ask me I'm a technophobe).

No sooner had that been fixed than the hard drive in the computer situated under the 'jump seat' at the back of the simulator caught fire.

(No instructor 'fires' as I was doing SEP only)

So: SIM down for another week....That lead to a massive backlog of sim 'flights' and the CPL/IRs outnumbered the PPL/IRs big time. That meant 7.30 am starts on three occasions so I was clear before the Commercials got into the SIM at 9 am.

A bit taxing for a pensoiner and I missed my 'inclusive' hotel breakfast...........

So I binned that outfit as I clearly couldn't hack the sim and went elsewhere for the flying.
In retrospect I should have kept an up-to-date SIM log on a daily basis and asked for a discussion with the HOT when I was clearly struggling.....

(Also the outfit's (only) SEP was also tech for two weeks.)

With the benefit of hindsight all my probs were of my own making and I live with the consequences.


Cusco.

[IO540]

Was that because it was the MCC trainer used for the MCC course after the IR checkride?

It was used pre and post checkride.

I am sure that for the typical ATP candidate, who is a young man, in his 20s, with zero aviation knowledge when he turns up, often seeing aviation as simply a career opportunity with a significant bit of glamour thrown in, this (including the mandatory classroom stuff) is all reasonable. It's just that, in Europe, little provision has been made for advancing the private pilot.

With the benefit of hindsight all my probs were of my own making and I live with the consequences.

I wouldn't kick myself too hard for that. The post-PPL training scene is a bl00dy minefield. And nearly everybody in the business has a vested interest and some were simply totally dishonest. I looked at the JAA IR route early on.

On the FAA training/checkride front, the CAA regs on foreign reg training somehow managed to breed a generation of businesses doing all kinds of funny stuff. By 2004, having got the FAA PPL, I thought I knew what I was doing but I still went up every blind alley there was. Eventually decided to give up on the UK; I signed up with a Part 61 school for TSA purposes and only then discovered that only a Part 141 school can issue the I-20 which one needs for the Visa Oh well, there goes another $300...... If anybody is interested in an FAA PPL/IR route, I have all the details written up.

I don't regret having done my route because it has given me a few years of fantastic flying abroad, with at least a few more years to run, and what more can one wish for?

[englishal]

It does not, that is just your perception gleaned no doubt from the usual rumour and misrepresentation that fill these boards on the FAA v JAA debate.

Ok then, of the 20 or so flyer starters, it took 6 months for 8 of them to get the exams. Some still haven't got them all or even started flying training. Costs £700+£300 if you were having printed material - I reckon what I stated was reasonably accurate, unless you are a sky god of course.

FNPTII's - £200 per hour or so dual? I wish I owned one! The exact same sim, same software, same everything, other than the CAA approval will cost $95 per hour (dual) in the USA.