Can you do a JAA SE IR in a Seneca?

[Cows getting bigger]

Hi chaps Just a bit of clarification to a previous comment by Bose X.

You do not have to do the theory exams in the same JAA state as the flying training. However, you are required to do all the flying training in one JAA state. Adding a rating (such as an IR) to a JAA licence is quite easy. Indeed, the CAA even have a specific form (SRG1193)

There are a few 'gotchas' and the bets advice is to discuss the proposed route with your final destination (the CAA in this case) before you start. I suspect that PPrune isn't necessarily the 'definitive'.

[Pace]

10540

There are thousands of us with FAA ATPs who would loose our incomes and positions. To convert to EASA ATP would be expensive and certainly not an overnight job but one which would run into A minimum of months if not years.
Obviously owners would not ground their aircraft while we vanished for months at school.

I have stated before that this has been tried and failed before.without some sort of grandfather allowances to protect my and others positions and incomes EASA would most certainly fail again in the European Courts under prejudice and human rights.The whole thing stinks of anti both those areas.
EASA can propose what they like but it is the courts who decide if they are within the European laws in doing so. This latest shambles is so obviously not within those laws that they would without doubt fail if challenged.

I for one would be quite happy to ignore that proposed jurisdiction as being unlawful if they ever try to put it in place and let EASA take us to court.
They might as well ban coloured pilots its just as discriminatory

Failing that a mass exodus to IOM?

Pace

[S-Works]

They might as well ban coloured pilots its just as discriminatory

Playing devils advocate here for a bit of fun so don't take it personally, but why do you think it is discriminatory? You choose to operate in another authorities jurisdiction on a flag of convenience on order to circumvent said authorities requirements and they choose to stop it. I don't think it is discriminatory at all, harsh maybe, but there is not a legal case that I can see.

[IO540]

Cows Getting Bigger - thank you for that form.

However, the first part is entitled INCLUSION OF AN INSTRUMENT RATING AEROPLANE IN A JAR–FCL PILOT’S LICENCE – APPLICATION (FOR IR COURSES NOT APPROVED BY THE UK CAA)

How is it possible at all for the CAA to add an IR from a non CAA approved (which presumably means non JAA compliant, otherwise the CAA would be in breach by not accepting it) course to a UK PPL?

Come to think of it, why can't the CAA add an FAA IR to the UK PPL? One could tick most of the boxes OK

[Whopity]

from a non CAA approved (which presumably means non JAA compliant,

No it meets a JAA Course that has been approved by an Authority other than the CAA!

[Cows getting bigger]

To be precise, a "JAA authority other than the CAA". You also need to look at this. By implication, if a Licence issued by a JAA state is 'mutually recognised' the training provided for award of such a licence should also be mutually recognised.

[Fuji Abound]

Bose

I will leave your friend to answer that particular question as I think it is directed at him rather than the forum in General.

This is what happened elsewhere:

His main aim was to
ensure that Kenya strictly adheres to ICAO standards and procedures, often at the expense of General
Aviation. Under his regime the KCAA was intensily bureaucratized, primarily through Kuto’s hobby horse –
the new Kenya Civil Aviation Regulations (KCARS). He managed to push that document of 1400 pages
through a storm of objections and warnings of the Kenyan aviators. In the last year of his term, all
communication with the stakeholders had broken down. The KCARS were gazetted, some of them
surreptitiously whilst negotiations between KCAA and the stakeholders were still going on.
Reportedly, during the recent audit of the KCAA by a team from the International Civil Aviation
Organization, the auditors agreed with the concerns of the stakeholders and advised the KCAA that the
new regulations are too bureaucratic, way “over the top” and hostile to Kenyan General Aviation and
Sport Flying. They are practically unenforceable because they rely on micro-control mechanisms that
require an army of enforcers, rather than ‘policies’ that place much of the onus of compliance on the
users. They also are based on a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach where rules for large Jetliners are equally

applied to the smallest two seat aircraft.

It should serve as at least some sort of warning that micro managing GA is a very dangerous game - but I doubt it will.

[Pace]

but why do you think it is discriminatory? You choose to operate in another authorities jurisdiction on a flag of convenience on order to circumvent said authorities requirements and they choose to stop it. I don't think it is discriminatory at all, harsh maybe, but there is not a legal case that I can see.

It is discriminatory if that there is discrimination involved. There are thousands of foreign reg aircraft and pilots flying over Europe as we speak infact more so than EASA. I hold an ICAO ATP which legally allows me to fly in European airspace. I earn money doing so. If somebody says to me NO you cannot if you are a resident of Europe but yes you can if you are resident outside Europe then that is discrimination.
We both hold the same licences FAA ATPs we may both hold type ratings on the same jets.
If you want to bring out a law which says ALL aircraft and pilots flying in European airspace must comply with our laws fair dues if every airline pilot flying into Europe has to sit 14 EASA exams to do so then that is not discrimination. To select one portion of society and try to remove their livelyhoods for something which has been established for decades then that stinks especially as their is no safety basis to do so but one based entirely on protectionism.

The whole thing is that this is all a load of burocratic nonsense There is no evidence whatsoever much to EASAs dismay that European ATPS are any safer than FAA ATPS so why all this expensive and big brother rubbish

Pace

[IO540]

Pace makes a good point actually.

It is particularly perverse in that the EU is supposed to act in the interests of its citizens (see e.g. the rafts of consumer legislation) but here it is acting expressly against their interests.

CGB - what do the numbers in that table mean? Some countries which I thought were JAR-FCL, or working towards it, are not appearing.

[S-Works]

By implication, if a Licence issued by a JAA state is 'mutually recognised' the training provided for award of such a licence should also be mutually recognised.

However, a NAA may still chose not to accept a rating for addition to a UK licence. JAR FCL was a set of guidelines that everyone signed up to not laws. As such an NAA could pick and choose if they so desired. Thats why we don't have a European wide IMCr..........

The only way to know if the training from one state is acceptable to another is choose the state you want to do the training with and then ask the CAA rather than just assuming!!

Some countries which I thought were JAR-FCL, or working towards it, are not appearing.

It only shows the countries that were mutually recognised at that time, not those that became recognised or were in the process of audit.

[Cows getting bigger]

Bose, I think I said in my first post that the best port of call was the CAA and not proon.

IO540 - try and Google "mutual licence recognition EASA".

[Pace]

Come to think of it, why can't the CAA add an FAA IR to the UK PPL? One could tick most of the boxes OK

10540

Common sense would dictate that at most ANY licence conversion would include a flight test and a differences exam but I am afraid these people dont know what the words "common sense" means!!! Remember EASA was almost disbanded for its laughable work and suggestions.

Pace

[IO540]

As an update, this was one of the schools which do ME ICAO IR to JAA IR conversions only.

Unfortunately, their requirements, when actually checked out, are too confused for me to get my head around. It is possible they do only ME to ME, not SE to ME as some others do. SE to SE is harder to find because you have to do it at an FTO and most FTOs do commercial training only i.e. ME.

The great advantage of doing this project somewhere "south" is that you do it as a self contained intense course, not affected by weather. In the UK, unless you live near e.g. Bournemouth, you end up staying in hotels for a few days at a time, and there is the weather risk. Whereas a week in say Spain would do the whole thing. And no need for the window screens; it is all done under the hood.

The exams are done at Gatwick.

[S-Works]

There is a fundamental lack of understanding here I think.

If you have an ICAO IR regardless of how many engines it was for, you convert it to a JAR IR by doing the same training regardless. If you do the IR in a ME then you get both SE and ME at the same time. If you do it in a SEP then you only get a SE and would have to do a top up test later which is the asymmetric elements.

Every school will do the bulk of the IR in a SE and the last few hours in a ME to keep the cost down.

So if you want a SE IR the. Just tell the school that.

edit:speeeling

[Whopity]

You also need to look at this.

This is only a list of which JAA Amendment is currently being used by various States. Since it was published, the JAA has disolved so its fairly meaningless!

So if you want a SE IR the. Just tell the school that.

Even if the FTO don't have a SE IR Approval, the cost of getting one would be less than paying the extra to get a ME IR you don't want. In any event to do a ME IR you would in addtion need a MEP Class rating!

[Cows getting bigger]

This related to that which also relates to this.

PS. The last "this" is more useful than the "that".

[moona]

AEROFANFTO

These guys offer a FAA SE-IR to JAA SE-IR conversion at a very reasonable price / timescale. Previous students seem to have no probs getting ratings added to UK issued JAA licenses after.

[421C]

Whether you have any chance of passing an IR test without a thorough introduction to the examiner's peccadiloes by an instructor who knows him intimately, is another matter

I doubt if there is a more standardised testing regime anywhere in aviation. I don't believe the "examiner's peccadiloes" are of any relevance to passing a JAA IR test conducted in the UK.

I suppose a number of informal flights with a mate who happens to be a real IRI would do the job

No. The conversion has to be at an FTO. BTW, what is a "real" IRI?

the UK examiner is less than likely to be all that current in a TB20

Amongst the risks inherent in GA, the currency of a CAA Examiner in a specific type of light single is amongst the bottom of the list of risks I would ever worry about. Whatever the costs and irritations of the JAA training and testing process, the "risk" (!) has to be offset against the safety benefit of recurrent training. If there is a private single-pilot IFR operator who has so little to learn and is so current that a 15hr course and a skills test with a UK examiner isn't a net safety benefit for them, I have never met or heard of such a pilot.

This can be done for under 10 euros in most "relevant" places. Greece for example converts a UK JAA PPL to a Greek JAA PPL for 6 euros

If you move to live in Greece.

In the UK, unless you live near e.g. Bournemouth, you end up staying in hotels for a few days at a time, and there is the weather risk. Whereas a week in say Spain would do the whole thing.

Given you can do 10 of the 15hrs in a sim, the "weather risk" is down to 5hrs IFR training (eg. 2 training flights and a 170A) and a skills test. It's not a material risk IMHO.

Let's see the plan alternatives:
UK: do 10hrs in a sim and 5hrs in your own N-reg airplane, plus the skills test, somewhere which might be 30mins flight from your home base and 2-3 nights in a hotel. Train amongst a choice of schools where you will know fellow pilots who have done the conversion and can give you unbiased first-hand references (a personal comment to IO, who is a friend in the offline world!) . The school will do the screens and paperwork for you.
"Warm Europe": qualify for 185 days residency, cancel your UK JAA PPL, get a SE IR on a twin, base your school choice on websites and Pprune anecdotes, whatever.....isn't this all a bit silly?

Ultimately IO, it's your choice. If as a matter of principle, the whole EASA thing is so annoying you just want to not do the IR in the UK, fair enough. Private flying is to an extent about indulging one's personal preferences, at least it is for me. No-one can tell us what our personal preferences should be. Go to Greece if you want to go to Greece. I am only writing in case some one should take some of the other stuff seriously about "risks" of doing an IR conversion in the UK.

brgds
421C

ps. I know it's not in the spirit of the thread, but dare I make a hesitant, squeak of a comment: that training can actually be interesting and a good thing, and that whilst the costs and bureacracy of UK training may not be ideal, there are excellent people involved one can learn a lot from.

The principle of having to do an FAA>JAA IR conversion is intensley annoying. The principle of the JAA TK exams is particularly annoying. In practice, the exams aren't as bad as they seem and the flight training is all good stuff. The skills test is not a stretch for an experienced IR pilot after the 15hrs. You just have to accept that there's an element of luck on the day of the test, and any of us might fail it (or, more likely, get a partial).

[421C]

The whole thing is that this is all a load of burocratic nonsense There is no evidence whatsoever much to EASAs dismay that European ATPS are any safer than FAA ATPS so why all this expensive and big brother rubbish

Pace,
Firstly, I agree with you about the FAA system. There could not be a more black and white example of a giant controlled experiment than the experience over the JAA years of the FAA vs JAA systems. Net result: FAA-regulated airlines and FAA-regulated GA are as safe as (I believe) the best JAA countries. I personally don't buy any of the "Europe is different" arguments, in my experience the traffic density and mix, and the extremes of weather and terrain, are greater in the US than Europe. I also think we tend to forget in Europe how much real safety innovation has been driven from the US. Europe may lead the world in regulatory bureaucracy, but wasn't it United Airlines that invented modern CRM concepts and training? Whilst European regulators were doing what? Drafting the JAA training regime and the 14 ATPL exams so schools could churn out standardised 20 year old FO cadets for low cost airlines? If it wasn't for the US GA industry, in Europe we'd still be training using methods and avionics from 50 years ago.

I suspect the underlying motive behind a lot of the euro-standardisation is not fear of the US model, but fear within the European model. Think about the trend of European integration and cross-border trade principles. 20 years ago this began to conflict with the old ICAO model of national sovereignity over CAT. If you were an airline or AOC operator regulated by the UK CAA (or German or French NAAs) what was your biggest fear? I suspect it might have been competition in your own market from operators based in low-cost European countries where "standards" were not enforced as rigorously or expensively as in your home market. Hence, the whole JAA/EASA thing of "harmonised European standards". I am not saying there weren't flight safety issues involved too, but there's an awful lot of EASA/JAA stuff I can't explain on flight safety grounds which does feel like "expensive/highly regulated" bits of Europe wanting to set a playing field at their level.

This underlying motive also feeds, I think, another European theme: the "approval-driven model" (vs. the US "enforcement-supported model"). Europeans look at the relatively "light" US regulatory framework and they wonder how it could possibly work. An FAA instructor, working solo, could train someone right up to ATP level with no more paper work than a few logbook endorsements and some 8710s. An FAA-qualified solo IA can sign off maintenance work and modifications that would need a Part M Organisation and EASA design approval. It utterly inconceivable in Europe. It works in the US because the FAA is fairly active in enforcement and oversight. The FAA instructor knows that if a poorly trained student lucks out on the checkride but goes on to fly badly or hurt some one, between the FAA inspectors and the courts, that instructor is in trouble. Potentially very big trouble. An FAA engineer knows that if they perform and sign-off bad work, even if it's in collusion with an owner, the next owner might catch them out and call the feds. Very, very bad for career and livelihood. In Europe, if you have the right EASA paperwork, it seems to me you can commit just about any crimes against good maintenance practice with surprisingly little fear of recourse. Because there is no equivalent enforcement model in Europe (and 'rich Europe' fears that any enforcement that did exist in principle would be evaded in practice in some parts of Europe), the European solution is the front-loaded, regulation-heavy model we have with very big hurdles for "approval" (of organisations for maintenance, training, AOCs etc).

(BTW, someone usually mentions the additional point that some GA training standards in the US are driven by the insurance industry. This is partly true, but insurance is not mandatory in the US and people regularly self-insure to overcome some of the more onerous insurance requirements and costs)

This is a long-winded way of explaining why we are where we are with EASA. A secondary theme is that some European regulators have had a bee-in-their-bonnet about private (personal and corporate) aircraft in Europe flown under foreign registers. The GA political lobby was able to counter all of that except the most "die hard" prejudice, that EU residents shouldn't fly IFR in Europe without a Euro IR.

It may be that we are pleasantly surprised by some last minute lobby success, but the final draft of EASA FCL is published and the Basic Regulation that all EU resident operators must abide by all EASA regulations (including the FCL ones!) is already law. On this basis one has 2 options
- plan accordingly
- type things on forums like "I don't believe it will happen", or convince yourself that there is some human rights legal case that has not occurred to anyone in the EU or EASA or any of the national NAAs and Transport Ministries that have been involved in the drafting (a legal case that not one lawyer has ever mentioned in the zillions of words written about EASA regulations and in the thousands of comments EASA got on their FCL, and that no one in AOPA Europe or the big array of organisations under Europe Air Sports has picked up on)

You can guess which of these two options I would advise!

brgds
421C

[IO540]

FWIW my view on EASA's ability to pull off this stupid and aggressive stunt has not changed.

On a purely political outlook (which is the only outlook that actually matters, because this proposal and in fact most of EASA is little to do with "aviation") I would give it a ranking similar to the 2005 DfT proposal to kick out N-regs after 90 days' parking.

In those days nobody with a brain thought they would pull it off but nobody could be quite 100% sure because - like the EU today - the UK Govt could 100% definitely have just done it.

But (as I have said before) it is always worth keeping an eye on suitable insurance policies.... in this game you have to watch your 6 o'clock

And BTW if I wanted recurrent training I would pay for and get recurrent training of an appropriate realistic European-IFR nature, with an instructor expert on the type, not flying Bournemouth to Cambridge (or whatever) in a rigged up plane with screens stuck in the windows and paying dearly for the privilege. Nobody should pretend that an FAA IR pilot who flies around Europe for real (or perhaps an FAA ATP who flies for a living) will be doing this as anything more than a silly paper collection exercise.