FAA vs EASA ME/IR test requirements

[this is my username]

Hi

I hold an FAA CPL / IR / ME and am thinking of converting to EASA.

I was recently reading an accident report from the 1990s (Bandeirante at Leeds) which made reference to the limited amount of "partial panel" training which the pilots had received - which surprised me as it felt like half of my FAA IR checkride was done "no gyro" with a simulated Vac pump failure (so no AI or DI, just the electric turn co-ordinator), and the checkride included a "no gyro" approach (can't remember if it was an ILS or Localiser, but you get the idea).

Another difference I (think) I have noted is that during my FAA ME training it was drummed in to me that "there is no such thing as a single-engine go-around or missed approach" - so once you start your single engine approach you are going to land - and if you don't make the runway then you will crash it in the usual manner somewhere in the vicinity of the runway. I always assumed that that this was taught on the basis that you are better off on the ground in approximately the right place rather than crashing during the course of a botched asymmetric go-around. If I have understood correctly what I have heard about an EASA ME/IR test then that includes asymmetric go-arounds/missed approaches.

I know that the EASA IR test includes NDB procedures which aren't part of the FAA test, and probably doesn't include GPS approaches which are a staple of FAA-land.

So .... is my thinking right about the differences regarding partial-panel and asymetric approaches, and are there any other differences (other than NDB / GPS) which I ought to know about?

This isn't intended to start an FAA vs EASA bun-fight, I'm just trying to understand what the key differences are in the training and the test so that I have a better idea of what to expect.

Thanks

[sicamore]

I hold an FAA atpl amongst others and do my recurrency to easa standards in Europe on another license. I am not sure where you got the no single engine go around but that was and is a big part of my FAA currency on a 737 sim when I am stateside. Can't speak for JAR but partial panel was part of initial reqs for other license as well.

Biggest difference I have experienced between the two, is JAR is a ball ache and FAA is much more practical. My two cents

[zondaracer]

I know that the EASA IR test includes NDB procedures which aren't part of the FAA test

I'm not sure where people are getting this but I definitely have done NDB procedures in my FAA flight test, both an NDB hold and and NDB approach.

Obviously, if your aircraft is not equipped with an ADF then you won't perform NDB procedures on an FAA test, and I have heard some schools sticking INOP stickers on ADFs so that the students don't have to deal with them, but you CAN still be tested on NDBs in the US, and many examiners still test them.

[B2N2]

Practical Test Standards for the FAA ATP require a single engine go-around.
The CPL ME PTS does not.

[FlyingStone]

Originally Posted by this is my username

I was recently reading an accident report from the 1990s (Bandeirante at Leeds) which made reference to the limited amount of "partial panel" training which the pilots had received - which surprised me as it felt like half of my FAA IR checkride was done "no gyro" with a simulated Vac pump failure (so no AI or DI, just the electric turn co-ordinator), and the checkride included a "no gyro" approach (can't remember if it was an ILS or Localiser, but you get the idea).

I did "no gyro" (no AI/DI) NDB approach on my initial JAA IR skill test and of course I did assymetric approach & go-around as well. It's not really that difficult and it's quite safe (we did zero thrust as opposed to feathered prop). Your examiner should explain what he expects from you during the pre-exam briefing, so there shouldn't be any surprises.