Professional Pilot Training (includes ground studies) A forum for those on the steep path to that coveted professional licence. Whether studying for the written exams, training for the flight tests or building experience here's where you can hang out.

14 ATPL exams

Old 29th Feb 2016, 21:04
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: San Diego/London
Posts: 92
14 ATPL exams

After sifting through the myriad of threads available on this topic I'd like to conduct a poll.

Of the people who have converted from FAA to EASA, aside from the 14 ATPL exams, what was the most arduous part?

It seems to me, that most pPRuners 'whinge' about how labour intensive the exams were. But apart from that, people rarely speak of the physical flying.

Looking forward to some rants!
turbopropulsion is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2016, 23:51
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: north or south
Age: 46
Posts: 540
If you can not Nav properly , and I don't mean follow roads , your going to find it very difficult
ersa is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2016, 06:43
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 261
Based on my experience:

FAA CPL was (mostly) about handling. EASA CPL was (mostly) about navigating.

FAA IR was (mostly) about learning how to operate a crabby old Cessna with a rudimentary nav fit with the expectation that you would then head off and fly said Cessna on your own for real in IMC. FAA ME was then a relatively straightforward add-on. EASA IR was (mostly) geared towards preparing you for the RHS of a commercial aircraft with little expectation that you would ever end up flying IFR in a light aircraft.

The lack of an oral component to the skills tests for the EASA licence certainly changes the dynamic of the process.
this is my username is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2016, 10:10
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 154
NDB approaches, I did all my training in FL and CA, where all NDB are gone, and never shoot even a single approach. So going back to Europe was challenging as I didn't have a clue how to shoot one.
spaflyer is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2016, 10:39
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London
Posts: 591
In addition to VFR nav, I'd add R/T - significant differences to the U.S. and practical weather decision making, particularly if you have conducted your previous flying in a place where the weather is either obviously fine or definitely no go, like FL or AZ, i.e. no marginal or frequently changing conditions.

FAA examiners put complete emphasis on the PTS during the check - any deviation tends to be met with a 'pink slip' whereas EASA examiners are generally allowed more latitude in terms of assessment of the flight which, although comprised of individual sections, is evaluated from the perspective of the whole trip; of course a section can be found to be unsatisfactory but there is a more tempered approach to the appraisal. I find the FAA DE's to be unforgiving of any small oversight - good flight, demonstrating overall good airmanship and performing all manoeuvres satisfactorily but forgetting to hold the checklist and read from it once is likely to result in a fail. I recall a DE I knew telling an unsuccessful candidate that although the flight was good, not knowing the minimum number of static discharge wicks required for a C172 was unfortunately, a fail. The DE added that although he didn't want to have to award the 'pink slip', the Federal Government demanded it

IR training and environment completely different - a lot of emphasis on NDB tracking and holding plus non-precision approaches in weather, meaning that you don't see the runway environment from the IAP. Flight in controlled airspace with airways legs requiring pressure setting changes under formal ATC can make for a steep learning curve.

Instructional standards and style are different - information communicated quite differently whereby the FAA approach seems to be far more about minimal briefings and letting the student have a go from the start, but then not letting them explore more challenging situations (until they meet them again when solo), whereas the European approach is, or should be, more long briefings, pre-flight brief with thorough explanation, demo, follow through then practice - more teaching than just showing.

Ultimately, it's all horses for courses and I'm not suggesting one is better than the other - just different.

Last edited by Reverserbucket; 1st Mar 2016 at 10:57.
Reverserbucket is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2016, 01:21
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: San Diego/London
Posts: 92
Interesting, thanks for the responses fellas.

If you can not Nav properly , and I don't mean follow roads , your going to find it very difficul
When you say 'nav' do you mean just pilotage + dead reckoning? Not sure using VORs would constitute as being 'difficult'. I feel like I've missed something here?
turbopropulsion is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2016, 01:26
  #7 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: San Diego/London
Posts: 92
Well, my point remains. I'm struggling to then see what the 'big fuss' is all about. Aside from the 14 ATPL exams, the actual flying, considering you've already completed the FAA syllabus, seems to be merely an adjustment process. It's hilarious to read all the diatribes on here from all the naysayers. They've made it sound like it's the 'worst thing in the world'.

C'mon..... Someone has to bite soon.
turbopropulsion is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2016, 16:43
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London
Posts: 591
It's hilarious to read all the diatribes on here from all the naysayers. They've made it sound like it's the 'worst thing in the world'.
Where's that then - have I missed something? And where did anyone mention VOR's?
Reverserbucket is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2016, 21:46
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 261
Originally Posted by turbopropulsion View Post
Well, my point remains. I'm struggling to then see what the 'big fuss' is all about. Aside from the 14 ATPL exams, the actual flying, considering you've already completed the FAA syllabus, seems to be merely an adjustment process. It's hilarious to read all the diatribes on here from all the naysayers. They've made it sound like it's the 'worst thing in the world'.

C'mon..... Someone has to bite soon.
Well, my guess would be that the people who have done the conversion came to terms with the idea that they had to do it and then got on with it ..... yes, the exams are painful compared to the FAA, but we all know that. If you start the EASA exams with the FAA knowledge behind you plus some aviation experience then they are quite do-able and don't need anything like the 650hrs of study time quoted. The flying is just flying - learn what you need to do and then demonstrate it to the examiner.
this is my username is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2016, 06:54
  #10 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 67
Posts: 3,782
If you have an FAA CPL(H), you actually only need 400 hours of study.

And as mentioned, the emphasis is different - in the US (and Canada) you get a worse grilling with no multi-choice on the check ride - typically four hours before you get to the aircraft. I would be very surprised if the average EASA examiner had more than a modicum of theoretical knowledge.
paco is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2016, 17:13
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: St.Kitts
Posts: 10
About this, quick question. Are there any plans of EASA cutting some slack regarding taking all those 14 exams and all this additional flight training, MCC courses and whatnot for FAA ATPL Multi-houred pilots with B747/737/E190/ type ratings? Or are FAA ATPL pilots in EASA view still incompetent and unsafe and have to do everything (theoretical exams and big portions of flying) from scratch again?
sirscarecrow is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2016, 17:34
  #12 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 67
Posts: 3,782
There is some sort of arrangement for one airline in Canada but nothing on the FAA side, as far as I know. As a point of interest, an arrangement was proposed years ago, but it was rejected by the FAA.
paco is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2016, 10:47
  #13 (permalink)  

PPRuNe Handmaiden
 
Join Date: Feb 1997
Location: Duit On Mon Dei
Posts: 4,279
what was the most arduous part?
I came from CASA, not FAA and I found paying for it all and then getting a job in the teeth of post 9/11 slump hard work.
redsnail is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2016, 11:01
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London (FAA CPL/CFI)
Posts: 146
I'm looking at FAA CFI to EASA FI, I'll let you know when/if that happens...
ahwalk01 is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2016, 15:23
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London
Posts: 591
It's quite different - you have to learn how to teach for EASA..
Reverserbucket is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2016, 13:07
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London (FAA CPL/CFI)
Posts: 146
Thanks, no worries there.
ahwalk01 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.