EASA is very confusing and complicated...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Earth
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA is very confusing and complicated...
In my quest for finding a country (never mind flight school) to do my ICAO license conversion, I keep running into some very confusing situations which I have never been able to get a definite answer. So far, I have essentially been looking at getting a license issued by the UK CAA, or Swedish CAA. The UK CAA requires me to do a minimum of 15 hours of flying for my CPL (based on having 260 hours currently) and then 15 hours for my multi IR (10 in the sim, 5 in the plane) to be able to do my skills test and be issued a UK CPL with IR. When I inquired with schools in Sweden, they said I should expect 10 to 15 hours TOTAL flying (CPL/ME and IR) to be issued a Swedish CPL with multi IR. How is that in Sweden there is no minimum requirement for the CPL or multi IR, but in the UK there is? From what I am understanding, if I am fully proficient, I could in theory by done my CPL multi IR conversion in 5 hours (not including the skills test).
Even if Sweden is more expensive based on higher hourly rate, it can still be way cheaper to do the conversion in theory since the minimum amount is much lower then the UK
I thought every EASA state was supposed to more or less follow the same rules? Clearly this isn't the case....I even inquired with my native country's CAA and they won't even recognize my ICAO CPL and would make me redo the ENTIRE ground school and flight training from scratch which blows my mind
What gives? I thought all EASA member states where supposed to more or less follow the same rules, but that's clearly not the case... why do the Europeans have to make it so complicated...
Even if Sweden is more expensive based on higher hourly rate, it can still be way cheaper to do the conversion in theory since the minimum amount is much lower then the UK
I thought every EASA state was supposed to more or less follow the same rules? Clearly this isn't the case....I even inquired with my native country's CAA and they won't even recognize my ICAO CPL and would make me redo the ENTIRE ground school and flight training from scratch which blows my mind
What gives? I thought all EASA member states where supposed to more or less follow the same rules, but that's clearly not the case... why do the Europeans have to make it so complicated...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Earth
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yea I have to take that into consideration also... At this point it would probably be wise to not convert my license to UK and get it from Sweden or elsewhere
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Earth
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately that doesn't tell me much about converting a license
I have a Canadian CPL with multi IFR.
From what I have gathered, the UK CAA requires you to do at least 25 hours of training for the CPL if you are at or below 185 hours. Above that you get credit hours. In my case I would get 10 credit hours (I have 260 hours) so I would only need to do 15 hours of training. Then for the multi IFR I would need to do 55 hours, but since I already have a multi IFR, I get 40 hours credit which means I only need 15 total, of which 10 can be done in a sim.
Swedish CAA on the other hand has no minimums... I have talked to a few flight schools, and it appears that in theory you can just walk into the plane and do both your CPL and Multi IR flight tests with 0 hours of training (as long as you get a recommendation of course, but that would never happen). They say the average student gets their CPL AND multi IFR within 10 to 15 hours TOTAL flying time.
A country like Romania doesn't even bother recognizing your ICAO CPL and makes you redo the entire CPL ground school and flying from scratch
WHAT GIVES? It makes absolutely no sense to me. I understand that every EASA member state essentially follows the same rules for students starting from 0 to Frozen ATPL, but for conversions it's as if they don't care and it's a free for all and up to the member state to decide on the rules for converting a license...
I have contacted EASA directly to see if they can point me in the right direction and maybe clarify the situation. At this point even though Sweden is more expensive on a per hour bases, it's honestly better to do the conversion their given their isn't a 30 hour minimum like it is with the UK (not to mention the whole Brexit fiasco, which could render my license useless right after I finish converting it)
I have a Canadian CPL with multi IFR.
From what I have gathered, the UK CAA requires you to do at least 25 hours of training for the CPL if you are at or below 185 hours. Above that you get credit hours. In my case I would get 10 credit hours (I have 260 hours) so I would only need to do 15 hours of training. Then for the multi IFR I would need to do 55 hours, but since I already have a multi IFR, I get 40 hours credit which means I only need 15 total, of which 10 can be done in a sim.
Swedish CAA on the other hand has no minimums... I have talked to a few flight schools, and it appears that in theory you can just walk into the plane and do both your CPL and Multi IR flight tests with 0 hours of training (as long as you get a recommendation of course, but that would never happen). They say the average student gets their CPL AND multi IFR within 10 to 15 hours TOTAL flying time.
A country like Romania doesn't even bother recognizing your ICAO CPL and makes you redo the entire CPL ground school and flying from scratch
WHAT GIVES? It makes absolutely no sense to me. I understand that every EASA member state essentially follows the same rules for students starting from 0 to Frozen ATPL, but for conversions it's as if they don't care and it's a free for all and up to the member state to decide on the rules for converting a license...
I have contacted EASA directly to see if they can point me in the right direction and maybe clarify the situation. At this point even though Sweden is more expensive on a per hour bases, it's honestly better to do the conversion their given their isn't a 30 hour minimum like it is with the UK (not to mention the whole Brexit fiasco, which could render my license useless right after I finish converting it)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,144
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
Welcome to the world of EASA but, to be fair, you will get a different interpretation of CARs from each provincial office of TC as well. Each competent authority in EASA is allowed to "interpret" the rules even though they are supposed to be standard. Indeed, the UK CAA have been known to apply a rule because "that was what was in the mind of the person that wrote the rule" even though the law is supposed to be read in plain words and actually says something quite different! On being asked for clarification, it turned out that the guy was dead anyway. Go figure.
As far as theoretical knowledge goes, you will get a reduction in training hours for your CPL - our training manual says 400 hours.
As far as theoretical knowledge goes, you will get a reduction in training hours for your CPL - our training manual says 400 hours.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Earth
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Welcome to the world of EASA but, to be fair, you will get a different interpretation of CARs from each provincial office of TC as well. Each competent authority in EASA is allowed to "interpret" the rules even though they are supposed to be standard. Indeed, the UK CAA have been known to apply a rule because "that was what was in the mind of the person that wrote the rule" even though the law is supposed to be read in plain words and actually says something quite different! On being asked for clarification, it turned out that the guy was dead anyway. Go figure.
As far as theoretical knowledge goes, you will get a reduction in training hours for your CPL - our training manual says 400 hours.
As far as theoretical knowledge goes, you will get a reduction in training hours for your CPL - our training manual says 400 hours.
At this point whatever EASA writes and whatever a country decides to do doesn't really matter... best bet would be Sweden at the end of day because there is no minimum hour requirement for the flying portion (doesn't mean it can't take the same amount of time as say UK, it just means you are less constrained if you are able to progress quickly and do your flight tests within a few hours)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Earth
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then when I checked out a third school in Sweden today, they advertised the min hours the UK CAA rules states so I'm completely lost at what to believe... Anyways at this point it doesn't really matter. I hope that this can be of some help to others browsing the forum for help on EASA conversions
