Licensing: can you have your cake and eat it? FAA/EASA
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,159
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
Don't get me started, but here goes.... 
They think they do, in that they make it more difficult to get a licence, and people confuse that with higher standards. Taking Canada and the US as examples, they are more interested in ensuring that you are safe rather than stopping you.
Probably around 30% of the knowledge required to get your EASA licence is completely useless - and I speak as one with an ATP in helicopters and aeroplanes and has got my boots muddy from bush flying to IFR, and who has been on the RMT 595 committee for revising the syllabuses (who cares how many atomic clocks a satellite has?) Having established a fairly poor set of Learning Objectives, they proceed to compound things by creating questions that are deliberately long and difficult to read instead of being short, snappy and to the point. Apparently, this is because they don't think the question writers produce value for money if they do short ones. The point is, that the only reference for the schools to teach the subject properly is in the question which they are not allowed to see. It is a fact that you cannot pass the exams without a nod to the various question databases - you will not pass on knowledge alone. One of our first students, 11 years ago, was both a CFII and a consultant heart surgeon and he failed the lot. We had another from the US Navy who had a high level math degree and found that all of the answers in many Nav questions were wrong. etc. etc. The original idea was to have the exams at college level, but there is no way the procedures for these exams fit those criteria - I do wonder about all those "aviation degrees" that involve a pilot licence. This will apparently change in the new courses due in August 2020, so we will see.
You also require a PPL to start modular training - the FAA randomly inspect schools and have your training in your logbook, I'm told - nothing like that happens in Europe. Each country has their own methods and, in the UK at least, the schools administer the exams. That is shortly to change, however as they are all going on to the same system as the professional ones.
OK, so now you have struggled through your exams and are ready for your check ride. Every one is different - there is hardly any standardisation, aside from the checklist of things to be covered, and they don't even do confined areas with helicopters any more. Anywhere you go in Canada, you will get the same check ride - not so in Europe.
Your exposure to the examiner in Europe is probably around 2.5 hours, and it is almost guaranteed that they will have hardly any theoretical knowledge themselves. You will be given 20 minutes or so to prepare the flight, do it, debrief, and that's it. In Canada and the US, you will not even go flying for 4 hours while you are given a thorough grilling, so the check ride will last almost the whole day. And believe me, the check airmen know their TK.
Does that answer your question?
They think they do, in that they make it more difficult to get a licence, and people confuse that with higher standards. Taking Canada and the US as examples, they are more interested in ensuring that you are safe rather than stopping you.
Probably around 30% of the knowledge required to get your EASA licence is completely useless - and I speak as one with an ATP in helicopters and aeroplanes and has got my boots muddy from bush flying to IFR, and who has been on the RMT 595 committee for revising the syllabuses (who cares how many atomic clocks a satellite has?) Having established a fairly poor set of Learning Objectives, they proceed to compound things by creating questions that are deliberately long and difficult to read instead of being short, snappy and to the point. Apparently, this is because they don't think the question writers produce value for money if they do short ones. The point is, that the only reference for the schools to teach the subject properly is in the question which they are not allowed to see. It is a fact that you cannot pass the exams without a nod to the various question databases - you will not pass on knowledge alone. One of our first students, 11 years ago, was both a CFII and a consultant heart surgeon and he failed the lot. We had another from the US Navy who had a high level math degree and found that all of the answers in many Nav questions were wrong. etc. etc. The original idea was to have the exams at college level, but there is no way the procedures for these exams fit those criteria - I do wonder about all those "aviation degrees" that involve a pilot licence. This will apparently change in the new courses due in August 2020, so we will see.
You also require a PPL to start modular training - the FAA randomly inspect schools and have your training in your logbook, I'm told - nothing like that happens in Europe. Each country has their own methods and, in the UK at least, the schools administer the exams. That is shortly to change, however as they are all going on to the same system as the professional ones.
OK, so now you have struggled through your exams and are ready for your check ride. Every one is different - there is hardly any standardisation, aside from the checklist of things to be covered, and they don't even do confined areas with helicopters any more. Anywhere you go in Canada, you will get the same check ride - not so in Europe.
Your exposure to the examiner in Europe is probably around 2.5 hours, and it is almost guaranteed that they will have hardly any theoretical knowledge themselves. You will be given 20 minutes or so to prepare the flight, do it, debrief, and that's it. In Canada and the US, you will not even go flying for 4 hours while you are given a thorough grilling, so the check ride will last almost the whole day. And believe me, the check airmen know their TK.
Does that answer your question?
Last edited by paco; 3rd Nov 2019 at 07:31.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Italy
Age: 34
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't get me started, but here goes....
They think they do, in that they make it more difficult to get a licence, and people confuse that with higher standards. Taking Canada and the US as examples, they are more interested in ensuring that you are safe rather than stopping you.
Probably around 30% of the knowledge required to get your EASA licence is completely useless - and I speak as one with an ATP in helicopters and aeroplanes and has got my boots muddy from bush flying to IFR, and who has been on the RMT 595 committee for revising the syllabuses (who cares how many atomic clocks a satellite has?) Having established a fairly poor set of Learning Objectives, they proceed to compound things by creating questions that are deliberately long and difficult to read instead of being short, snappy and to the point. Apparently, this is because they don't think the question writers produce value for money if they do short ones. The point is, that the only reference for the schools to teach the subject properly is in the question which they are not allowed to see. It is a fact that you cannot pass the exams without a nod to the various question databases - you will not pass on knowledge alone. One of our first students, 11 years ago, was both a CFII and a consultant heart surgeon and he failed the lot. We had another from the US Navy who had a high level math degree and found that all of the answers in many Nav questions were wrong. etc. etc. The original idea was to have the exams at college level, but there is no way the procedures for these exams fit those criteria - I do wonder about all those "aviation degrees" that involve a pilot licence. This will apparently change in the new courses due in August 2020, so we will see.
You also require a PPL to start modular training - the FAA randomly inspect schools and have your training in your logbook, I'm told - nothing like that happens in Europe. Each country has their own methods and, in the UK at least, the schools administer the exams. That is shortly to change, however as they are all going on to the same system as the professional ones.
OK, so now you have struggled through your exams and are ready for your check ride. Every one is different - there is hardly any standardisation, aside from the checklist of things to be covered, and they don't even do confined areas with helicopters any more. Anywhere you go in Canada, you will get the same check ride - not so in Europe.
Your exposure to the examiner in Europe is probably around 2.5 hours, and it is almost guaranteed that they will have hardly any theoretical knowledge themselves. You will be given 20 minutes or so to prepare the flight, do it, debrief, and that's it. In Canada and the US, you will not even go flying for 4 hours while you are given a thorough grilling, so the check ride will last almost the whole day. And believe me, the check airmen know their TK.
Does that answer your question?
They think they do, in that they make it more difficult to get a licence, and people confuse that with higher standards. Taking Canada and the US as examples, they are more interested in ensuring that you are safe rather than stopping you.
Probably around 30% of the knowledge required to get your EASA licence is completely useless - and I speak as one with an ATP in helicopters and aeroplanes and has got my boots muddy from bush flying to IFR, and who has been on the RMT 595 committee for revising the syllabuses (who cares how many atomic clocks a satellite has?) Having established a fairly poor set of Learning Objectives, they proceed to compound things by creating questions that are deliberately long and difficult to read instead of being short, snappy and to the point. Apparently, this is because they don't think the question writers produce value for money if they do short ones. The point is, that the only reference for the schools to teach the subject properly is in the question which they are not allowed to see. It is a fact that you cannot pass the exams without a nod to the various question databases - you will not pass on knowledge alone. One of our first students, 11 years ago, was both a CFII and a consultant heart surgeon and he failed the lot. We had another from the US Navy who had a high level math degree and found that all of the answers in many Nav questions were wrong. etc. etc. The original idea was to have the exams at college level, but there is no way the procedures for these exams fit those criteria - I do wonder about all those "aviation degrees" that involve a pilot licence. This will apparently change in the new courses due in August 2020, so we will see.
You also require a PPL to start modular training - the FAA randomly inspect schools and have your training in your logbook, I'm told - nothing like that happens in Europe. Each country has their own methods and, in the UK at least, the schools administer the exams. That is shortly to change, however as they are all going on to the same system as the professional ones.
OK, so now you have struggled through your exams and are ready for your check ride. Every one is different - there is hardly any standardisation, aside from the checklist of things to be covered, and they don't even do confined areas with helicopters any more. Anywhere you go in Canada, you will get the same check ride - not so in Europe.
Your exposure to the examiner in Europe is probably around 2.5 hours, and it is almost guaranteed that they will have hardly any theoretical knowledge themselves. You will be given 20 minutes or so to prepare the flight, do it, debrief, and that's it. In Canada and the US, you will not even go flying for 4 hours while you are given a thorough grilling, so the check ride will last almost the whole day. And believe me, the check airmen know their TK.
Does that answer your question?
I also agree that it's impossible to pass an ATPL subject without practicing on some kind of exam bank.
I won't even talk about "aviation degrees" as having a "real" engineering degree I have some strong opinions about them, and yes, a lot of calculations are either wrong or make assumptions which are not specified in the question...that's why you need at least one question bank.
BUT about the practical training I have to totally disagree with you.
Of course I can speak only for my home country, but even the PPL is standardized, so you get the same training in every Italian FTO. Of course, THE QUALITY of instructors varies a lot. I went to a school with really experienced instructors and a lot of both ex and current military pilots. I'm totally confident in saying that my training was top notch, and I'm sure there are a lot of small schools in Europe just like mine. After that I flew both in Spain and in the US, and on both check rides the instructor said I had to thank my previous instructors because it was obvious I had a really high standard training.
So the quality training is there if you want it, and after quality training came a "quality" examination. It was just the standardized exam prescribed by ENAC, with standard grading...and even if I had only a 2 hours interrogation on the ground, it continued for the full length of the flight (2.5 hours). Believe me, I would have preferred 4 hours on the ground.
This was for the PPL. CPL/IR takes 6 hours between ground and air.
The examiner was a current airline captain.
So I think the problem lies elsewhere, specifically in the fact that there is no "EASA license", but a lot of national licenses following MINIMUM EASA standards. So there is no consistency in the quality of the training across the EU, and better training doesn't imply better job offers. Airlines historically recruiting from my school are Ryanair and Air Dolomiti.
Airlines like easyJet, which is probably the best company for a low hour right now only get graduates from the "big three" where instructors, especially for the initial basic training, are ex-students waiting for their place with a partner airline.
So more money implies better jobs but not better training, and maybe this is the wrong aspect of EASA training, but it's more due to airlines hiring practices rather than EASA making it happen.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,159
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
I take your points, but EASA is supposed to be the equivalent of the FAA for Europe. Of course, there are schools that do it right, but that doesn't come from the legislators.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't get me started, but here goes....
They think they do, in that they make it more difficult to get a licence, and people confuse that with higher standards. Taking Canada and the US as examples, they are more interested in ensuring that you are safe rather than stopping you.
Probably around 30% of the knowledge required to get your EASA licence is completely useless - and I speak as one with an ATP in helicopters and aeroplanes and has got my boots muddy from bush flying to IFR, and who has been on the RMT 595 committee for revising the syllabuses (who cares how many atomic clocks a satellite has?) Having established a fairly poor set of Learning Objectives, they proceed to compound things by creating questions that are deliberately long and difficult to read instead of being short, snappy and to the point. Apparently, this is because they don't think the question writers produce value for money if they do short ones. The point is, that the only reference for the schools to teach the subject properly is in the question which they are not allowed to see. It is a fact that you cannot pass the exams without a nod to the various question databases - you will not pass on knowledge alone. One of our first students, 11 years ago, was both a CFII and a consultant heart surgeon and he failed the lot. We had another from the US Navy who had a high level math degree and found that all of the answers in many Nav questions were wrong. etc. etc. The original idea was to have the exams at college level, but there is no way the procedures for these exams fit those criteria - I do wonder about all those "aviation degrees" that involve a pilot licence. This will apparently change in the new courses due in August 2020, so we will see.
You also require a PPL to start modular training - the FAA randomly inspect schools and have your training in your logbook, I'm told - nothing like that happens in Europe. Each country has their own methods and, in the UK at least, the schools administer the exams. That is shortly to change, however as they are all going on to the same system as the professional ones.
OK, so now you have struggled through your exams and are ready for your check ride. Every one is different - there is hardly any standardisation, aside from the checklist of things to be covered, and they don't even do confined areas with helicopters any more. Anywhere you go in Canada, you will get the same check ride - not so in Europe.
Your exposure to the examiner in Europe is probably around 2.5 hours, and it is almost guaranteed that they will have hardly any theoretical knowledge themselves. You will be given 20 minutes or so to prepare the flight, do it, debrief, and that's it. In Canada and the US, you will not even go flying for 4 hours while you are given a thorough grilling, so the check ride will last almost the whole day. And believe me, the check airmen know their TK.
Does that answer your question?
They think they do, in that they make it more difficult to get a licence, and people confuse that with higher standards. Taking Canada and the US as examples, they are more interested in ensuring that you are safe rather than stopping you.
Probably around 30% of the knowledge required to get your EASA licence is completely useless - and I speak as one with an ATP in helicopters and aeroplanes and has got my boots muddy from bush flying to IFR, and who has been on the RMT 595 committee for revising the syllabuses (who cares how many atomic clocks a satellite has?) Having established a fairly poor set of Learning Objectives, they proceed to compound things by creating questions that are deliberately long and difficult to read instead of being short, snappy and to the point. Apparently, this is because they don't think the question writers produce value for money if they do short ones. The point is, that the only reference for the schools to teach the subject properly is in the question which they are not allowed to see. It is a fact that you cannot pass the exams without a nod to the various question databases - you will not pass on knowledge alone. One of our first students, 11 years ago, was both a CFII and a consultant heart surgeon and he failed the lot. We had another from the US Navy who had a high level math degree and found that all of the answers in many Nav questions were wrong. etc. etc. The original idea was to have the exams at college level, but there is no way the procedures for these exams fit those criteria - I do wonder about all those "aviation degrees" that involve a pilot licence. This will apparently change in the new courses due in August 2020, so we will see.
You also require a PPL to start modular training - the FAA randomly inspect schools and have your training in your logbook, I'm told - nothing like that happens in Europe. Each country has their own methods and, in the UK at least, the schools administer the exams. That is shortly to change, however as they are all going on to the same system as the professional ones.
OK, so now you have struggled through your exams and are ready for your check ride. Every one is different - there is hardly any standardisation, aside from the checklist of things to be covered, and they don't even do confined areas with helicopters any more. Anywhere you go in Canada, you will get the same check ride - not so in Europe.
Your exposure to the examiner in Europe is probably around 2.5 hours, and it is almost guaranteed that they will have hardly any theoretical knowledge themselves. You will be given 20 minutes or so to prepare the flight, do it, debrief, and that's it. In Canada and the US, you will not even go flying for 4 hours while you are given a thorough grilling, so the check ride will last almost the whole day. And believe me, the check airmen know their TK.
Does that answer your question?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Austria/USA
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NEDude - just to re-iterate, I never once said that I thought the EASA licence was superior but looking at the theoretical knowledge requirements, they're a million miles apart whereas the FAA licence is more practically based. Its interesting you noted that you think this is the cause of the statistics but what are the statistics based on? is it actually EASA airlines or on European airports? I should suspect due to our geographic location, if its based on airport incidents then it could be influenced by different airlines from afar flying in!
So how come youve ended up with all three licences? is there any restriction for holding multiple licences?
So how come youve ended up with all three licences? is there any restriction for holding multiple licences?
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Orbit
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Minotaur,
To answer your original question.
No, no restrictions to hold multiple licenses.
However, different licenses have different recency requirements. For example; On some, type ratings expire, on others, They don't.
I can't stress this enough. Get your EASA licence first, then convert to FAA. No matter how much you love the states, you never know what life might hold and when you may want to work in Europe. EASA is fairly easy to convert to all other licenses, including FAA.
Conversion process.
EASA (or any ICAO) > FAA
Main points:
1. Meet ATP hour requirements
2. Get FAA first class medical
3. Do TSA fingerprinting
4. Sit ATP CTP
5. Pass ATP written (recommend using Sheppard air software)
6. Pass ATP flight test - this can be done on a light twin such as a baron or Seneca, but for best value, get yourself an A320 or 737 rating and do that at the same time.
Alternative to the above. Get yourself hired by a regional and they'll pay for (most of) the above.
That will be easier said that done without a green card. Sorry to say that no regional here is going to sponsor you at the moment. But you never know, they hire Aussies on E3 visas now, so maybe in the future, they'll do H1Bs too.
You could also try the green card lottery, or meet a nice American and get hitched.
Canada is also an option, they have a skilled migration scheme, and pilot is on the shortage list. If you have a degree, you may qualify.
Good luck. Feel free to PM me if you want any further info on conversion.
=============================
Until you have a posting history you don't have access to private messaging and adding urls.
To answer your original question.
No, no restrictions to hold multiple licenses.
However, different licenses have different recency requirements. For example; On some, type ratings expire, on others, They don't.
I can't stress this enough. Get your EASA licence first, then convert to FAA. No matter how much you love the states, you never know what life might hold and when you may want to work in Europe. EASA is fairly easy to convert to all other licenses, including FAA.
Conversion process.
EASA (or any ICAO) > FAA
Main points:
1. Meet ATP hour requirements
2. Get FAA first class medical
3. Do TSA fingerprinting
4. Sit ATP CTP
5. Pass ATP written (recommend using Sheppard air software)
6. Pass ATP flight test - this can be done on a light twin such as a baron or Seneca, but for best value, get yourself an A320 or 737 rating and do that at the same time.
Alternative to the above. Get yourself hired by a regional and they'll pay for (most of) the above.
That will be easier said that done without a green card. Sorry to say that no regional here is going to sponsor you at the moment. But you never know, they hire Aussies on E3 visas now, so maybe in the future, they'll do H1Bs too.
You could also try the green card lottery, or meet a nice American and get hitched.
Canada is also an option, they have a skilled migration scheme, and pilot is on the shortage list. If you have a degree, you may qualify.
Good luck. Feel free to PM me if you want any further info on conversion.
=============================
Until you have a posting history you don't have access to private messaging and adding urls.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Italy
Age: 34
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last time I've checked this was not the case, but it was more than a year ago.
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Orbit
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Canada? No, as far as I know, none are sponsoring...however, their migration system is based on points. Last time I looked it was something like 70 points to qualify, For example: 15 points for a job offer (it's not mandatory if you qualify via other catagories), 10 points for fluent English/French, 5 points for upper intermediate level French/English (second language), 15 points for a degree, 10 points for 5 years work experience, 5 points for your spouses language skills etc etc etc etc. Those values aren't exact, it's a while since I've looked at it, but you get the Idea.
There's an abbreviated LMIA process for pilots in numerous administrative regions of Quebec (Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean, Capitale-Nationale, Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Montérégie, etc). See eg
https://www.canadavisa.com/quebec-re...html#gs.fh7a8v and list here.
Database of flight training units here. Canada and several European countries, among others, participate in a youth mobility scheme allowing admission with an open work permit for a year or in some cases two years. See IEC working holiday permit here. See also Post Graduation Work Permit and in particular the information at the bottom of this webpage.
https://www.canadavisa.com/quebec-re...html#gs.fh7a8v and list here.
Database of flight training units here. Canada and several European countries, among others, participate in a youth mobility scheme allowing admission with an open work permit for a year or in some cases two years. See IEC working holiday permit here. See also Post Graduation Work Permit and in particular the information at the bottom of this webpage.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Minotaur,
To answer your original question.
No, no restrictions to hold multiple licenses.
However, different licenses have different recency requirements. For example; On some, type ratings expire, on others, They don't.
I can't stress this enough. Get your EASA licence first, then convert to FAA. No matter how much you love the states, you never know what life might hold and when you may want to work in Europe. EASA is fairly easy to convert to all other licenses, including FAA.
Conversion process.
EASA (or any ICAO) > FAA
Main points:
1. Meet ATP hour requirements
2. Get FAA first class medical
3. Do TSA fingerprinting
4. Sit ATP CTP
5. Pass ATP written (recommend using Sheppard air software)
6. Pass ATP flight test - this can be done on a light twin such as a baron or Seneca, but for best value, get yourself an A320 or 737 rating and do that at the same time.
Alternative to the above. Get yourself hired by a regional and they'll pay for (most of) the above.
That will be easier said that done without a green card. Sorry to say that no regional here is going to sponsor you at the moment. But you never know, they hire Aussies on E3 visas now, so maybe in the future, they'll do H1Bs too.
You could also try the green card lottery, or meet a nice American and get hitched.
Canada is also an option, they have a skilled migration scheme, and pilot is on the shortage list. If you have a degree, you may qualify.
Good luck. Feel free to PM me if you want any further info on conversion.
=============================
Until you have a posting history you don't have access to private messaging and adding urls.
To answer your original question.
No, no restrictions to hold multiple licenses.
However, different licenses have different recency requirements. For example; On some, type ratings expire, on others, They don't.
I can't stress this enough. Get your EASA licence first, then convert to FAA. No matter how much you love the states, you never know what life might hold and when you may want to work in Europe. EASA is fairly easy to convert to all other licenses, including FAA.
Conversion process.
EASA (or any ICAO) > FAA
Main points:
1. Meet ATP hour requirements
2. Get FAA first class medical
3. Do TSA fingerprinting
4. Sit ATP CTP
5. Pass ATP written (recommend using Sheppard air software)
6. Pass ATP flight test - this can be done on a light twin such as a baron or Seneca, but for best value, get yourself an A320 or 737 rating and do that at the same time.
Alternative to the above. Get yourself hired by a regional and they'll pay for (most of) the above.
That will be easier said that done without a green card. Sorry to say that no regional here is going to sponsor you at the moment. But you never know, they hire Aussies on E3 visas now, so maybe in the future, they'll do H1Bs too.
You could also try the green card lottery, or meet a nice American and get hitched.
Canada is also an option, they have a skilled migration scheme, and pilot is on the shortage list. If you have a degree, you may qualify.
Good luck. Feel free to PM me if you want any further info on conversion.
=============================
Until you have a posting history you don't have access to private messaging and adding urls.
