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! :ok:

If you can not Nav properly , and I don't mean follow roads , your going to find it very difficult

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.

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.

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.

Interesting, thanks for the responses fellas.

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?

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.

Where's that then - have I missed something? And where did anyone mention VOR's?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

I'm looking at FAA CFI to EASA FI, I'll let you know when/if that happens...

It's quite different - you have to learn how to teach for EASA..

Thanks, no worries there.