ICAO to EASA PPL with <100 hours

[sorslibertas]

I've decided that in 2017 I will head out to Canada to do my PPL on Bell 47s.

I understand that by the time I complete the course, I will have about 50-60 hours if I'm an average learner -- well short of the required 100 to convert the PPL to an EASA one.

My question is, would it be possible to build hours upon return by spending a few hours' worth of lessons to learn a new type, then simply fly as a solo pilot under supervision to build hours up to 100, and then convert?

If this is not possible, what alternatives would I have other than to head back out to Canada (or the US after converting to an FAA licence), and self fly hire for a week or so every year?

For clarity, I have no intention to become a professional pilot -- I'm an aid worker/nurse, and I love both my jobs!

[whoknows idont]

Not sure what you mean by solo pilot under supervision. And I'm not sure you would really need the 100 hours. After getting the CA PPL, you should have most of the flight experience required for the EASA PPL. Then it should only be a matter of taking all the exams and the check ride.
Anyway, you could try to find an N-reg aircraft in the UK for flying on your FAA license.

[paco]

There's a lot of solo-under-supervision in Canada, so much so that one student had to do more hours to make up the deficiency when he tried to get hiis licence issued. It means flying along with an instructor who in theory adds nothing to the conduct oof the flight. Once you have a Canadian PPL, you can fly on it in Europe, but it won't be a big effort to change it to an EASA one, as mentioned. It strikes me as strange that you need 100 hours for an EASA PPL - who told you that?

FCL.210.H PPL(H) — Experience requirements and crediting

(a) Applicants for a PPL(H) shall have completed at least 45 hours of flight
instruction on helicopters, 5 of which may have been completed in an FNPT or FFS, including at least:

(1) 25 hours of dual flight instruction; and
(2) 10 hours of supervised solo flight time, including at least 5 hours of solo
cross-country flight time with at least 1 cross-country flight of at least
185 km (100 NM), with full stop landings at 2 aerodromes different from
the aerodrome of departure.
(3) 35 of the 45 hours of flight instruction have to be completed on the same
type of helicopter as the one used for the skill test.

As a matter of interest, who is training on 47s out there? The last person I heard of was Rob Wood in Pitt Meadows BC. It's a good choice of machine. If it is Rob Wood, he is an excellent instructor.

Phil

[sorslibertas]

From CAP 804:

Annex III to Part-FCL
B. CONVERSION OF LICENCES to Part-FCL Private Pilots Licence
(1) A PPL/BPL/SPL, a CPL or ATPL licence issued in compliance with the
requirements of Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention by a third country may be
converted into a Part-FCL PPL/BPL/SPL with a single-pilot class or type rating
by the competent authority of a Member State.
The pilot shall apply to the competent authority of the Member State where he/
she resides or is established.
(2) The holder of the licence shall comply with the following minimum
requirements, for the relevant aircraft category:
(a) pass a written examination in Air Law and Human Performance;
(b) pass the PPL, BPL or SPL skill test, as relevant, in accordance with Part-FCL;
(c) fulfil the requirements for the issue of the relevant class or type rating, in
accordance with Subpart H;
(d) hold at least a Class 2 medical certificate, issued in accordance with PartMedical;
(e) demonstrate that he/she has acquired language proficiency in accordance with
FCL.055;
(f) have completed at least 100 hours of flight time as a pilot.

[Hughes500]

I think you are mad ! Why not learn in UK, advantages

1. Used to UK weather
2. Used to UK airspace
3. Used to UK voice procedure
4. Almost impossible to hire a Bell 47 in UK

By the time you have converted your licence and done the extra exams the price difference will be in UK favour. Plus a school is much more likely to self fly hire you a machine if they know you well

[helimutt]

I agree with Hughes500. Why not just do it all here. By the time youve factored in the costs I bet theres not much difference, and you wont find a B47 to fly in the UK easily. If its just a PPL you want, i'd not even bother going to do a Canadian then convert it. Or are we all missing something here? I believe there is a big school of 47's in Vancouver, Thai students do their initial CPL there before s76 sim, and returning to Thailand to start flying the line.

Chinookhelicopters.com

[sorslibertas]

I admit, it's not the most logical thing to do. Indeed, the missus' initial reaction was not unlike Hughes500's. It's 48 degrees C in the shade where I am at the moment, so I'm not ruling out the possibility that I fried my brain a wee bit!

I suppose the Bell 47 is as big an attraction as getting the PPL, hence Canada. I was indeed looking at Chinook -- Bell 47s, up in the mountains, it would be rather nice! To put things into perspective, if I were to do a PPL(A), it would most likely be in the UK somewhere with a Chipmunk instead of the much cheaper C152 option.

When I first started looking, I knew that it would be more expensive, especially after taking flights to and from Canada and accommodation into account. I thought that after completing the PPL over there, it would be a simple exercise of getting dual instruction on an S300 or R22 over here, then pass medical, sitting the theory exams and a check flight. Sadly, this is not the case -- hence my original post.

Putting economic sense to one side for the moment, I've noticed that some UK flight schools advertise FAA courses, from PPL onwards. For example, FAA PPL(H) -> FAA IR)H) -> EASA PPL(H). How does this work in the EASA legal framework? Does this mean that getting a Canadian PPL(H) and converting it to an FAA PPL(H) -- according to http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...AC_61-135A.pdf it's sitting a couple of tests and medical, but no need for a check flight -- would allow me to fly under the auspices of an FAA school registered in EASA/CAA, and build time while doing an IR, gaining hours and knowledge. Keep in mind, what with shift work and family commitments, I'll probably only be able to fly around two to five hours a month, anyway.

P.S.
I've re-read both the original post and this one, and realise how silly I sound. Please humour me.

[paco]

Ah, Chinook - also a good bunch. To progress from FAA to EASA either means doing the FAA in the US and finishing off in EASA land, or you could do the whole lot, including EASA over there, for which you need to speak to Atlantic Helicopters in Fort Pierce. No 47s, sadly

Phil

[helimutt]

would allow me to fly under the auspices of an FAA school registered in EASA/CAA, and build time while doing an IR, gaining hours and knowledge. Keep in mind, what with shift work and family commitments, I'll probably only be able to fly around two to five hours a month, anyway.

if youre not going to fly professionally, then i'd forget the IR. The requirements for an EASA IR are not as simple as just doing a bit of flying then passing a test. You'd need a multi engine rating for a start, 10 hours in something like a 109 or twin squirrel, thats after you have a certain amount of hours. Flying an hour or two every couple of weeks doesnt allow for that sort of expense, commitment. The IR is a 6 week full time course if you do it properly. An FAA IR will not automatically get you an EASA IR. Ive seen people try and have to do extra training that route.

If you want just a PPL(H) to fly in UK airspace, then i'd suggest doing it in UK on an R22 or H300 etc. Most schools wont let a low time ppl guy with minimal R22 time SFH one of their machines. Or at least if they have any sense they wont, unless its dual flying with a safety pilot.

As for the IR, once you have all the ticks in the boxes, you're looking at a 30k expense +

Think long and hard before embarking on this quest of yours. It may end up being a very expensive exercise in futility. If all you want to do is potter around the skies a few times in a B47 im sure an instructor would happily fly with you.

[sorslibertas]

Ugh. Being wrong sucks.

I suppose doing my PPL in the UK would be my best bet after all. I just have to pick a school and decide on either S-300 or R22.

Thanks for the input, folks.

[Masak]

Or a Cabri

[paco]

Agreed, or an Enstrom. The 22 would be last on my list.

Phil

[Flyting]

up in the mountains

if it's mountains you want..... we have a few running through several EASA states... You can always do courses there post UK PPL.

[hueyracer]

Mountains are not for beginners....

If youŽd be interested in private flying only-take the Robinson......i donŽt like it, but compared to others, its the fastest and cheapest.....plus you can take your family in a R44 and actually go somewhere... (try this in a H300)...

[helimutt]

nothing wrong with an R44 when flown sensibly within the limitations of the aircraft, having had good instruction. Know your own limitations and that of the machine. Saying that, a lot of people on this site, myself included, wouldnt be flying for a living if it wasnt for the R22. Not all of us had the benefit of an ex-military career and we had to find the most cost effective way of gaining the experience. Would I fly an R22 again? Probably, would I fly an R44 again? Definitely.

[maddmatt]

Interesting comments about the R22/R44. I learnt to fly in the R22 and found it quite easy to fly, a few little niggles but nothing serious, I did a TR on a 300C and that was good to fly, nice and responsive.

Actually had my first flight in a R44 a couple of weeks ago, I thought it handled pretty well for a piston engined 4 seater, was very smooth in autorotation and having hydraulic controls made it very easy to get to grips with.

How much does the Canadian route cost for a PPL? There are schools in the UK that can do a PPL for less than 18k which includes all the groundwork and if you choose the right school a cross channel flight.

[sorslibertas]

The email I got said just under 13k GBP, including tax, for private licence. Let's say 750 GBP for food and accommodation for 6 weeks, and another 500 for flights, so about 15k GBP in total, plus whatever EASA ground exams, R22/S300 endorsement and check flight will cost.

I would have been happy to do it if only I didn't need 100 hours total time to convert to EASA PPL.

They did say the commercial licence would be 100 hours, and if the 85:5:10 of B47:R44:B206 option is chosen, it would be just under 30k, or about 26k if done on B47 alone. Factor in food and accommodation for 6 months and flights, I reckon the bill would be around 33.5k for the mix, or 30k for B47 only. I'm not saying it won't be fun, but it's way, way out of my budget.

[MartinCh]

Paco, reason he talked 100hrs was the no requirement for dual received by EASA FI for PPL flight test.
Also with 100hrs on type (light singles) he'd not need whole TR course, just flight test - can be combined with PPL. In reality he'd do some prep training, but could then be less restricted with TR courses as such.

For recreational flying only and in the UK, despite having my preferences to KEEP OUT, I can only concur it's most sensible doing your training in the UK.

If you want it fast, can be done over summer, with least disruptions due to weather, especially if working fulltime.

If you want to combine training with fun trip/holiday for your lady, to make any sort of financial advantage for PPL or so only, Canada would be second choice compared to US. You can still find hilly place/school, but in reality, you'd not going to do too much of off-airports and pinnacles in most places during initial training.

Also, the USD vs other currencies isn't great, but still better than Canadian dollar. those rates are nearer UK dual rates incl VAT than average US cost.

Again, for short time and only private flying, you'd end up spending more, by the time you're proficient for safe solo flying, especially if you're most likely to rent R22 and as you say, prefer not to use that for PPL or most of it. You only see the bigger picture when flying R22 from left seat, the margin for error in some maneuvres, what you'd not see as student.

With reasonable availability of Cabri at UK schools, I'd recommend it. It's lot safer, stable, reliable and plenty passive safety/crashworthiness built in and handling preventing the need. One can't compare R22 with Cabri, trying to draw too many equivalencies, other than being helicopter and the engine used.

As once a year flyer and PPL only, you'd lose proficiency faster and I assume you may not entertain too much currency flying after long break (hey, TR valid, so legal to fly, attitude possibly). Cabri would help being docile and safer, plus for trips, the luggage space, endurance, comfort, cyclic trim, it'd all be advantage compared to R22.