EU Pilot certification rules

[boofhead]

I guess I was lucky. I went from AUS to NZ to Singapore, to UK, to Taiwan, to Korea, with side trips as well, and in every case all I had to do was show my last licence, do a law exam (2 hours tops), a medical and a flight check (as little as half an hour). Each new licence was complete, no restrictions, and stood alone (I was not required to keep the original licence current). It had all the ratings included.
I could, however, do my Aus, NZ and UK medicals in Singapore and those countries accepted my check rides, even though they were all done on a Singapore simulator with a Singapore check pilot (same in the other countries). No requirement to use an Aus/British registered airplane.
To get my US ATP I had to do the full groundschool and sit the exam, the medical, a full training flight to learn the ropes and a full ATP check ride to get the ATP. I could not get my ratings unless I was prepared to do a full US rating course on each one, no short cuts. I had to do two ATP checkrides, because the first one I did was multi engine and that did not qualify me to even rent a Cessna 172.
Under ICAO I should be able to present my ICAO licence and be issued a US equivalent (not just a temporary licence for some private flying while visiting, which is all you will get). The new US licence should include all ratings current and present on the original ICAO licence; type ratings, instrument ratings etc.
The US does not do this and is in violation of the ICAO charter.
If they were not in violation they could have a better case when they complain about other countries doing what they do themselves.
Aren't we bored with this subject by now?

[411A]

The US does not do this and is in violation of the ICAO charter.

Makes no difference, the USA is large enough that they can get away with being the odd man out.
Now, as far as the latest EASA proposed regulations go, I would have absolutely no objection to these, because...it is quite likely that some businesses might well decide that they so desire their corporate airplane, and wish to fly same unhindered by expensive new regulations, they just might pack up and move to America, keep their N-registered airplane(s) and prosper under a much more reasonable tax and investment climate.
They would be welcome....come one, come all, and don't forget, bring your airplanes.
Thank you.

[The Ancient Geek]

Makes no difference, the USA is large enough that they can get away with being the odd man out.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee.
The EU is now larger than the USA. Nice big market with plenty of people and all the resources to safely ignore the bully on the other side of the herring pond.

The Pacific Ring is also doing rather nicely, within a decade or two the USA will have to be satisfied with being the biggest fish in a small pond.

[411A]

USA will have to be satisfied ....

....with having the largest numbers of private/corporate aircraft than all other countries, combined, operating in the lowest cost environment.

We simply don't care what the Eurolanders do....or not do, in aviation.
And, oh by the way, we are about to increase fees for all the foreign flights, both commercial and private, that travel in US controlled airspace, by 14%, per year, over the next four years....so that they can pay, their fair share.
The (mostly) free ride is over for Eurolanders, and others.
If I choose to fly my corporate airplane (of any weight (mass, for the Euroland folks) anywhere in the USA, I do not pay one penny of enroute charges, and we intend to keep it that way.
Eurolanders allowed EASA to be established, now they will just have to live with the consequences.
We, in the USA, couldn't care less.

[boofhead]

Hey, 411A, watch your airspeed! Don't pull back so far or else you will... Too late! Pull up! Woop woop!

[IO540]

Under ICAO I should be able to present my ICAO licence and be issued a US equivalent (not just a temporary licence for some private flying while visiting, which is all you will get). The new US licence should include all ratings current and present on the original ICAO licence; type ratings, instrument ratings etc.
The US does not do this and is in violation of the ICAO charter.

Almost nobody else does it either, especially once you get beyond a PPL. If everybody did this, the flight training business and NAA employment would be more than decimated, in most places.

The USA, and also any country willing to "sell" certificates (which is quite a few if you look at the trade in bogus degrees) would be the chief beneficiaries...

[411A]

Almost nobody else does it either...

...except all the countries in Euroland, when approached by those pilots who don't have a Euroland license.
Euroland is right and truly stuck with EASA, now they can lump it.

[Oktas8]

The FAA allows [lots of stuff] ... No other country in the world makes it so easy.

Actually some other Authorities do. It's great that the FAA, as the largest single market, accepts ICAO licenses with minimal fuss. But so do some other countries including this one. I think Europe really is alone in the developed world by trying to support the training industry by forcing retraining of qualified overseas pilots.

Now if I had my way... All ICAO licenses accepted without restriction, except those issued by the JAA. Full retraining required...

[edited because other posts have been made in the mean time]

O8

[boofhead]

I gave you chapter and verse, but you still think the US accepts ICAO licences. Have you gone through that process? I would like to know if you did and how it worked for you, since I was totally unable to manage it.

I am not talking about Private or Commercial.

If the ICAO countries did not accept each other's licence, it would be tough to move around. It takes on average 2 years to get an ATPL in most countries, including study, ground school and testing, flight prep and flight test. By recognizing the other licence, all that is needed is a law exam, medical and flight check. Some countries will not allow the conversion unless you have a reason for it, and some countries will cancel the licence after you leave (contract ended), but generally it is a smooth process. Not so the US, which in my experience will not allow any conversion of an ICAO licence (maybe they do for Canada).

However, it is easy to get the US licence, if you are not held up by the TSA. It takes around 4 days to do the entire thing, from study, written examination, flight prep and flight test. Plus a couple of thousand bucks of course. I have heard of people getting it in 3 days. Maybe that is the easiest option. Ratings are not included, and they will take more effort.

[Reverserbucket]

411A

..has at least fifty training aircraft, and they do nothing else but train foreign pilots, day in and day out.
Do they have problems with TSA or visas?
The answer seems to be...NO.
Chinese, Indians, a few Jordanians, Europeans...they have 'em all

And with the implementation of EASA you might find a few of those foreign trainees leaving the U.S. due to the requirement for the instructors training them to have an EASA licence - this would impact the significant number of U.S. flight instructors who currently hold an authorization to teach outside of JAA member states and impact the local economy.

The AME I attend for my FAA medical, also issues EASA, DOT Canada, and several others.
EASA...a profit center, make no mistake.

And seeing how your AME also serves those same students perhaps you'll find the cost of your First Class renewal increasing?

[ironbutt57]

Koi.."far inferior" based on what?? First lets get the froggie speaking the correct language on the radio to enhance safety, then address the nickle and dime issues...

[411A]

...due to the requirement for the instructors training them to have an EASA licence

Some already have said EASA license.
And no, this particular training is not likely to move to Euroland because...the weather is much better here and the costs are very much lower.
Also, many of the students are Chinese and Indians.

[Uncle Wiggily]

Koi: I have both the FAA and JAR ATPL. I have flown commercially and instructed on both sides of the ocean for many years (14 years). I disagree with your statement...and yes I have done ALL 14 of the ridiculous JAA ATPL exams.

I believe the you should only comment on this issue if you have completed both FAA and JAR ATPLs....which I seriously doubt you have. IMHO, the European JAR exams are definately more challenging, but flying skill test standards and overall flying ability is definately on the side of the FAA pilot.

[countbat]

Maybe this shouldn't be about who and which is better, but about another way of making an extra buck by greedy governments. I understand is very much of a hassle to register and own an aircraft in EU, and majority of aircraft owners rather use N registration for taxes and insurance purposes. Forcing aircraft owners to local registration and insurance will bring a huge chunk of much needed income with total disregard to the people hassle.
Same for pilot license holders. It's all about money and ridiculous government absolute control.

[3pointlanding]

Me thinks you are incorrect sir. All it akes for a U.S. License is for you to ake a written on our air regs and a checkride. I've given many to foreign crew. check out FAR part 61

[GarageYears]

Time to wake up and smell the coffee.
The EU is now larger than the USA.

But still a shambles of bureaucratic idiocy based on the shattered dreams of some (long) fallen empire... EASA is digging hole after hole for itself and everyone that sails along with it. Good luck to any and all who believe this is the "right move" for Europe. As a UK citizen now living in the US (12+ years and counting), all I can say is I know which side of the pond I prefer my bread buttered on...

- GY

[boofhead]

3point, why would you make such a statement? FAR61.75 allows for the issue of a Private license on the basis of a foreign licence, but it is valid only if the foreign licence is maintained. It is a validation only.
If a foreign pilot wants to fly a US registered airplane under certain limited conditions she can be issued a validation for that too, but in neither case is there an issue of a full US license.
If you have seen something in FAR61 that does allow it, please give me the full reference so I can read it too.

I say again, ICAO allows for recognition of licences, and all countries in ICAO should be forced to follow that rule, or be expelled. That would solve all these problems.

[boofhead]

I admit the chip with the TSA. I can't see how any person familiar with aviation could have any other view. It is a complete disaster with no benefits at all, a total waste of time, effort and resources designed to make the ignorant think that something is being done about a practically nonexistent danger. Don't get me started!

Please go through and see some of my posts about rules and regulations in other countries, Australia in particular (where I started many years ago) and you will see I am a strong proponent of US regulations. I believe that the reason we (I am a US citizen by choice) have the safest aviation in the world is because we have good common sense regs. Obfuscation and complexity do not make things better, it hurts safety big time and EU rules, UK rules and especially Aus rules are terrible.

However the US has got one thing wrong, and that is the resistance to accept ICAO. I see no good reason for this stubbornness, and feel it is the old NIH syndrome (Not Invented Here). Should I close my eyes and just accept everything that the US does as perfect? Sorry, I have been around the block too many times.

Accepting ICAO without significant changes would make aviation world wide go much easier and safer. This is true for every ICAO member, not just the US.

Do I have a problem or do you?

[BEagle]

And no, this particular training is not likely to move to Euroland because...the weather is much better here and the costs are very much lower.

Indeed, 411A. Even the imbeciles of EASA can't make the sun shine!

Once upon a time, there was a Piper J3 Cub, a Piper Cherokee and a Supermarine Spitfire.

For many, many years, you could fly all of them on a UK PPL anywhere in the world. Every 13 months your logbook would be stamped if you'd done 5 hrs P1 and you'd be good for another 13 months.

Then the UK CAA decided it would be A Good Thing to change the rules before JAR-FCL came in, so that it wouldn't come as a complete shock. You could still fly your Cub, Cherokee and Spitfire on a PPL, but the logbook stamp became a 2-yearly licence page signature instead. And was called 'revalidation' or, if you’d run out of currency (which was now called ‘recency’), ‘renewal’.

When JAR-FCL arrived, if you wanted to you could change your lifetime UK PPL into a JAR-FCL PPL which needed to be re-issued every 5 years for which, of course, you would have to pay. The CAA said that this would make things cheaper for everyone in their Regulatory Impact Assessment. Few people were stupid enough to bother. But you couldn't obtain a lifetime UK PPL any longer....

Training for the JAR-FCL PPL was too expensive for many - and some pilots couldn't meet the medical requirements, so a new, simpler licence and medical was invented - the NPPL. Originally with 'simple SEP' privileges, later changed to SSEA because the CAA weren't man enough to stand their ground when challenged. You could, however, still fly your Cub and Cherokee, but not a Spitfire. But only in UK airspace.

Then the €urocrats sniffed real gold and invented EASA. This wholly unnecessary €uro-quango now intends to force everyone with a lifetime UK PPL to replace it with an EASA part-FCL PPL - which isn't lifetime - if they want to fly 'EASA aircraft' such as Cherokees, but not Cubs or Spitfires. Also a JAR-FCL PPL will need to become an EASA PPL. Unless, that is, you simply want to fly your Cub and Spitfire, because you will still be able to do that with a national licence such as a UK PPL or, for the Cub only, an NPPL. If you want to fly a Cherokee as well, you would need to change your NPPL into a LAPL (assuming the medical requirements are still achievable) - or your UK PPL / JAR-FCL PPL into an EASA part-FCL PPL.

So, as I understand it, when the lunacy of Brave New €uroland finally arrives:

• You’ll be able to fly a Cub, but not a Cherokee, on a NPPL in UK airspace.
• You might be able to fly a Cub on a LAPL outside UK airspace; you could fly a Cherokee, but not a Spitfire.
• You can fly a Cub or a Spitfire on a UK PPL, but not a Cherokee. Certainly in UK airspace and perhaps elsewhere?
• You might be able to fly a Cub or Spitfire on an EASA PPL but probably only in UK airspace, but you would be able to fly a Cherokee inside or outside UK airspace.
• The NPPL and LAPL have different revalidation / renewal requirements and the LAPL might also have reissue requirements. None of which are the same as for the UK PPL or EASA PPL.
• The UK PPL doesn't need to be reissued whereas the EASA PPL does.
• My brain hurts.

How to fly a Spitfire outside UK airspace? Probably the same way as in 1940.....

[koi]

EASA to vote...

The subject is Easa Rule making and the effect / reaction on the americas. My privilege to have the bus keys ready to drive the wonderfully well deported and articulated americanos to the nearest rail station / port to ship them out of our europe and release jobs to those who have legal right of abode. They protect their back-yard oh... so well, now ....for payback. Makes my trousers go tight just thinking about it.


K