EU Pilot certification rules
 

I find this really funny. The US has always had these requirements, and has never met it's ICAO responsibilities for licencing. They will not recognise any foreign licence or rating and require a full ground and flight course for everyone, no matter what licences and ratings he/she might have on a foreign licence. The most you will get is recognition of experience (flight time, instructor time etc). Now they bleat because Europe is proposing to do the same to them? Gimme a break!

EU poised to vote on pilot certification
Pressure mounts to ‘park’ the issue
By Dan Namowitz

With the European Union Commission nearing a vote on adopting EU-wide pilot certification rules, AOPA is warning that the package—which does not include acceptance of third-country pilot credentials—would erect trade barriers with consequences felt in the U.S. flight training and manufacturing sectors.


The EU Commission is set to vote following a hearing scheduled Oct. 13 through 14 on a package of flight crew licensing rules put forth by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). In 2008, EASA undertook certification revisions that would supersede member nations’ procedures for the conversion of U.S. pilot certificates.

If passed into law, the proposal would adversely affect U.S. flight schools that train foreign pilots, as well as pilots coming to the United States for training. Pilots who complete their flight training in the United States would be required to repeat most of the exact same training upon returning to an EU state, and it would render the FAA instrument rating useless in Europe. U.S. aircraft manufactures and flight training schools will suffer from a downturn in business from Europe as it is unlikely anyone would invest getting a U.S. aircraft or license which lasts for one or two years, said Craig Spence, AOPA vice president of operations and international affairs.

Pilots holding certificates of nonmember countries would be required to take EASA’s Air Law and Human Performance exams, hold a Class 2 medical certificate, demonstrate language proficiency, fulfill the requirements for issuance of a type or class rating relevant to the privileges the pilot holds, have at least 100 hours of pilot-in-command time in the relevant aircraft, and pass private pilot skill tests.

AOPA stated its concerns about the proposal to EASA’s Cologne, Germany-based rulemaking directorate in written comments in February 2009. The association pointed out that the changes would negate the value of flight training in non-EASA countries, including the U.S.

“Flight training in the U.S. is done because most EASA countries do not have the extensive infrastructure to provide the flight training to would-be pilots. Currently, people seeking a pilot’s license can complete their training in the U.S. and return to an EASA country and easily exchange their U.S. certificate for an EASA license. The proposed changes would eliminate that option,” AOPA wrote on Feb. 27, 2009.

The International Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (IAOPA) is expressing alarm at the impact facing pilots and aircraft manufacturers. “To fly an aircraft in Europe, no matter what the country of register, would require an EASA licence, and if applicable an EASA instrument rating, if you were domiciled in Europe. A stop-gap validation on a non-European licence would be available from national aviation authorities, valid for one year,” it explained to members in a special message. IAOPA Senior Vice President Martin Robinson said that late efforts were being made to persuade the EU to “park” the issue until the impact could be re-examined. He described the EASA proposals as “a smokescreen for political chauvinism.”

“The safety benefit will be zero,” he said.

Ill thought out start to your posting
 

Yes Boofhead, you may laugh but I suggest you check out the Bizjet forum on here. Potentially thousands of Pilots both US and European Citizens resident in the EU, flying N reg on FAA licences may lose their jobs if this becomes law.

That doesn't take into account the many thousands of other personnel that would lose their jobs working for the companies that manage these Aircraft.

Think before you type :rolleyes:

Incorrect. The FAA hands out "based on" PPLs and IRs readily. The PPL is a 61.75 one and the IR is a foreign pilot exam.

Europe could do the same but they choose to run various restrictive practices instead.

EU Pilot certification rules
 

This is simply devine news.

I can scarse conceal my schadenfreude.

If this EASA vote confirms the adoption of EU Pilot certification rules, it will go a long way in redressing the huge imbalence existing between Europe and the US. Have a look at the number of USA operations that have hitherto been allowed to exist in Europe to the disadvantage of our own pilots, Fedex UPS etc. They operate on ATP licences far far inferior to EASA and have a great deal of trouble in the radio communications department as any European crewmember can hear !! Give me strength.

I suggest we shove them all home to their land of oil and sugar [witness the girths of their women and engines] with a copy of the regulations, a guide to radio communication and our very best wishes in re entering their US job market.
Woof woof
Koi

Do you need a Doctor ?
 

What huge imbalance, a couple of cargo companies :rolleyes: ? What solid evidence do you have that an ATP is inferior to a European licence ? You have none.

Also, if an EASA licence is a ticket to the insanity that you appear to be showing in your posting, then I'll pass thanks !

By the way this is being written by an EU Citizen flying an 'N' reg Jet on FAA licences, so your insults of American Pilots are wasted on me.

Ahhh, touched a sore spot I see. FAA stands for Federal, not European.

The European training is vastly superior, ask any training school or TRE, the standard of american communication piss poor.


Let the debate begin.

K

True, but that is max a PPL with IR, in europe it is quite easy to get some very easy conversion of a US CPL into a JAA one, depending on country. And that is the main issue corrected here. True as well, they went slightly (but only slightly) overboard with the inclusion of the PPL into the regulation (though there seems to be a quite large time window to recertify), but as others i do see it as a tiny step on the way of evening the odds between the very much closed US job market and the very wide open european one.

I have to admit i do not really pity those companies that might have to move their aircraft and crews onto a european registry with that legislation, they flagged out in the first place to circumvent european regulation (and probably taxation).

I'm sure that your American friends will like you for that comment. However, I fail to see your point as you are directing your comments at American Pilots, and many thousands of us flying on non EASA licences are not.
Yes, If I asked a JAA training school in Europe, they may say demeaning things about non EASA licences. Then again they are trying to relieve us of tens of thousands of pounds for the privilege of flying the same Aircraft, that we have flown safely for many years before. :ugh:

If this was to be approved, when would said changes come into effect?

To convert from an FAA certificate to a JAR is a huge expensive pain in the ass as it is. Making it anymore so is not at all practical, and has ZERO logic behind it, which is a trait also demonstrated by advocates of this movement here in this thread. :ok:

Thomascl605 has it right.

Then again Koi, there's a name for Pilots who flew 'down under' a few years ago like yourself. I guess you're not welcome there either. Let me guess, the Australian licence is now inferior too ??

Thanks B767PL, have a look at the Bizjet forum for more info http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-fl...pa-latest.html

Also AOPA IAOPA News on third-country licences

The vote is next week, this has been dropped on the Aviation world at the very last minute.

Sounds like you haven't gotten lucky for a while, mate! :ooh:

Who bl00dy cares if the R/T procedures are not as exact as in Euroland? Show me one example where non-procedural R/T has caused disaster in the US or Europe! I'd rather be worried about eroding hand-flying skills as I have seen in Europe than this @n@l retentive R/T crap! :ugh: Whereas the requirements of obtaining a FAA ATP is easier than the JAR/EASA one, I'd feel as comfortable in an N-registered plane as a EU one. It's less academical, but requires more practical skills.

Complete ignorance. In what respect is the training superior? What defines American R/T procedures being "piss poor"? Care to examine your spelling issues? Ever flown into ORD? The first thing that comes to mind with EU training is the quick-ish disappearance of money from your account with rather little flight time and experience.

Got some inferiority complexes you want to share with us today? :rolleyes:

I guess you'd see a mass movement from N-registered planes to M-registered ones... ;)

Koi,

Are you familiar with the term "Reciprocity"?

bs

Koi.
 

I am a European holder of both the FAA and JAA ATP. The FAA test was a practical test, the JAA was purely theoretical.

I have had European copilots who told me they would not fly a visual approach. When I asked why the answer was "I have never done one". Yup, you are right. That is superior training.

I have heard a European crew so stressed out going in to Moscow on a windy day with only the NDB approach available telling the controller to "Shut up" when he told the in plain English that they were correcting the wrong way. After they went missed we landed (with two US pilots) before the European made another approach and went missed again. (It was well above minimums, just 30 knots of crosswind during the IMC portion of the flight).

So I guess I should yell at the controllers and be a ****ty instrument pilot to meet your high standards???

Koi -

Minor point, but the "standard of communication" always favors the home team. Or to put it in terms that you might understand, the Europeans are the ones whose communication is "piss poor" at places like ORD, JFK and SFO.

Nothing personal, it is just the nature of life. You will realized this when you grow up.

FAA-JAA conversion in Germany
 

I just read this link and don't understand the problem. I'm in the process of converting my PPL to fly in Germany (where I am a resident) and the current process is exactly that outlined in the press release--exams in human factors and air law, demonstrate that you can actually fly, medical, an additional R/T endorsement (easy). The LFA offers all exams in English, and I found the two theoretical components great additions to what I learned in the US.

I suspect that I'm missing something, but what's going to change? (All from the PPL side, mind you, not CPL/ATP).

Many of my German colleagues have done flight school in the US because it is a lot more fun, cheaper, and faster, and essentially just transfer their hours into the JAA system. It still works out to be a major cost and time advantage.

The problem is that N registered aircraft living in Europe will need to be registered in Europe (and therefore will need to be flown by JAA licensed pilots).

And, for Boofheads information, the US doesn't have a problem with its residents flying foreign-registered aircraft using pilot licenses issued by the country the aircraft is registered in.

The difference for an FAA CPL/ATP Indaloman is that EASA through their actions are trying to relieve us of tens of thousands of pounds, just to fly the same non EU registered aircraft that we have flown safely and legally for many years before.
Not to mention the time element and that for nearly all of us it would mean the loss of our jobs, as we couldn’t take the time off to pass their lengthy and pointless conversion process.

Koi

EASA went to vast expense to find a safety arguement and could not find one! infact they all turned pink when the latest A/S showed FAA PART 135 to be safer than our own overregulated and controlled AOC ops.
Burocracy, quangos, pen pushers dont equal safety.
Even more pink turning was the discovery that FAA private jets also had a better safety record than AOC ops :E

This whole thing is ridiculous EASA should look at why FAA is so prevalent in Europe and make our system so attractive that so many would flock to EASA instead all they do is load our industry with more and more burocracy and expensive regulations to justify their own artificially created jobs.

Koran

Who in their right minds would want to fly and base an EASA regulated aircraft out of Europe? That says it all!

Pace

What kind of stuff have you been smokin?

Captain "koi" . . .
 

. . . Gee, after 15,000+ hours of flying heavy airframes into Euroland with a non-JAA license. . . I must have been flying on "borrowed time" without possessing the magic of EASA expertise! :rolleyes:

GlueBall

If you did fly EASA Licences you would be so stressed out with all the extra paperwork and regs and burocratic nonsense you would have to deal with you would probably crash through that stress ?

Hmmm i wonder if thats why the AOC ops accident stats are so bad compared to the inferior FAA part 135 :eek:

Even our N Reg private jets are better in the accident stats but probably because we relax around the beach :)

On safety grounds which is EASAs Mandate maybe they should scrap the lot and copy the FAA system?

Pace

GlueBall, you got it all wrong! You will feel the magic after you see your bank account drying up. Trust me! :E

Then you hold a piece of paper in your hand, worth a few grand! Talk about magic! :{

As I worked at quite a large middle east airline (SV) for a long time, one that required all their pilots to have FAA licenses, it was interesting to see just which foreign pilots failed their initial type ratings, the first time 'round.
Yup, you guessed it....Eurolanders, with original European licenses, without exception.
I had to laugh at all this, as these failures really got up the Eurolanders collective noses, big time.;)

And on top of it, Glueball, you will know the amount of molecules inside your windshield!

Highly useful during a decompression :}

So as the holder of both a JAA and FAA licence I'm 'laughing' am I? Wrong!
 

It costs me over £1,000 a year just to keep a JAA MEP/IR that I have by default under FAA. The reason I have never applied a type to my JAA is the ridiculous cost of regulation but if this lunacy comes to fruition then I'll be saddled with that - oh and I can't alternate types anymore. Not to mention the guys I've been able to start on turbines from non jobs Before the EASA union of bed-wetters get on their high horses, let us not forget there is no safety case!

The responses here seem to be broadly split between entirely reasonable opposition and unbelievably opinionated, and occasionally racist hearsay (KOI!) which is probably indicative of the mentality of the loons driving this.

I support the posters indicating the lack of a safety case, the fact that the FAA system is practical (not easier) and the EASA theoretical (to the point of lunacy). I would also point out that having observed their girth (as you suggest) the most beautiful woman I have ever observed with my 20/20 vision is an American.

Jeff

That's a separate issue...about which you have our sympathy.

FAA PPL to JAA PPL has never been much of an issue. The UK has the 100hr route where you do 2 or 3 exams and a flight test.

The issue is with the IR, and for bigger hardware you have the CPL/IR and ATPs to convert. This much more work.
Not under current proposals. See table on page 9. SE and ME pistons, and SE turboprops will be able to stay on e.g. N-reg and be maintained to FAA Part 91 as at present. ME turboprops and jets will have some extra hassle, but foreign reg airframes as such are not being evicted as such. One thing is that to park in the EU long term the airframe will need to have an EASA type certificate; this does rule out a few types but not many.

nonsense.
 

Koi,

I normally am not inclined to waste time refuting absurd arguments, because they usually do not even require refuting. But you need to be brought down from your high horse. You seem to think US pilots inferior in skill and in radiotelephony. Based on what? Your experience? Let's compare experience if you dare. This is an absolutely specious and absurd opinion. Piloting and communication skills vary with the individual, and are not endemic to any particular licensing authority or country.

True, in Europe you have to slog through 14,000 questions on 14 exams full of mostly trivial matters to pass the ATPL theory. But that does not a great pilot make. Personally I forgot 80% of that nonsense immediately after I passed the JAR-FCL ATPL exams, because I figured that after 29 years and about ten thousand hours of flying into over 80 countries on all continents before I sat those exams, if I didn't need to know about Decca navigation and figuring out the wavelengths of an NDB signal to fly safely as an FAA ATP, then I wouldn't need to know it flying safely as a JAR-ATPL.

As far as radiotelephony superiority is concerned, you are even more delusional. Go to LAX or JFK or ORD or ATL and marvel at how American pilots and controllers can shoe horn three times the amount of airplanes (and thus radio chatter) onto a given runway in any hour. And it works. In Europe, you have slots, so all the people on both sides of the microphone are not overwhelmed. In America, we don't need no stinkin' slots, we can talk as fast as cattle auctioneers if needed.

Bureaucratic fiefdoms in Europe make it even worse. ENAC, LBA, ACG, FOCA and the rest of the alphabet soup of organizations that have all invented aviation all over again and better than their neighbor of course, when one EU-FAA would do fine. And on your point of "Federal", that is not strictly an American word. How about Federal Republic of Germany for example.

And EASA? A bureaucrat's dream, but not much use to pilots. Try Googling any FAR and you will find what you need. Try even finding a current copy of EU-Ops online, and it isn't easy. It certainly isn't indexed either.

I know European pilots with superb communication skills, and some that I can barely understand in or out of the cockpit. And I speak 4 languages, so don't come back with any smart "you Americans only speak English anyway" nonsense. Likewise I know some American aviators with absolutely flawless diction on the microphone, and some who are just sloppy like anywhere else.

Usually, the person with the most xenophobic and self righteous opinion is the one who has no firsthand experience with the other side of the matter they are proposing to debate. What makes you so qualified to make the observations you make and to draw the conclusions you do?

Pilot training as well as the quality of aviation phraseology on both sides of the pond can be equally excellent, it all depends on the caliber of the pilot and the school. As a dual FAA and JAR ATP/L certificated/licensed (however you want the correct terms) pilot who has worked extensively on both sides of the pond in almost every facet of aviation, I feel qualified to shoot down your statement.

DC10

You said it and so well! As a pilot flying FAA jets this side of the pond EASA is a joke, a burocratic nonsense. EASA regard My FAA ATP as zero if I wanted to covert to their EASA licences I would be regarded as a basic PPL although I fly as a captain, have ferried all over the world and have 1000s of hours flight time.

That means nothing in EASA land. Now for no reason they are trying to ban N reg in Europe. If they had any sense they may just ask why so many N reg are in Europe? But they dont have any sense and dont address the real reasons.

E xterminate
A viation
S trangle
A viators

Pace

I did not mean to hit a nerve or insult any pilot. I held 7 different ATP licences, including UK and US. I currently use only my US license. I was only pointing out that the US has always discriminated against foreign licence holders and has always required full training and testing before a US license can be issued, no matter what the individual might already hold. They recognise only the hours in your logbook or the type of experience such as instructor time, but even then you still need the ground and flight training and checking before you can be issued the rating.
For example I had the 737 with many thousands of hours in my UK licence but could not get that rating on my new US ATP. The ground school was given to me by Singapore so it did not count; I would have had to do it all again. I would have had to do the written type rating and the flight test as well. Many thousands of dollars. Obviously I no longer fly the 747.
By contrast I got my UK licence on the basis of a NZ ATPL, and all I had to do was the medical, law exam and a flight test in a multi (basically an instrument rating test) to get a full, no restrictions UKATPL.
Now it looks as if the European authorities are going to do the same thing to the US that the US does to them.
Hence my remark that is seemed funny that the US should complain. I realise that many of my colleagues are threatened by the changes, and hope they can manage to do what is necessaryto remain flying.

boofhead,

I have a Canadian ATPL. I just got my FAA ATP Airmen's Certificate including the 3 type ratings I have for a/c I flew in Canada...by passing a Class 1 FAA medical and doing a 40 question multiple choice conversion exam (for which I studied for about 10 days). Period, end of story.

On the other hand, with my 7000+ hours (including over 3000 hours multi-turbine PIC time with a few hundred hours B737 F/O time thrown in)...to get the EASA or JAA ATP FCL or whatever the hell you call it, I need to do these ridiculous 14 exams.

This makes less than no sense; it's idiotic.

Wrong.
I will give an example.
When a foreign airline leases a US-registered airplane, for use in their scheduled services, the FAA (normally) issues, to the pilots that will fly these US-registered airplanes, a US license (no testing required), and these FAA licenses are restricted to only these specific airplanes, by registration number.
Been this way for well over twenty years.
Fact.

Hi!

Euro training is not better than US, just different.

There was a big discussion on this area in the ME forums.

Based on my observations of FAA/CAA, and, more so, from pilots much more experienced than myself in FAA/JAA/CAA observations, the training is different.

The JAA/CAA pilots are better at Met and subjects like Aerodynamics. The FAA pilots are better at handling the aircraft manually and flying visual approaches.

Also, heard the FAA pilots understand their aircraft better initially, as the PIC and SICs have to pass an oral exam (I understand the JAA/CAA pilots only have to pass a multiple choice writte exam on the aircraft???). The FAA Oral Exam is like this:
Weight and Balance charts, performance charts, checklists memory items (the first turboprop I had an Oral Exam on had 27 :-O!!! checklists with memory items), limitations, and systems questions, such as: How many/what kind of fire extinguishers are on the aircraft/where are they? When does that light come on? What does this switch do? What are the 9 modes that the outflow valves can be in? If you see a "Flap Drive" message, what does it mean, and what will you have to do?

Neither way is better, overall, just different.

Oh, and someone mentioned the 14,000 potential exam questions. The question bank I studied from was about 22-24,000 questions!!!

Correct! Some of my friends at MXA who are awaiting their uncertain fate have FAA and JAA licenses (or better validations) for N- and F-OXXX registered planes. The only thing I don't know is whether the FAA calls it a license or a validation, but I'll leave that detail for to the bureaucratically gifted...

Usually leased airplanes will keep the registration of the lessor's country, so that it is easier to repo the plane in case the airline defaults on its payments. MXA's F100s were PH- registered for a long time, before they were finally purchased.

There is also an airline in the US (Ryan International I believe) that flies EI- registered (Ireland) 737s. Not sure if they still do, and if those were leased from the (in)famous Irish carrier Ryanair (FR).

I think this is about Power. FAA registered aircraft operating and based in Europe has probably upset some idiot in power. As they have no control over them and they do not conform to some of the more stupid Euro regs.
Also there is the question of licencing fees, all much more expensive in Euroland than the US.

Fresh from AOPA USA

SunBird

I totally agree with you BUT EASA does have the power but not in the way you may think?

In a free world we have freedom of choice. BMW build cars and sell those cars in competition to other car makers.

If you make something attractive in price quality etc customers will flock to buy them.

EASA with their power could have sat down and built a licencing product that was so attractive that no one would want to operate an N reg in Europe.
They have that power to do so but choose not too.

Instead they shout about UNFAIR N reg based in Europe. They could be clever and ask WHY ? and maybe for the good of aviation all round not just the N Reg issue start to do something really constructive to help aviation grow and flourish within Europe.

Instead they take out their big stick and beat aviation into submission bend it to their wish no matter how much they strangle the life out of it.

EASA is supposed to be a safety organisation and rightfully so. They know by all the statistics at hand to them that this is not a SAFETY issue so why do they not use their mandate and regulate on safety NOT politics.

EASA has the power why do they not use that power wisely?

Pace