Having said I was out, I'm going to have to come back to this specific comment, since you now want to specifically address my circumstances, which you assume you know. I had the choice of EASA or CAA forced on me through a combination of being locked down in a foreign country by COVID after taking one sitting of exams, needing to maintain my existing job in said country, and the fact that I had not budgeted for (nor could afford in the timeframe) to do double of everything, especially not in the UK. None of which I knew would happen when I started.
And you're correct, no one did force me down this road, I don't regret it. If I find myself needing to go and sit the UK ATPL exams, so be it, but my career plan will have diverged massively from what I expect to do, and I will have messed up royally, because I'm really not interested in staying in the UK any longer than I need to.

None of which changes my opinion, or the fact, that the way the CAA handles EASA license conversions is uneccessary, burdensome, and a waste of people's time and money.

Richpea,
Things never work out the way we expect. We just have to adapt,
Best of luck.
BP

I think most people would be happy if the UK and EASA agreed on the equivalence of the theory exams. There might however be some logic to a separate air law exam. Genuine question for the experts, what meaningful differences between CAA and EASA air law would warrant a separate paper?

If I want an EASA licence it's 13 exams. Doesn't matter if I did the 13 Hong Kong exams or 12 Singapore ones and they are very similar. Why should CAA give you a pass if you did the EASA ones? EASA doesn't give a free pass to anyone.

Apart from anyone currently working in the UK as a pilot due to the subsequent erosion of Ts&Cs

Why do you think there are now c.300 fully funded cadet programme places a year!!

It would be a mistake to believe that many EASA National Aviation Authority licences are any where near UK standard. Even some EASA Autorities will not accept other countries licences. EASA is a shambles, there is no common standard.

Ah, good to see the British aura of superiority is alive and well. Carry on!

Complete bollocks, that might have been the case 20 years ago...

Exactly. Idk if anyone remembers but I sure remember having to memorize seasonal monsoon patterns in India as part of my EASA meteorology exam.

I also think that Newhairdo is just rambling about random stuff because how is the ITCZ or Australian CTAFs relevant to the differences between operations in the UK vs the EU?

Touching on what I said, it also is a pointer on why some people might not want to memorise random bs like this to convert their license. It's tough once you're a pilot and you know how useless the theory exams are for the most part.

So two things here;
1. Because holding the licence allows you to fly there as a commercial pilot.
2. You clearly haven’t read the thread properly. If you had done so, you would have seen the other replies, and understood the context of the conversations. Do better.

If they are struggling for pilots increase the salaries. The UK always loves to throw its own people under the bus.

Didn't EASA just fall to the lowest common denominator. Hence why EASA FTLs were relaxed heavily comlater to the old CAA standard. My guess would be licencing did the same.

I’d support bringing back mutual recognition between EASA and UK-CAA licences. It wouldn’t change who can actually take jobs: non-Brits in the UK and non-EU pilots in Europe still need the right to work or visa sponsorship. All mutual recognition would do is reduce duplication and cost for crews who already meet training, medical and recency standards - without undermining each market’s immigration controls or airline hiring policies.

Far too sensible! Or just a simple endorsement on one's licence which authorises the holder to operate. The host country administrates the endorsement. The licence holder's national Authority administrates the rest of the licence.It's how much of the rest of the world operates.

Yes. ridiculous.

Endorsements are only available for 12 months.
Full recognition is the only sensible solution, a bit like the Australia / New Zealand Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Agreement (TTMRA).
Don't hold your breath though! Can you really see Sly Keir and his broken government having the time or appetite to negotiate this with Europe? And what do you think Europe might say anyway!?

It's nothing to do with 'sly Keir and his government', rather the sh!t Brexit deal negotiated by, among others, Shapps because EASA has an E at the beginning. Remaining within EASA was always an option. And why should EASA/EU care anyway? And even if there was recognition there are still the 'right to live and work' hurdles to clear. For clarity, yes I think mutual recognition would be a good thing, staying in EASA would have been a better thing but we are where we are. My experience of working with mainland Europeans and their view of Brexit is mainly a shrug of their shoulders and a sense of bemusement and them getting on with their lives.

We might be where we are but we shouldn’t settle just because the hurdles seem too large. This Brexit mess has cost me personally £1000s in dual licences and tests etc. The while separation is completely illogical and in all honesty it shouldn’t actually be about just rejoining EASA… EASA needs to step forward and the current / old authority system needs to be dismantled. The fractured nature of European aviation regulation and even unions is why certain airlines are able to suppress wages and push training costs from the type onwards into aspiring pilots who by CPL (APS MCC) have already paid their dues.

The fractured nature of the current system also raises concerns on regulatory capture of these authorities by airlines with a lot of money and power… the fact that the U.K. CAA for instance allow a particular airline to fly non G-reg out of UK bases permanently while other airlines have properly split their fleets says a lot and that’s just a clear influence we can see.

Any meaningful updates?

There is a huge political weight behind this. I remember asking my license authority for some docs in order to request a uk caa one and the guy was very vocal about "them not wanting to be in EASA, why would you want to have their license"...

Well, I can show you how certain Swiss helicopter companies, with help of FOCA, pushed thru significant EASA legislation changes in Helicopter OPS that suited them and were, effectivelly, a step back from long term EASA policy. Switzerland is, as you know, not EU country, but is in EFTA and thus can use EASA regulations with mutual recognition. On paper, FOCA does not have the right to vote on EASA matters, in reality, they pushed thru what they wanted.
UK CAA principles were taken into EASA rules in many ways and am sure that it would be listened carefully in Cologne, if being on same status as Switzerland, Norway or Iceland. Formal decisionmaking maybe no, but influence definitively yes - and that matters.

At least FOCA/BAZL are super-efficient. They were among the first countries to actually implement and issue (then) JAR-FCL licences in 1998. I got my CPL/IR under JAR-FCL in 1998 and we were the first ever candidates to sit those written exams in March 1998.
When I perform a skill-test I always receive my newly printed licence within 3 or4 business days after submitting the required forms and documents - and that's through international mail! So I'd say that FOCA/BAZL deserve to be heard, because they are actually really helpful, efficient and friendly. When you call them, they pick up the phone. When you send them an e-mail, you get a reply within hours, sometimes minutes.

I know, that's not the point, but I wanted to point out the professionalism of this department.

The irony is that the CAA merely cut/pasted their header onto the EASA regs.. so nothing has change, thus no reason to not simply accept them overnight.

Just to add on, the helicopter representation is crap in EASA, its all pushed by airline lobbyists (why the heck would something as stupid as the MPL get approved unless its was to allow quicker gearswingers thru the system.. in the meantime, getting any helicopter training changes made is near impossible)

I'm guessing one of the reasons EASA at least wouldn't want to recognise UK CAA licences is that through Brexit, a big market for EU/EEC pilots has been closed off.

The requirement to speak English to a reasonable extent in commercial aviation meant that anyone from Europe could fly in the UK whereas anyone from the UK would have needed to meet national language requirements to fly for many (but not all) EU/EEC airlines.

On the flip side, the inability to recruit large numbers of Europeans has possibly been one of the factors in UK airlines starting to take fully sponsored training programmes seriously.

I'm going down the dual-licence route (eligible for Irish citizenship through ancestry) and some of the bureaucracy has been a pain, especially since fewer and fewer UK commercial flying schools offer the dual-licence route and the fact that AustroControl apparently won't even accept UK night ratings, however it is possibly a price worth paying for less competition in the UK low-hours jobs market.

Any update on this topic? Are there any efforts to mutually recognize licenses and medical certificates?

No. Nothing has changed or is likely to change in 2026, I'm reliably informed unless there is some sudden political shift in Whitehall. Such a matter of recognition extends far beyond just aviation and is more in the current government's hands now than with the CAA.

Plus the argument that the CAA's regs are identical to EASAs is no longer valid. Both sides have made changes.

What do the air operations regulations have to do with license recognition?

The changes to the UK Aircrew Regulations the CAA have made since leaving EASA (promulgated via Skywise), especially during 2025 and forthcoming in 2026 are I'm sure of particular interest for any potential licence recognition. Despite all changes remaining in compliance with ICAO.

Likewise any changes by EASA that the UK have decided not to adopt would need consideration.

Bottom line, the days of claiming our rulebooks are identical are over, and talks on recognition have not yet amounted to anything serious.

When JAA was formed they took dozens of completely different sets of rules and overnight made them all the same, so anything is possible. Ultimately the head of the CAA can wake up in the morning and decide to recognise whatever he/ she likes. The status quo is probably better for (most) UK pilots.

But still, the demand that ATPL holders of either side should have to resit the entirety of their ATPL theory in order to transfer a license is frankly crazy, and purely political. One can only hope at some point people sit down and have some sensible conversations about it.

Why is this conversation entirely one sided?

If you’re British with an EASA licence you are almost entirely shut out of the European market because you have to have an automatic right to work to take up EASA job

ifs not mutual recognition you want but favouritism

I got my European licence whilst the UK was in the transition period- so still part of the EU and I STILL had to do a European (Irish) initial medical at great expense because EASA states stopped validating UK medical records. This was despite the fact that all of my training and exams had been dual approved and conducted when we were 100% part of EASA.

for once let the U.K. aviation market be profitable for U.K. residents and nationals, we are behind in almost every aspect to our peers in Europe yet are amongst the most productive pilots in the continent

if there’s a labour shortage then it’s up to the airlines to address that domestically, why should be always be subsidising European licence holders when we don’t get the same rights over there?

By the way, I have a very good friend who worked at the CAA during 2019-24 who tells me there was a ~2 year long process of the UK CAA handing out 1000s of UK part FCLs based on the EASA equivalents with identical validity to ratings even if those individuals had never held a U.K. licence or medical

in fact he tells me they processed 100s of applications from all over the world (Asia, US and apparently lots of Middle East) who happened to have EASA licences/ratings alongside their national license

pay a few hundred pound and they got a U.K. equivalent, was there ever such a boondoggle the other way around? I can tell you for
a fact there wasn’t as, as above, I was trying to get an EASA licence based on my U.K. licence and training at the time. This meant I had to do 2 sets of skill tests and as I said 2 medicals

so why the cribbing now? 1000s of Europeans now have UK FCLs and medicals thanks to that process, but we’ve left EASA and the divergence will only Increase. If there’s to be mutual recognition then it should be just that and it should also go along with the Europeans giving the same freedoms to work based on being a skilled worker

But this policy isn't doing that. British Airways and to a lesser extent Virgin are seemingly so desperate that as long as you've got the CAA license, they're more than happy to sponsor a visa for non-Brits to come and work in the UK because they can't find enough people. And there are a small but seeminly not insignificant (since it keeps getting brought up) number of British people who for whatever reason ended up only holding EASA licenses, who would probably apply for those jobs if they weren't being told by the CAA that they needed to completely take again a complete ATPL theory course to convert a license which, if we're being honest, has little functional or syllabus difference, along with a number of people considering entry into the profession who have limited budgets and know that their likely entry is Ireland's unofficial airline and that they'll need to get an EASA license and can't budget for more than that, and then they are locked out of every other job in the UK as the price of entering the profession.

People who either ignored what was clearly written on the front of their passport and got the wrong licence in the first place or people who started with an EASA licence and ignored years of warnings to change it the easy way?

To answer the OP I’ve not read of any initiative by UK airlines to push for such recognition. Happy to stand corrected if that’s not the case. They are, it would seem, able to employ EU citizens who hold a UK licence presumably on a visa basis. It is worth remembering that these issues are entirely down to the inflexible attitude of the government at the time.

I remember reading that the CAA wanted, hoped, to stay within EASA. I believe that meant obeying rules without being able to influence them sort of like being an associate rather than a full menber. It’s a mess but it’s what the British electorate voted for.

so you’ve conflated 3 groups here

1) EASA licence holders with no right to work in the UK
as I said above- as long as there’s no mutual recognition of this right for CAA licence holders why should the U.K. government screw over their own taxpayers to make concessions on this? Only a handful of UK airlines may benefit from this but not Uk nationals with CAA licences

2) Brits with EASA licences only
this group I have zero sympathy for. If they had EASA licences prior to 2023 all they had to do to gain a CAA licence alongside their EASA license/medical (they would never have been required to surrender anything) was pay a few hundred pounds to the UK CAA. if they have obtained a EASA licence post Brexit then more fool
them, I trained post Brexit and the advice from my ATO was always to align your licence with where you have the right to work.

3) same as point 2, you have to make decisions based on reality. And if you are paying 10s of thousands to train for this profession are we really going to pretend a few hundred extra are the barrier to this industry?

It would be absolutely valid if we went for mutual recognition between EASA and CAA ATPLs considering they are both ICAO licences but only if that went alongside right to work, if not then why should U.K. licence holders be sacrificed as usual? The US pilot market is the most lucrative in the world because of the right to work wall that exists+ how hard it is to obtain a FAA equivalent of your FCL. Of course it will benefit airlines and their bottom lines to be able to import an endless supply of foreign pilots into the marketplace but who pays the CAA’s fees and tax to the U.K. government?

Whenever this gets discussed the people on the side of "more fool those who didn't get their EASA license converted to CAA, or attained an EASA over a CAA license" love to divert the conversation to this rather than address the actual point which was raised, which is, at this moment is the policy actually leading airlines to employ/train more British pilots? Since BA are stating very clearly on their recruitment page for several direct entry positions that they are happy to facilitate working visas for those with a CAA license, or able to, or just willing to, convert their existing license to a CAA one, the argument that this is all great for specifically British national pilots seems to be very much up for debate.

I agree that the recognition should be mutual, but the right to work has nothing to do with it. The CAA recognizing EASA licenses as equivalent should have no effect on who is able to get a job as a pilot in the UK, as that should be regulated by the visa system. If we are currently in a situation where pilots are being given working visas to come and work for airlines in the UK, that speaks to a shortage of talent, not an issue with what authority your identical qualification to fly an aircraft comes from. Given that is the case, why not make it more easy for individuals by getting rid of what almost all would agree are pointless exam resits, and make it harder for companies by restricting the visas they can give out?

You can still get a UK ATPL if you had an EASA ATPL before the split and you take the time to do a UK initial medical. No exams needed. (Until the end of 27, after which you can’t moan about it, you had fully 7 years)

Also, if you think that the right to live and work in either region is wholly relevant you’re mistaken, plenty of people are able to commute and not fall foul of the 90 day rule. The airlines will find a way if they’re not able to fill their seats.

Having both licences for many of us will be a huge boon in the years to come and, purely selfishly - having gone through the expense and effort to get my licensing in order - I have zero interest in cross border licensing arrangements.
This policy is good for UK and EASA pilots, particularly if you took advantage of the ample time to get your licence on both sides.