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?