Hi everyone,
Having read all the posts regarding ICAO to EASA conversions, I thought you might find benefit from our experiences helping pilots convert licences and ratings. We have helped multiple pilots convert their FAA licence and ratings in order to continue to fly their PA46, TBM or SEP/MEP aircraft. I will list our experiences in bullet point format for ease of reading. I am happy to answer any EASA licensing questions you have on the subject.
Hope this helps.
Jonathan
What about insurance? On a flight test, the examiner is PIC and most “private” aircraft have insurances limited to named pilots…
What about insurance? On a flight test, the examiner is PIC and most “private” aircraft have insurances limited to named pilots…
In the UK, my insurance always specifically covered any training.
That has various uses e.g. if for some medical reason you cannot fly for a bit, you can fly as PU/T with an FI and you are covered.
CAA permit to allow paid renumeration in a Non-EU registered aircraft is no longer required, providing it is for training the owner/pilot.
That is a bombshell. I really want to see the reference for that. That would be brilliant news, because getting that permission for the annual IR revalidation (for example) was just a hassle, and last I heard the CAA wanted £80 for it.
ADF &/or DME not required to be fitted if not required by state of registry
Presumably you are then limited as to which approaches can be flown for the test. They are still not allowing GPS substitution.
the UK, my insurance always specifically covered any training.
But
1. a checkride is not training
2. just because the insurance mentions training, this does not mean that any pilot is insured
From my Policy:
a checkride is not training
Do you have a reference? Most training is completed only when the checkride is passed.
Hi everyone,
Permit: As virtually all of the training which we complete is on foreign registered aircraft I checked with the CAA a few months ago regarding the latest requirements. I have an email from the Head, Airline Licensing & Consumer Issues specifically stating that it is no longer required. Before I post it I want to get their permission first. I have also asked if we dry lease an ‘N’ registered aircraft for training to third parties.
Insurance: We request that a copy of the insurance is sent to us for our inspection. Providing that there is a statement which specifically extends the policy to cover both the flying instructor and examiner when flight training is being undertaken this is acceptable. Personally I was always ask that I am a named pilot on the policy, which most owners don’t mind because if they ever need their aircraft positioned then I can fly the aircraft solo, otherwise you are only insured when on a instructional/examining flight. A check ride is an instructional flight, albeit the instructor is acting as an examiner.
ADF/DME requirement: We prefer to have a DME fitted, but we asked the CAA whether it was mandated and they said only if required by the state of registry. We helped a PA46 owner convert their IR in their aircraft which had neither ADF or DME fitted. Our Head of Training conducted an ILS approach and GNSS non precision approach for the test.
Hope this helps.
Peter wrote:
In the UK, my insurance always specifically covered any training.
We also have insurance covering any instructor (with 1500+ hours) and any owner. I think that’s quite common.
Prior to taking the EASA IR skill test in our aircraft, specific wording was added to ensure the examiner was covered. There was no cost to this text change.
Peter wrote:
CAA permit to allow paid renumeration in a Non-EU registered aircraft is no longer required, providing it is for training the owner/pilot.
The UK CAA website page on permits still indicates that a permit is required for flight training. This may be out of date.
Jonathan wrote:
On average, it has taken 2-3 days training to convert a FAA IR to EASA IR
I’m quite impressed (and pleased) to read this. You can get the idea that this is a much more demanding challenge. Is that because the training/test is not done in a particularly demanding country (e.g. UK, with its NDB stuff) or because those pilots currently going through the process are possibly self-selected with higher hours and currency? Or are most of your clients professional CPL/ATPLs rather than PPLs?
check ride is an instructional flight, albeit the instructor is acting as an examiner.
Around here (Germany) it is much different. In a checkride, pilot skills are checked, and no training occurs on such flights.
Actually, there are examiners which are allowed to take exams for ratings for which they are not rated to instruct.
However, it seems you confirmed that just because a policy mentions training (even in the wider sense) that still doesn’t cover the instructor if he is not a named pilot (or if there is an “any pilot” clause).
just because a policy mentions training (even in the wider sense) that still doesn’t cover the instructor
Yes that is probably true. If you are not named on the policy then you will not be indemnified. The flight itself will still be covered as normal i.e. the named insured (myself) will be covered.
Some years ago I was doing my FAA CPL (in the UK) and for obscure reasons I did not have the 3 hrs with an FAA CFI within the 30 (or 60?) days preceeding the checkride. I was just one day outside with one hour… so, with the visiting DPE “around” I went up for a quick flight with a Cabair (a local ATPL FTO) instructor who happened to also be an FAA CFI, to log the one hour. He wanted Cabair to be a named party on my policy (no idea why exactly) which was done instantly (by Haywards insurance). Funnily, some years later the insurer phoned me up asking if I still want them on the policy because Cabair had in the meantime gone bust 
That was the only occassion ever on which an instructor wanted to be a named party. I did my FAA IR to JAA IR conversion in 2011 and the FTO (what is now Omega, at Shoreham) did not ask for this.
Hi DavidC,
The conversions so far have all been either FAA PPL or CPL holders who own and operate their own PA46 or TBM aeroplane. Ironically we are helping an C340 owner obtain an FAA IR in order to gain an EASA IR via the conversion route, as his EASA IR has long expired.
All of the owners were proficient and just needed revision of certain procedures. We approached the conversion process as an opportunity to provide recurrent training and tailored each conversion based upon the pilot’s experience, rather than apply a standard course for everyone.
