I did a little bit less study for my FAA IR than the EASA one. I think doing the FAA one (finger prints, going to US for exam) doesn’t justify the difference. Found going the IR here (UK) pretty straightforward. wasted 2 workdays instead of 1 for the exam, that’s about it.
We have many similar threads and I have merged the most recent two.
As far as I understand we’re very likely to be ok until mid-2019… from that point we’re back to more uncertainty. (Especially with the UK’s EASA membership not entirely clear post-Brexit).
Nokicky – I suggest you review this thread (start at the end and work backwards) because it shows what crazy stuff can happen, even here in the UK. IMHO that mad initiative will collapse or be severely amended, but you never know… the DfT ran with another crazy one for a whole year, in 2005.
The major hesitation going with the G reg is the EASA instrument rating. I’d really like to get my IR and all my research seems to suggest that the FAA IR is much simpler. I have a CAA IMC, EASA and FAA PPL.
It isn’t easier overall. My FAA IR flying training and test were much harder than the EASA (JAA back then) versions. But there is more of a variation in the USA than here. They are different. In the USA you bang approaches, partial panel, to minima, and you come out well capable of flying IFR – in the US environment. In Europe you tend to have a more formulaic system where you fly standard FTO routes at low level and e.g. you have to pretend to look out every 1000ft and say “icing check, no ice” etc, but you don’t learn how to fly IFR in the Eurocontrol system. Well, that’s a generalisation but I have this from a vast # of people including myself. Everyone will still need some mentoring to fly IFR in the European system.
Additionally there’s the question of the ADF. Again this doesn’t seem clear. As far as I understand you’re ok if you don’t fly procedure that require it (for both EASA and FAA)?
Equipment requirements are mostly airspace related. Yes you should carry an ADF to fly NDB approaches, whether you actually fly them with GPS like most people. There appears to be no enforcement, despite huge numbers of SR22s flying without an ADF/DME.
I should also add that I’m less concerned about the maintenance and STC difference between the FAA and EASA, even in many other circumstances it’s a big consideration.
It depends on the plane, what equipment you want fitted, etc. However these days most of the popular “eye candy” stuff is EASA approved too… well, EASA owners may have to wait an extra year for some software updates 
If I was starting out today and I was the average owner (who leaves the plane at the dealer with a key and a signed blank cheque on the seat ) I would think hard about going N-reg. Especially with ELA2 coming along sometime, which should allow totally freelance-engineer maintenance…
But there are many factors in this decision.
nokicky wrote:
that it’s worth the risk of having to go EASA in 2 yrs?
In 2 years from now you will have 50 hrs PIC under IFR and will be able to convert your IR to EASA.
I think the FAA IR TK is a lot easier to acquire or comprehend than the EASA. The FAA flight test is harder, and particularly the oral.
That’s a very good point – the FAA oral exam (especially the CPL or the IR ones) would scare the living daylights out of European airline pilot students, who – of necessity, due to the sheer volume of the crap theory – study mostly using the question bank. It is fine for someone who has been flying already e.g. in the UK using the IMC Rating and has a few hundred hours and a general interest in aviation.
Also there are significant issues arranging the FAA checkride in Europe, which makes the FAA paperwork route more attractive if it can be done in the USA where it is a pretty smooth process.
So many angles…
The FAA flight test is harder,
I would suggest it’s different. FAA standard is 3/4 deflection on approaches while EASA it is 1/2, although at FAA ATP level it is 1/4 deflection – no checkride for ATP licence issue in EASA – you unfreeze on your next line check after meeting the experience requirement ?
Then the FAA requires you demonstrate an approach for each approach aid, but helpfully nearly all aircraft have the ADF placarded inop. The absence of NDB holds where the hold is of the VOR or waypoint variety, arguably is a boon for most candidates. The test profile in the USA seems more scenario based with a wider range of simulated emergencies, while the EASA profile is very cut and dried.
I have heard some horror stories of oral assessments taking more than one day by some FAA examiners, however EASA examiners also get to ask questions during briefing. My experience the FAA oral assessment is very practical with no attempt to catch you out.
I have heard some horror stories of oral assessments taking more than one day by some FAA examiners, however EASA examiners also get to ask questions during briefing. My experience the FAA oral assessment is very practical with no attempt to catch you out.
Indeed, however there is/was a CAA examiner (actually an “industry examiner”) not a million miles away from where I am based who would spend several hours debriefing students… When I was looking at that FTO for my IR conversion I was told to call in sick if I got him allocated. But that is post-checkride; there is no formal oral in the EASA system – other than in the CB IR conversion route (oral+checkride).
FAA standard is 3/4 deflection on approaches
The grumpy old DPE I had in Arizona would have failed me if I had done that
Another N reg question:
I have an EASA PPL and a piggy-back FAA IR. I want to buy an N reg VFR aircraft (not certified for IFR in the US, and not certified at all in Europe). Will I be able to fly it legally (VFR) in Europe?
Thanks
What is the aircraft type, @JP?
If it has an ICAO Certificate of Airworthiness then you can fly it worldwide, regardless of whether it is certified as VFR-only, etc.
If it doesn’t have it, then it will be in some category like a homebuilt, and they have very limited long term parking rights in Europe. Most places limit N-reg homebuilts to 30 days or similar – see various threads in the Non Certified section (e.g. search on: homebuilt privileges).
It is a Cub Crafters Xcub – http://cubcrafters.com/xcub
I am downsizing!
According to their website is it Part 23 certified and if that’s true then you can keep it in Europe just like any other certified N-reg
Known exceptions are Norway and Denmark which attempt to ban long term N-reg parking – various past threads on this but mostly inconclusive.
Obviously you will need State of Registry (FAA) papers and you have those – an FAA PPL. Your IR is not usable on this type…
Under EASA FCL you should have equivalent EASA papers if the “operator” is based in the “Community” (lots of past threads – this is the main one) and while the exact requirements are somewhat fluid right now, you have the EASA PPL so you cover that too.
There was a proposal a few years ago to ban (basically) N-regs which didn’t have an EASA CofA. It is mentioned here (I need to update that writeup) but I believe it has totally died.
