Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

EASA-FAA bilateral pilot licensing treaty annex

I’ve been away and may have missed this being discussed already: Link

From a cursory reading:

  • conversion, not validation, so it requires maintaining two sets of papers (and currency)
  • also requires maintaining two medicals
  • FAA “English proficient” → ICAO Level 4. WTF?

I was expecting this bilateral agreement to be a panacea (i.e., restore the pre-EASA-FCL status quo), but this draft is a bit of a letdown. In fact, I don’t see the improvement over the current conversion mechanism for any ICAO to EASA PPL (again based on a cursory reading).

EDAZ

Quite interesting. I can’t find a date on this document.

What is says is not very different from what happens at the moment with people getting the EASA IR via the CBM route through a practical exam after 50hrs IFR as PIC.

Frequent travels around Europe

The PDF creation date is Jan 9.

What is says is not very different from what happens at the moment with people getting the EASA IR via the CBM route through a practical exam after 50hrs IFR as PIC.

That was my reaction, too.

What about this “acclimatisation flying” in the EU that can be waived with 10 hours PIC time (2.2.6)? Is there an equivalent to that in the CMB IR?

EDAZ

I think the big difference is it looks more like an IPC/renewal not an initial test.

EGTK Oxford

Likely

Frequent travels around Europe

Validating an IR from EASA to FAA would now also require a proficiency check with an examiner which is currently not required. Also a dual medical where before only the EU one needed.

I fail to see the safety case to hold two Medicals in either case.

EGBJ, United Kingdom

This is quite a scoop you have found, jmuelmen

Very interesting!

The devil will be in the detail of what exactly the flight test would be, and that applies to both routes.

For the FAA to EASA route, it will be some kind of examiner.

For the EASA to FAA route will it have to be a DPE (a VERY BIG question for European based N-reg pilots!). The wording is

The applicant shall complete a flight review with an FAA certified flight instructor who holds appropriate FAA examining authority, as detailed in the IPL

which probably means a DPE but it doesn’t actually say that here!

Otherwise this sounds pretty positive.

The reason for the local medical is obvious – to prevent “medical tourism” which is a huge emotional issue within the national CAAs.

Validating an IR from EASA to FAA would now also require a proficiency check with an examiner which is currently not required

Only if you do the 50-question foreign pilot exam route, which is available only to 61.75 PPL holders (the complete “house of cards” thing).

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Validating an IR from EASA to FAA would now also require a proficiency check with an examiner which is currently not required. Also a dual medical where before only the EU one needed.

No, this route will get you a standalone FAA PPL and IR. It will be an easier route than the full written and flight test. A 61.75 should still be available for those who want it.

Last Edited by JasonC at 26 Jan 17:59
EGTK Oxford

It’s interesting that the FAA has published this. The BASA negotiations have been something which anybody even remotely close to them would not comment on.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

There is a big significance in the 10 hours here:

An FAA IR (only) holder won’t be able to do those 10 hours after April 2016.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
31 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top