Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Welcome to our forums

EASA-FAA bilateral pilot licensing treaty annex

There are plenty. The FAA AME list shows those in the UK and all of them will be able to do EASA as well.


Last Edited by JasonC at 03 Feb 23:32
EGTK Oxford

I use one who does both too. About 200 quid for 2 x Class 1.

However, historically, many people have carefully avoided using a Euro-CAA AME for their FAA medicals. It has the potential to terminate all your flying instantly and comprehensively

Same with hangarage and maintenance, or having your wife a shareholder in your company

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Thanks for all the replies. I did not think to look in the obvious place.

Also, interesting consideration, Peter. This brings up another question. Currently, the conversion of third-country licenses needs to be done by the aviation authority of the state where one is resident, correct? So if one lives in a country that’s not known for service-oriented bureaucrats, no chance of benefiting from EU regulatory arbitrage… Does the EASA medical need to be issued by the same country as the EASA pilot’s license?


One should not overlook the comment in the introduction that this summary is ‘subject to third tier implementation procedures’. These may or may not impact quite markedly on the practicalities. As regard the UK implementation of a revalidation or renewal check CREs have two different interpretations. Some perhaps most take advantage of a section in CAP 804 that allows this to be a fairly relaxed affair. No one fails it just becomes a training flight. Others argue that this paragraph is only intended to apply to Operator proficiency checks and a ‘proper’ prof check is essentially the same as the initial IR. skill test which has no training element whatsoever. Having just struggled through the whole expensive and onerous process to become a CRE with IRR privileges (sorry that’s the proper description of someone who can do IR revalidations but not initial IR tests!) I can assure you that the CAA assume it is administered pretty much as a skill test. There is an irony that the EASA test /check content which is identical for both is compulsory for the proficiency check but advisory for the skill test. I was present at an EASA meeting where the UK CAA raised the question of whether a failure in the aural part of an FAA to EASA conversion was meant the whole test was failed ( as seems to happen with the FAA) or just a failure of that section. It is my guess that an unintended consequence the BASA is that there will be new focus on what actually happens in the IR revalidation process and perhaps new guidance. I hope that EASA will publish full information soon. The April 2016 deadline is not that far away assuming this time they will keep to their assurance that it cannot be extended.

Interesting post, Rate1. We will have to see what happens… But:

the CAA assume it is administered pretty much as a skill test.

What do you make of this ?

No way IMHO is the IR reval intended to be an initial IR skills test, and no way has it ever been conducted as one, except maybe by some “sadist” who isn’t going to get much repeat business at £150 a time towards the few-k he has to pay annually to the CAA for the permission to use his CRE/IRR.

Also IMHO, a fail of the oral part of the test should be a total fail, because if you don’t know what you should be doing when sitting in a chair, you PROB100 won’t know what you should be doing when sitting in a plane.

It’s like instrument training generally: you should never fly any procedure unless you know how to fly it when sitting in the airport cafe. The contrary is just an ATO revenue generation exercise.

OTOH much depends on how reasonable the examiner is. Most are fine…

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

As these docs have a habit of disappearing, I have saved a local copy of the draft treaty here

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I note an interesting thing.

The bilateral agreement on which the hopes of many hang with regards to FCL, applicability of STCs etc, are all in the BASA

However, and I quote….." Article 12 of the EU-US BASA defines that the Agreement applies to “[…] the United States civil aviation regulatory system as applied in the territory of the United States of America, and on the other hand, to the European Community civil aviation regulatory system as applied in the territories in which the Treaty establishing the European Community is applied […]”. Therefore the Agreement does not apply to Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein, which are EASA Member States and Members of the EASA Management Board, but are not Member States of the European Union. "

For UK residents this will be interesting come March 2019. I reckon aviation might be a long way down the list of things to address in the Brexit negotiations/aftermath

reference HERE

Darley Moor, Gamston (UK)

I moved the above post to an existing thread on the FAA-EASA treaty.

Yes this is very interesting.

Interesting also that EASA has published the treaty. Previously it was only the FAA which did so; EASA did not want it published.

However I reckon the “attack on N-regs” will fail anyway for UK based pilots because, post-Brexit, the UK will not be in the “Community” which means the EU. Of course some people disagree with this. We have had various threads on this.

There is also this

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

There are posts around here which may illuminate this topic.

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

This CAA document (referenced here) contains some text from an EU-FAA treaty which appears to be more recent than what has popped up before.

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top