@Peter, the Lufthansa flight school in Goodyear is not the only institution in the valley that offers EASA Pilot Training, have a look on CAE (formerly Oxford), which has an EASA curriculum out of Mesas Falcon Field. They also have three active MEP FNPT IIs, cp. https://lisstdis.easa.europa.eu/eqstdis/index.php/fstd/index?Fstd_sort=opr_site.due_date_cms&Fstd_page=5
I have since heard that somebody in Europe got an EASA approval for the IR in the US, back in 2012, but apparently never bothered to proceed with it.
So this is all interesting news.
@Peter those operations teach up to CPL/MEP. These licences and class ratings can be taught and examined abroad. The EASA ME/IR is carried out in the EU, and the exam has to be administered in a EU state.
A significant portion of the training is MPL which can be carried out in a non-EU state, although the actual type rating is carried out in a EU state.
OK; that confirms my earlier understanding. The CPL has been done in the US, for a fact. But never the IR.
ORA.ATO.150 Training in third countries
When the ATO is approved to provide training for the instrument rating (IR) in third countries:
(a) the training programme shall include acclimatisation flying in one of the Member States before the IR skill test is taken; and
(b) the IR skill test shall be taken in one of the Member States.
BerlinFlyer wrote:
After reading this text (which I might have misunderstood), it appears to me that you need those 50h PIC IFR after getting the FAA IR anyway, also after revision.
I suggest you perhaps didn’t read to the end.
or prior experience of at least 10 hours of flight time under IFR as pilot in command on aeroplanes in any of the E.U. Member States, or any European State that participates in EASA in accordance with Article 66 of (EC) Regulation 216/2008.
I read that as meaning one only needs 10hrs IFR time in Europe. So if one doesn’t have the 50hrs IFR time, then flying around Europe IFR for 10hrs will meet the requirement, and I understand this to mean the EASA definition of IFR which is either an I FPL or the IFR portion of a Y or Z FPL, not IMC time.
chflyer wrote:
I read that as meaning one only needs 10hrs IFR time in Europe. So if one doesn’t have the 50hrs IFR time, then flying around Europe IFR for 10hrs will meet the requirement, and I understand this to mean the EASA definition of IFR which is either an I FPL or the IFR portion of a Y or Z FPL, not IMC time.
I understand 2.2.6 you are refering to, but I am worried about 2.2.4 – which, if I understand it right, says, that you have to do the full written IR in case you have less than 50h IFR PIC.
Yes; the ICAO IR to CB IR direct conversion (no written exam, just oral exam and a skills test) requires 50hrs IFR time.
The 50hrs was put in to stop the European FTO industry getting trashed by the punters doing their PPL/IRs in the US and coming over here and immediately converting, leaving the FTOs with no meat worth eating.
This reported new concession would eliminate all of that, which is what makes it such political dynamite.
I believe, and from the total silence by those “close to EASA” who must know, that the author made it up on the spot, but we will find out in due course… The other side of this argument is that, from his writing style, he is clearly far from illiterate and uninformed (the more usual social media profile) and what he wrote is really very specific.
I have this reply from the US contact mentioned in the 2015 PDF:
I have not been involved with this project over the last three years, but according to my colleague, the agreement with EASA should be signed in June. The procedures for executing the agreement, to include the verification mechanisms required by each registry, will follow. Assuming the COVID-19 pandemic doesn’t alter our course, the licensing agreement should be in place and fully implemented before year’s end.
The devil will be in the detail, as they say…
Peter wrote:
The devil will be in the detail, as they say…
Still pretty amazing !
