Michael wrote:
Let’s take a “hypothetical” example: A US Citizen, residing EU, currently EU based PPL(VFR only) + FAA “piggy-back” (VFR) , completes & earns FAA IR, will NEED to get a standalone FAA PPL ?
What am I missing ?
Your hypothetical situation is very similar to mine :-)
I had a EU PPL VFR-only (and NVFR) and a US 61.75. I passed the US IR written and practical test (in 2001) and obtained a US IR which was added to my 61.75 with the mention “IR US test passed”
Then I flew the 50 hours PIC under IFR (actually a lot more than that) and passed the EASA IR skill test (CB-IR route) (in 2015)
JasonC wrote:
Whether that can be used as an ICAO IR for helping with getting an EASA IR I have no idea but it is a full instrument rating so I can’t see why not.
You used to be able to get them to put a 61.75 Instrument Rating on it, based on a UK IMC rating. I know one person who then converted that to an EASA IR 
You can definitely use a full FAA Instrument Rating on a 61.75 PPL to convert.
Charlie wrote:
You used to be able to get them to put a 61.75 Instrument Rating on it, based on a UK IMC rating. I know one person who then converted that to an EASA IR
They certainly don’t accept IMC any more.
JasonC wrote:
They certainly don’t accept IMC any more.
Correct. I used to have an Instrument Rating on my FAA licence based on my IMC and they removed it when I updated my licence number for EASA
I used to have an Instrument Rating on my FAA licence based on my IMC
That would have always been wrong. It could only have been a mistake by the FAA.
The use of the IMCR training time and experience has always been 100% legit towards the standalone FAA IR. Some individuals on the training scene here have argued that this is true only if the IMCR training was done by ICAO IR holders (i.e. not the more usual UK PPL school case of an FI having just the IMCR) but I have never seen the FAA adopt that position.
I do have a written reply here about the equivalence for use in an N-reg but IMHO it applies only within the limitations of the IMCR itself.
To later get an EASA CB IR conversion from such an FAA IR is not something one is going to advertise on a forum 
However I know of individuals on the UK scene who managed much bigger stuff by nothing to do with the FAA; it was done by hoodwinking the UK CAA
Timothy wrote:
He has to do 40 hours, of which 10 in an ATO, to get the CB-IR, then do a simple Foreign Pilots Instrument exam and he has an FAA IR whereas he has to do the 40 hours for the FAA IR plus the 50 hours IFR and then do an aural exam and an EASA skills test = 92 hours.IMO this is waaay better than starting an FAA IR from scratch, then converting!
I would like to develop this "which first – FAA IR or EASA-IR " discussion further.
I do not see a real benefit in terms of cost & time to getting a EASA-IR first , over an FAA-IR .
Is there a direct comparison that’s already been published ?
Michael wrote:
I do not see a real benefit in terms of cost & time to getting a EASA-IR first , over an FAA-IR .
I have recently passed my EASA CB-IR skills test (will post more about the experience later), but beforehand I did A LOT of research into this. Things to consider:
Other individual considerations:
What are the reasons for the FAA IR issues in the UK?
I know only of the issues with FAA checkrides, due to the exclusive rights given to specific individuals.
Training is no problem.
Hi,
following your advices, I have done further digging here in Italy and here what I have got.
First of all, it seems that ENAV (the Italian CAA) has chosen since the beginning of the “FAA battle” neither to opt in or out the EASA recommandations; they simply never officially responded to EASA on this subject (the Italian way…). Indirectly that has been transleted over here as an equivalent “opt out” and FAA pilots continue to fly as always!
I have found a way to get an official confirmation on that directly from EASA (impossible to have it from ENAV) and I will post it as soon as I have it.
Regarding the more general interest subject of EASA CB first versus FAA first, I have found a flight school here that are able to do both so I have asked them a detailed cost comparison of the 2 options to see if there are any significant difference.
Their initial view, that I assume unbiased given that can sell me both options, is the following:
1) Cost neutral or advance EASA first if you account for all costs (more on this when I get their detailed quote)
2) Theory: the written exam they reckon easier on the FAA side mainly due to apparently smaller overall database of possible questions (800 FAA vs 2000 EASA). OTOH learning is slightly easier for non native English speakers on EASA because in mother language and more relevant if you fly primarily in Europe.
That becomes irrelevant for me because to fly my N plane I will have to get the FAA IR anyway that will require passing the exam anyway
3) Flight training: no difference
4) Flight exam: they reckon EASA to be easier because it lacks all the potentially tricky oral part of the FAA
Conversions.
1) EASO to FAA: requires a trip to US and pass the theory exam but no flight check or exam
2) FAA to EASA: requires 50 PIC hours and flight check but that could change in 2019
The EASA to FAA has the advantage of being much faster since no additional flight hours are required.
At this stage, unless the money side is significantly different, I’m leaning to the EASA first scenario.
It seems to be the safest option that would buy me an insurance on any possible change in the future; the combination of EASA and ENAV bureocratic mess is quite scary!!
I have found a way to get an official confirmation on that directly from EASA (impossible to have it from ENAV) and I will post it as soon as I have it.
You mean confirmation from EASA that not responding does in their view equate to OPTING OUT??? It’s an opt-out procedure, not opt-in!…
Conversions.
1) EASO to FAA: requires a trip to US and pass the theory exam but no flight check or exam
No. That will not give you a conversion. Only a validation. Important difference. And to get a validation, you do not need to go to the US.
