jacopuzzo, I did mine a year ago, just as boscomantico says.
At the moment the only visit you have to do (either way) is for the theoretical exam.
Timothy wrote:
You can present those sums the other way round.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!
Very funny and slightly disingenuous Timothy: the 50hrs post-FAA IR do not constitute training….they accumulate in the course of privately flying P1 under the IFR…which of course as the owner of an N-reg C182 he will easily do..
I have access to N and F reg IFR planes for rent so I am a bit like the OP. If you can fly an N reg at home, the 50h PIC are not painfull. Any way, I would like to be able to fly IFR in Europe & US, on both kind of regs.
Passing a TK test in the US to validate an EASA rating seems odd from what I know of the FAA (at least very different from the PPL validation process). But you guys know better than me.
To train in the US you have to give your fingerprints ? You need it anyway when you enter US soil so it’s not worse.
From what I see, going to a French ATO (and staying in a hotel) is not more expensive than going to a US school (flights and hotel included).
To me, the question must be answered in terms of quality of training for single pilot private ops and amount of work needed for the IR TK. As of now, the US way looks better (even if I love France and know some good ATOs believe me)
But if you don’t care about flying in the US and have time to work the TK, go for EASA.
Maybe Stephan Schwab has some personal opinions on the matter.
