Anyway, unless you have some very very specific medical issue (which allow you to get an FAA medical but not an EASA one), then, as long as you are reasonably current as a pilot, there is no big problem with a license conversion. No need to be concerned. Do it and the concerns go away. Also gives you the possibilty to fly EASA regs, should the need/oppurtunity arise.
Agree, except for the cost for us older folks to keep the licence current. EASA (CH) medical is yearly vs FAA medical which is bi-annual regardless of age. In addition, the CH medical is $370 vs FAA medical which is $120, so effectively 6x as expensive to maintain. Not to mention the EASA paperwork (i.e. $$$) every two years to reissue the licence vs FAA which just needs the flight review and log book entry. Sure, flying is expensive, but I’d rather spend the redundant costs on that rather than useless paperwork.
Maybe, but shouldn’t give rise for “concerns”.
I don’t think the OP is from Switzerland, at least he didn’t mention so.
There is no EASA paperwork for reissuing the license every two years, because a) EASA doesn’t issue licenses and b) EASA licenses are for life and not normally reissued at all. SEP Class-ratings need to be renewed every two years, but even that does not involve any authorities (but maybe even this is different in Seitzerland).
Quote I don’t think the OP is from Switzerland, at least he didn’t mention so.
I’m not sure who is meant by OP but if it were me then I may clarify that I’m not from Switzerland.
Rather, my base is the big “Kanton” just north of CH. Which is just unfortunate as the national CAA is the LBA. Knowing that the EASA rules are the same everywhere but local interpretation varies widely this is just an unfortunate jurisdiction. In light of the LBA interpretation and the FWIW resulting practice of the AMEs operating under its jurisdictionQuote
some very very specific medical issue
is quite a bold statement. But maybe I just consulted the wrong sources.
Further, just due to age the EASA (LBA) would have me jumping through all the hoops (read $$$) every year as opposed to the FAA only every two years. This may not be a “concern” but well be an issue. That money & time could be used in much nicer manner…
Converting the IR is a lesser issue. I agree that EASA finally got around and provided a feasible route. But there still is the audiogram. By virtue of that EASA asks more from a PPL than from a US airline pilot approaching LHR, AMS, CDG or FRA in a 747. Sounds perfectly reasonable – not.
The FAA approach is just so much more pragmatic. And that is the key reason – in order to get back to topic – why I am interested in continuing flying using my FAA certificate + ratings.
OP = original poster; usually the person who started the thread.
The FAA medical system gives you several benefits. Yes, the audiogram is a big one for many people. Nowadays there are ways around it (i.e. with say one duff ear) which are in the open. Previously they were under the table e.g. FAA CPL/ATPL + FAA Class 1 → UK CAA “Class 1 renewal medical” etc. Notes here Another one is not losing your medical automatically upon embarking on any regular medication (which under Part MED terminates your medical until approved by an AME); also there is the FAA self grounding conditions list which provides a lot of clarity. And you can speak confidentially to an FAA AME but you cannot to an EASA AME who is required to report any contact to his CAA.
It’s not just the more onerous medical that’s keeping me FAA-only, it’s also – because since I also still fly in the US – if I went through the rigmarole of getting an EASA license as well:
To be honest if I were in a position to have an IFR capable aircraft, I would only consider N or M reg, or Annex II G-reg (there are some non-LAA types that are Annex II, e.g. the Piper Apache!). The extra bureaucratic burden of keeping an EASA license just isn’t worth it when I could do it much more easily with the FAA system on N-reg or the very simple validation required for M reg. Given the CAA’s non-antagonistic approach to 3rd country license holders, I suspect in 2019, it’s more than likely that the whole “screw N-reg” thing will no longer be a factor for UK based owner/operators.
Agreed, but you are based outside the EU anyway so not affected by the EASA FCL anti N-reg stuff.
Nobody knows whether brexit will take place before whatever date it comes into effect in the UK. April 2018 seems a likely delay for the April 2017 deadline.
Given the CAA’s non-antagonistic approach to 3rd country license holders, I suspect in 2019, it’s more than likely that the whole “screw N-reg” thing will no longer be a factor for UK based owner/operators.
My take is the same… It looks like very few new people here are doing the FAA route. If Art50 gets invoked in 2017, the whole thing will get kicked into the long grass.
Peter wrote:
The whole reason for the continuous string of delays, originally from April 2012 to currently April 2017, is because EASA conned the EU Transport Committee into voting for EASA FCL, on the assurance (which EASA knew at the time was bogus) that a treaty was just around the corner and it would allow mutual license acceptance.
AFAIK, it was the Commission who did the negotiations. Not EASA. So how could EASA con TRAN?
“EASA COMMITTEE”
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE MEETING 2016/3
HELD IN BRUSSELS ON 26-27 October 2016
COM draw the attention to the end dates for opt out-periods which are likely to expire before the finalisation of the bilateral agreement with the US and therefore suggests to prolong the date for one additional year till 8th April 2018. COM committed to upload a draft proposal on prolonging the opt-out provision. In addition, a table listing all opt-out provisions and related dates referred to in OPS and Aircrew legislation will be included for the sake of clarity.
Since many years pilots were flying N-registered aircrafts in Europe just with there US-licence. The EASA licencing rules requierd to fly a so called third country aircraft are indeed not clear to me. Where is it possible to get a correct and detailed overview of this matter?
Is a EASA type rating on top of a EASA licence required for a PA46 TP in Europe?
How it is possible to comply with this rules, in case of an N-registered European based aircraft, with no EASA certification or no EASA approved type rating for a specific aircraft type?
