Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

EASA FCL and FAA CPL/IR pilots - conversion?

This is for the large numbers of "paid pilots" who have FAA CPL/IRs or ATPs and fly turboprops and business jets for private owners, where the aircraft are N-reg, M-reg, or on one of the other registers which accept FAA FCL and certification e.g. Cayman Islands.

Does anyone know what this path is likely to be - other than the obvious which is

  • 14 JAA ATPL exams
  • JAA CPL training and test
  • ICAO IR to JAA IR conversion (the currently proposed CBM IR conversion route)

My guess is that a lot of these private owners will be looking to sidestep this whole politically motivated EASA thing by setting up an "operator" who is non EU resident. For many/most high net worth individuals, or international businesses, this is not going to be exactly hard.

There is a conversion route which avoids the 14 exams, for an ICAO ATPL holder who has 2000+ hours on a Part 25 aircraft which is basically a sizeable jet. But this is no good for most bizjet cases.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Hi Peter,

An offshore operator is the way to go if, like us, one employs pilots who do not have EASA licences. Having sought legal advise, this is what we intend to do.

There is a conversion route which avoids the 14 exams, for an ICAO ATPL holder who has 2000+ hours on a Part 25 aircraft which is basically a sizeable jet. But this is no good for most bizjet cases.

Could you explain this process to me....if it absolves us from taking 14 exams perhaps we might convert.

Don't fly too slow, and never fly fas...
at the moment I spend a lot of time in LFMN

Could you explain this process to me

I have to leave it to somebody to produce the reference, but I have that from several sources. It's been around for years, apparently. It's done to enable airline pilots to change jobs.

It's an official route.

You will know that various "less official" routes have existed at various times, for converting ICAO CPL/IRs... I have no concrete info on any such routes now (if I had I would send you an email).

An offshore operator is the way to go

I'd do the same, but need to clear it with the insurer.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter,

Apologies if I have misunderstood the regulations (Highly likely!) but I thought that the UK CAA had decided to implement EASA FCL based not only on the country in which the operator is domiciled in, but also the pilot too, which would render establishing a non-EU-based operator pointless?

In an ideal world I too would like to set up a non-EU (i.e. IOM) based company to 'operate' our King Air and bypass these ridiculous rules, but surely then EASA would find some way of blocking such an obvious loophole?

falcon, I appreciate that you may not want to, but would you be able to expand on your legal findings at all?

Many thanks,

Adrian

the UK CAA had decided to implement EASA FCL based not only on the country in which the operator is domiciled in, but also the pilot too, which would render establishing a non-EU-based operator pointless?

Yes; I saw that too.

I think that is an error on the part of the person in the CAA. The UK CAA doesn't have the power to redraft EASA FCL (Basic Regulation (216/2008)) whose wording is

1. Aircraft, including any installed product, part and appliance, which are: ... (c) registered in a third country and used by an operator for which any Member State ensures oversight of operations or used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community; ... shall comply with this Regulation.

unless you interpret the next bit

2. Personnel involved in the operations of aircraft referred to in paragraph 1(b), (c) or (d) shall comply with this Regulation.

as including the pilot

If I was you I would make sure your insurer is happy with whatever you do, because I think that is what will really matter. This stuff is too vague to be easily enforceable as criminal law on the ground (ramp checks) without some test cases to prepare the ground, IMHO, and IANAL (I am not a lawyer).

There are several parallel processes going on within EASA. One is the CBM IR which has just finished the feedback phase and is due to go into comitology. Others include a look at the mapping of ICAO FCL into EASA FCL on the more advanced types potentially affected by Type Ratings, and HPA-requiring Class Ratings such as the TBM.

All this activity is heavily non-transparent, and there is a considerable mis-alignment between the way the USA and the EU see the stuff. The USA has never had a safety concern with flying a KA90 on an ME PPL/IR but the EU doesn't like it.

Despite having got my own insurance policy in place I still keep half an eye on developments and I don't know of anybody who remotely looks like they know how this will pan out.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
5 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top