Has anyone managed to read the latest version of the treaty and worked out what it means in practice?
There are two parts: EASA to FAA and FAA to EASA.
I think from WBardorf’s post above he only real change is the FAA PPL → EASA PPL conversion which no longer needs the 100hrs.
The conversion EASA PPL/IR → FAA PPL/IR is almost no change because the FAA accepts all ICAO training, but did have the requirement for 3hrs to be flown prior to the checkride so maybe that’s gone. The “examiner” is prob99 going to be a DPE as usual. However if no FAA writtens are needed, that is a big change because you can’t do FAA writtens in Europe anymore.
This summary is from AOPA France.
I haven’t read it properly yet… but there are some clear errors e.g. he says FAA Class 3 is not valid in Europe (the treaty says nothing about this). Also it says the 61.75 piggyback option has come to an end.
What an excellent summary. Strange that you found it on AOPA France website which isn’t very big but if this is the quality of their information I might well be tempted to sign up.
Someone sent it to me.
I think it is a bad summary. The bit about the FAA Class 3 not valid outside the US is old garbage which has been going around for years.
I think it is a bad summary.
I would be a bit more generous and say it’s like the Curate’s Egg: “It is (very) good in parts.”
It clarifies a lot of the questions FAA license holders would ask.
I think the following 3 paragraphs are the most crucial.
I would be grateful for those who know these things better to help clarify the points I mention at the end. [The highlights are mine.]
2.1.2. The applicant shall meet the EU medical requirements as stipulated in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 applicable to the PPL(A).
2.1.3. The applicant shall complete a skill test, as detailed in the TIP-L, with an examiner qualified according to Part-FCL.
2.1.4. The applicant shall demonstrate to the examiner before the skill test that he/she has acquired an adequate level of the required theoretical knowledge as detailed in the TIP-L, within the 24-calendar-month period preceding the month of application
Does Medical requirements mean a Class 2 Medical; and/or does it also require a Hearing Test?
Is a skill test definitely NOT a Renewal and must therefore be done (at great expense) via a CAA Examiner?
The required theoretical knowledge via an Oral seems a definite gain.
Comments please.
The theory seems to be addressed by the existing CBIR conversion route i.e. an oral with the examiner.
You need a Euro Class 2 medical.
So the three numbered points are nothing new / no new concession.
It’s gonna be mega interesting if the derogations continue.
The IR (not the PPL) needs an audiogram although – as of maybe 2 years ago – if you fail it, you can still hold an IR, provided that you get a hearing SODA (SRG1205 in the UK) within +/- 90 days of each medical date (a flight with an FI). Everybody can get that SODA unless they are too deaf for any conversation in a room. Before then, there were “interesting” routes to the IR if you failed the audiogram, via an ICAO CPL/ATPL, plus £350, but the CAA removed them from their website within days of somebody posting the flow chart on some forum, c. 2008 – history 
The skills test, not sure who the examiner needs to be.
What is also interesting is the EASA PPL/IR to FAA PPL/IR route. Can you get the FAA PPL/IR without sitting any FAA written exams?
Has the 61.75 route gone? That would be astounding, especially as EASA “runs” a tiny % of the earth’s surface.
The skills test, not sure who the examiner needs to be.
Peter – As always I am grateful for your reply and insight.
I think the requirements of the ‘skill test’, and who does the examining, will be the crucial factor in this.
If they insist of a full blown ‘test’, with a CAA Examiner, we are into the realm – which you have often alluded to – of £1000/£1300 to get a piece of paper to allow one to continue doing what we are already allowed to do.
It as this point where some FAA IR’s, I predict, will either give up or circumvent the requirements.
I never thought I would be saying this but there might be solutions for U.K. FAA IR’s via Brexit or derogation.
The following has appeared on an EASA site. I don’t know the author but a google (Jyrki Paajanen) suggests he is a senior EU official.
As regards flying N-registered aircraft, there has so far been a possibility for Member States to allow non-commercial flying with a third country (e.g. FAA) license and medical even if based in the EU (Article 12(4) of Regulation 1178/2011). The deadline for ending that possibility has been repeatedly extended as we have been waiting for this licensing extension to the EU-US BASA to first enter into force. One, very last extension, was agreed only two weeks ago and it will push the deadline to 20 June 2022 (not published yet.)
However this also means that now that the BASA has been agreed, EU-based pilots flying with FAA licenses should prepare to convert to EU licenses before the deadline of 20 June 2022. It has been estimated that there are some 8000-9000 FAA licensed pilots in the EU so the authorities will have loads of work to do with the conversions and it would be good for pilots to apply well in advance, so as not to risk being grounded after that date.
It sounds like we can expect derogations till 20 June 2022.
Great money for the FTO industry 
Peter_G wrote:
Does Medical requirements mean a Class 2 Medical; and/or does it also require a Hearing Test?
Is a skill test definitely NOT a Renewal and must therefore be done (at great expense) via a CAA Examiner?
The required theoretical knowledge via an Oral seems a definite gain.
To use your EASA license/rating you need the EASA medical required for that license/rating. So if the EASA license/rating requires a hearing test, then you need one. if not, you don’t.
“Skill test” is the EASA term for the test you need to take for the initial issue of a license/rating. So the scope is pretty clearly defined. If you can freely choose your examiner or if the CAA assigns one is not regulated yet. I would assume that at least some CAAs will have the opinion, that all that this conversion regulation does is to replace the need for training by a foreign license – so the examination process would be the same as for people newly acquiring the license.
The “required theoretical knowledge” is actually as far as I can see the biggest unknown (as the TIP-L are not published). Completely unclear how that will be organized.
With all the positive emotions about that treaty finally close to come to live, as far as I see there is still one major open field that is not really covered: What about those types where it is hard to impossible to find a TRI/TRE in Europe? E.g. as an extreme case: If I wanted to operate an F-4H, how could I get the required EASA typewriting?
I did the FAA to EASA IR conversion a year or so ago. It could not have been easier.
Flew to Poznan in Poland to the Cirrus training centre there with my FAA instructor. Did one day of training, then next day the ‘flight test’ with one of the local Polish EASA examiners. It was a total snooze. Flew for an hour or so, did three instrument approaches at two different (very low stress) airports, answered a couple of theory questions, and signed the paperwork. Sent it off to the CAA and a few weeks later, voila!
In my case I had been flying all round Europe on an FAA IR since 2008, have a couple of hundred FFA definition instrument hours (ie true IMC) etc.
In my view these tests can be much much easier than we all fear. My theory is that:
Having said that, every time I approach one of these exams I work myself into a frenzy, revising all the relevant IFR rules, practicing approaches etc. And it turns out to be a doddle on the day.
Of course, you could make it hard on yourself and book yourself in for training with certain ex RAF or British Airways CAA instructors with a "thing"about FAA certified pilots and spend hours practicing NDB approaches etc. I have never flown an NDB approach in my life, and never intend to. If for some bizarre reason I needed to in extremis of real world flying, I would simply set it up as a GPS overlay and be much safer.
