Buckerfan wrote:
this instructor will set you up with their preferred examiner, with whom they have a long relationship
That is exactly the question: Will the CAA allow to have this flight with any licensed EASA examiner you want or will some CAAs jump on the idea that – like in any skill test in Germany – the CAA assigned you to a certain examiner.
But in general I fully agree: If you can fly you can fly – doesn’t matter which examiner you have to present your skills to…
I have emailed my usual IR examiner to ask the Q and haven’t had a reply yet. He can do initial IR tests but no doubt has not had any instructions from “above” on whether he will be able to do the “EASA acceptance” IR tests mentioned in the treaty.
It sounds like we don’t know what the EASA to FAA route actually is, specifically what the written exams (if any) might be. It would be a great thing if a standalone FAA PPL/IR could be obtained without doing the FAA writtens in the US.
FWIW, this is the Canadian US-Canada treaty, signed 2014, which has more detail which has this for the writtens:
However, the FAA has no such exams AFAIK.
It does. Those exams have “Canadian conversion” in their titles. Details in the FAA knowledge test matrix.
Peter wrote:
FWIW, this is the Canadian US-Canada treaty, signed 2014, which has more detail which has this for the writtens:
…
However, the FAA has no such exams AFAIK.
Actually, they do (or did), and the treaty you quote goes back much farther than 2014, to the 1990’s I believe. AC 61-135A dated 2015 describes the process for conversion (in both directions) and can be found here.
It makes reference to a guide document FAA-G-8082-2 dated 2006 which the FAA web site now says has been removed due to outdated data. So there may be an update coming to AC 61-135A. But it is still up there as current. Anyone interested would probably be advised to contact the email address given in the AC for queries regarding the process.
When I did this conversion in 2003, it was exactly as the AC describes. I did the last (test, FSDO) steps in one day in Phoenix Scottsdale during a vacation.
- submit the indicated form to the FAA in Oklahoma, indicating the FSDO where the FAA licence will be picked up.
- submit all documents to Transport Canada. They will validate and send a validation letter to the FAA.
- FAA replies to applicant with confirmation of receipt letter and a 90-day window to present all required documents, including written test results, to the FSDO. The FSDO receives a copy of the letter.
No flight test is required, at least not for PPL.
There is a special written for this particular case, to be done at any of the testing centres, usually flight schools. It takes about 60-90 min, I don’t remember exactly, on a computer. When done, one returns to the test centre reception and they already have the results and issue a certificate upon payment of the test fee. That is then taken with all the other documents to the FSDO and they issue the FAA certificate on the spot (paper) with the plastic card sent later by mail to home address.
Since there is no training visa needed in this case for entry to the US, this process is likely still quite practical today.
(Peter_G) I previously wrote:
I never thought I would be saying this but there might be solutions for U.K. FAA IR’s via Brexit or derogation.
Ever since the BASA was published I have been in regular communication with a variety of well-qualified people – who know far more about this than myself – for their interpretation of the new legislation and its implications for ‘N’ flyers – especially in the UK.
Among those I have consulted are two whom from past contact I know to be very conversant with the new legislation and very objective in their comments and reserved in their judgement.
One is someone who was involved in the original draft of the BASA material and who has followed its progress astutely. The other is an Engineer/Instructor who foresaw the new BASA as a ‘Commercial Opportunity’ as he had anticipated that there would be many seeking ‘Conversions’. The fact that he has responded in the way he has speaks volumes for his fairness and objectivity.
Because the final full details are yet to be promulgated their comments are naturally guarded with ‘ifs’ & ‘buts’ and contain many caveats.
But interestingly, they are of a common mind on what I report below:
For an FAA IR holder, who is based in the UK, and who is flying an ‘N’ registered aircraft, and assuming that the UK is outside EASA, the issue is: What, if any, BASA the UK enters into independently. Since once BREXIT has taken place, it is presumed that this also includes leaving EASA.
So an EU BASA would not apply to him/her.
If the pilot is resident in the UK, and unless the UK were to introduce some new regulation, they don’t need to do anything to fly in Europe.
They hold a valid ICAO IR and are resident outside EASAland.
This will also depend very much on what the DfT may/may not decide to do with any rules about foreign-registered aircraft based in the UK.
So far they have resisted such a move and Grant Schapps, Secretary of State for Transport of the United Kingdom (who flies an ‘N’ plane) has specifically ruled out any change. But politicians are politicians . . . !
In a similar vein, people are watching carefully the outcome of the Piper PA-46-310P Malibu, N264DB Trial (‘The Footballer Case’) whose result no one can predict. This will be followed by the postponed Post-Mortem which has already been differed to 2022.
Despite the possible siren voices of the red-top newspapers who might see ‘N’ planes as being ‘unpatriotic’ and ‘dangerous’ both the CAA & the Dft will, hopefully, not indulge in any ‘knee-jerk’ reaction.
Rather it is predicted, by some, that the ‘worst scenario’ would be an assurance by the CAA (acting on behalf of the FAA) that more thorough Ramp Checks might be enforced in the future; and a clearer reminder/proclamation that, unlike the recent extensions by the CAA for ‘G’ planes, ‘cost sharing’ is completely forbidden in ‘N’ planes.
The shorthand answer therefore – at the moment – is: “Carry on . . . and do nothing different”.
Likewise, “Going Foreign” will become, once again, common parlance within the UK flying community.
If the pilot is resident in the UK, and unless the UK were to introduce some new regulation, they don’t need to do anything to fly in Europe.
Yes indeed; the whole EASA FCL attack falls away in 31 Dec 2020. But – and I have lost track of this stuff – isn’t there an equivalent ANO provision now? I am rushing around today but @Qalupalik will know exactly where it may be.
Cost sharing is a legal problem anyway in N – search here for the Common Purpose rule, etc. It is obvious that Wingly type flights cannot be done in N-regs – unless one adopts the “interesting” position that the FAA has no jurisdiction in Europe (which is contrary to ICAO blah blah).
The UK has had a treaty with the FAA for decades. It was “killed” by JAA in the late 1990s but post-brexit can be picked up, amended, etc. AIUI the US has never liked the way Brussels has forced all the various countries to walk away from the treaties they had signed with the FAA, and would be quite happy to “go direct” when possible.
The following was posted on an EASA site by an EU official (I think we all know this anyway)
If the pilot is resident in the UK, and unless the UK were to introduce some new regulation, they don’t need to do anything to fly in Europe.
That’s essentially right however the residency status of the pilot is irrelevant. The application of the Aircrew Regulation to any pilot of a third country aircraft—not otherwise excluded from the scope of the Basic Regulation by virtue of article 2(8) or Annex I—when it is operated in the territories to which the regulation applies is determined by the aircraft operator residing in, being established in, or being principally based in those territories. See article 3(1) in the Aircrew Regulation and article 21 in the Basic Regulation.
By way of example, as the operator of a US-registered aircraft Peter who is ordinarily resident in the UK (I assume) will cease being within the scope of the EU Basic Regulation after IP completion day (2300z 31 Dec 2020). After that time any pilot flying his aeroplane in the territories to which the EU Basic Regulation applies shall not be required to hold a licence granted under the EU Aircrew Regulation or converted or validated under Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/723 or converted under the EU–US BASA (or EC–US BASA, as written in the agreement’s title).
Conversely, after the promised 2 year exemption for EASA Part-FCL licence holders expires, any pilot flying his aeroplane in the UK (*) shall be required to hold a licence granted under the UK Aircrew Regulation, etc, notwithstanding other exemptions in pursuance of article 12(4) of that regulation and so on.
Peter_G wrote:
‘cost sharing’ is completely forbidden in ‘N’ planes.
I believe it is lawful to share expenses on the condition that the flight has not been advertised and it is a non-commercial operation. Further if done under a US pilot certificate there should be a common purpose. See posts 25, 43 and 44 in the thread Wingly – illegal with an N-reg? in addition to post 70 in the thread UK CAA ruling on medicals: “Class 2 is not essential, due to CV19” (and PMD – pilot medical declaration) (link).
Edited: “article 12(8)” changed to “article 12(4)”
OK; yes… I forgot that the UK is adopting the EASA FCL stuff into the ANO, so one is still facing the 2022 date.
Thanks, Qalupalik 
I would assume that the FAA regulations will be updated to reflect the agreement, but this will take some time.
Peter_G wrote:
In a similar vein, people are watching carefully the outcome of the Piper PA-46-310P Malibu, N264DB Trial (‘The Footballer Case’) whose result no one can predict. This will be followed by the postponed Post-Mortem which has already been differed to 2022.
…
Rather it is predicted, by some, that the ‘worst scenario’ would be an assurance by the CAA (acting on behalf of the FAA) that more thorough Ramp Checks might be enforced in the future; …
The worst case – at least from an n-reg operator POV – is that it is finally confirmed that the accident actually was caused by a technical defect and some dependants sue the FAA for damages over not controlling the maintenance of N-regs outside the US as closely as with in the US (e.g. because they do less ramp checks, less audits of A&Ps in Europe, etc.). In worst case they would win this case against the FAA.
From there it would only be a small change in regulation that any n-reg plane needs to be physically in the US at least once a year…
One must not forget that while the US government doesn’t care too much about n-reg planes flying outside the US they also do have only very little benefit from this. Therefore they won’t take any liability risks just to allow people to continue this practice…
