While the uncertainty is a bit nerve-wracking, I dropped my Swiss ICAO licence (pre-JAR) years ago once I got my N-reg aircraft (which is all I fly in Europe), essentially to avoid completely useless additional costs of maintaining a national/JAR/EASA licence. For those of us getting on in years, that includes not only the additional flight check but also the additional annual medical costs (2x EASA medical in addition to every FAA medical). I briefly considered getting an EASA licence when it looked like the deadline wouldn’t be extended, and even got a level 6 English proficiency (another can of worms in EASA). But I decided every year around Christmas to just hang in and see what happens, and of course it was extended again. It sounds like March/April 2017 will be another nail-biter time.
Martin wrote:
EASA already has conversion and validation of foreign licences which is, to me, in line with ICAO’s idea of conversion and validation.
Validation – yes. Conversion is not quite so easy: PPL is straightforward and prescriptively defined in the regulations, CPL is totally unreasonable (one has to take the theoretical study all over again), ATPL may be reasonable if the relevant CAA is willing to give credit.
Ultranomad wrote:
Validation – yes.
The validation is not completely straight forward either, and IIRC of very limited validity, and one single extension.
Ultranomad wrote:
PPL is straightforward and prescriptively defined in the regulations, CPL is totally unreasonable (one has to take the theoretical study all over again), ATPL may be reasonable if the relevant CAA is willing to give credit.
I thought you can’t fly in commercial operations on 61.75. You can base it on a commercial licence, but you’ll get PPL privileges.
Aviathor wrote:
The validation is not completely straight forward either, and IIRC of very limited validity, and one single extension.
As I wrote, validation is only for one year (or less). Then you have to apply again. An extension of a validation is available only to allow you to get an EASA licence when you’ve already applied for it or started training. Sadly, some interpret it as “you only have one validation (plus one extension) in your lifetime” which is IMHO utter nonsense. PS: Perhaps they interpret it as once per licence, not lifetime. That’s another possibility. Still IMHO nonsense. 
Just maybe if the regulations were less monetarily stringent. And all the bureaucratic costs including fuel taxes were lessened the “school” would be able to sell licenses for the same or nearly the same price as their American counterparts. What happened to all that free trade crap I keep hearing about? This licensing BS is nothing but blatant protectionism. And as can be seen it is killing the industry.
Some people cant see the forest from the trees.
Although I agree that the way it is being done is crap, I do think that a State has the right to regulate and govern its citizens in its own jurisdiction.
I do not expect Dutch people to smoke weed here, or Swiss people to kill sick old people, or Americans to carry assault rifles, or Saudis to marry 13 year old girls, just because they can do it at home, and similarly I expect UK (or Dutch, Swiss or whatever) pilots to be regulated by their NAAs.
Well, nobody in Europe actually wants to be N-reg or be governed by the FAA.
This is just a symptom of multiple European job creation / restrictive practice schemes.
It is worse in countries whose pilot community is less conformist / more socially responsible, and where the IR is of most value. So the UK gets a lot of it.
It’s funny that whenever a bunch of “old UK CAA” IR or ATPL holders assemble in a room, and I have been in a number of such “rooms”, especially at meetings held at certain esteemed organisations, and are critical of the N-reg community, it turns out that nearly all of them did it via various routes which no longer exist, like e.g. the long-gone 700hr route. And a bunch converted FAA CPL/IR / ATP papers to JAA papers via Canada / Ireland / etc, and even some via Hungary. And many did it while being paid for it by an employer.
I know one former CAA examiner (FE) who told me he never sat one exam. He got grandfathered all the way, from quite an interesting starting position. My PPL/IMC examiner never held any instrument qualification. Grandfathered all the way. He didn’t like N-regs either… He’s long retired now.
Also, Timothy, more specifically, I don’t see that being N-reg is a crime, like your 13 year old girl example!! There is not even a remote comparison. And evidently the UK CAA agree with that – as do most civilised European countries.
Each ICAO CS has a right to prevent it’s citizens flying on foreign papers in it’s airspace. The more civilised States choose to not enforce this. Pretty obviously there is no safety case for doing so.
Whether anybody likes it or not (I do like it) there is competition between governments and their policies, a market place of ideas. FAA continues to have the best ideas for aviation regulation, and there isn’t a thing European aircraft regulators can do to make bad ideas more attractive than good ideas.
Is this perhaps the reasoning behind the recent directive issued by the FAA, which requires that ALL FAA TK ground examinations must be taken “within the borders if the United States of American”?
For confirmation of this, please refer to Flight Safety, Farnborough.
Oscar Tango wrote:
Quote Is this perhaps the reasoning behind the recent directive issued by the FAA, which requires that ALL FAA TK ground examinations must be taken “within the borders if the United States of American”?
For confirmation of this, please refer to Flight Safety, Farnborough.
Can you give a link for this and/or a FAA source since my searching has failed me.
