Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
What again do you mean by “FISO”?
Flight Information Service Officer. The person providing the FIS.
Thanks. One day I will really master all of those acronyms 
Are you winding us up, Jan?
Unsure of the exact meaning of “winding up”, in this context, nor of the exact interpretation of “us” (surely I wouldn’t go against all of this forum!), I can only state that I meant no hurt, neither to individuals nor to groups.
A better place might be the Abbreviations thread – here
Thanks for the reminder – wouldn’t that be a good candidate for going sticky? Especially the very extensive list in #04. Still, “FISO” isn’t mentioned even there, and “FIS” has two explanations…
To get this back on topic:
One of the options would be NAC in Florida, they regained their EASA authorization a while ago. In emails back and forth with this facility, I was struck with this statement by my contact there:
“By the way, there has been an amendment to the requirements for the PPL conversion : even if you have 100 hours or more you will need to do the 9 written exams. This is the only change to what I emailed before.”
That is simply wrong. The school doesn’t have a clue. I wonder if the “regained” word should be taken as a warning? 
I believe there are about half a dozen schools in Florida who are EASA approved. One thread is here and I am not sure if there is a straight list elsewhere.
If this was me, I would take a walk to another school, because if you get this kind of thing up front, even before you started there, it isn’t likely to get much better later When I was doing the FAA IR in 2006 I got stuck with one useless outfit which not only failed to deliver the I-20 but also helpfully added a note to my immigration record suggesting that I learnt to fly but not to land And I never even visited them.
A couple of guys from my club landed at Charleroi and were accepted in French, although that may be specific to Wallonia.
NAC in Florida is just one option I was looking into, since I’ll be in that area next year and I saw they offer the FAA to EASA conversion. But I’ve just read too many negative stuff by now to seriously considering it. I will probably do the conversion right here in Belgium.
About the ELP (language test), here’s the thing: If you want to use the radio legally in Belgian airspace (and as a PPL pilot, I DO WANT to go on the airwaves, trust me) , you need a R/T Certificate. In order to get that piece of paper, you need to pass an ELP test and score a minimum of ICAO level 4). It doesn’t matter that I have an American and a Canadian license (which both show I am English proficient), I still have to go through the test.
@Jan “Is there a Belgian EASA license?”
- I know what you mean, there’s only EASA, technically … but there actually is a Belgian EASA license, believe me.
For example, if I want to convert my FAA PPL to EASA issued by Belgium, Belgian Authorities only accept a medical check done by an examiner they approve (Belgian that is), the 2 theory exams need to be done in Brussels, and for the R/T, the ELP tests are only valid when done by a facility they have approved (Belgian).
SO, yes, in my humble opinion, there IS a ‘Belgian EASA’.
L
OK, Lode, fair enough. I would term that “a PPL taken in BE” rather than “a BE PPL” but that might be considered a squibble of words by some. And yes, most European CAA’s seem to keep their own list of approved exam centres for the EPL test – I cannot help feeling that a bit contrary to the European spirit.
Also yes, our lovely country does require a valid ELP for any flight on which one might be obliged to use the radio – which, at least in theory, includes all international flights because one is supposed to report crossing the FIR border. Which makes the ELP a requirement for any “real” flying – our country is só small… However, do not confuse the ELP with the R/T – a basic R/T license is inherently included with the PPL – at least in a BE PPL or so I was told. Being on an ultralight license, I did take the R/T exam, a funny experience.
All European licenses remain national, even though they are (supposed to be) issued according to the same EASA rules.
What is interesting is how “territorial” some countries have become on their recognition of medicals.
Years ago, you could pop down to Hungary and pick up an initial Class 1 and a CV test and you would be on your way to your airline pilot career. Actually I am not suggesting that Hungary was doing (a significant number of) “insufficiently diligent” medicals. What they did however do on occassions was to allow you to walk out of the room if you failed e.g. the CV test, without making a note of it. Under JAA rules you were/are allowed to attempt each of the four or so CV test methods only once in your entire lifetime, so if e.g. someone failed the Isihara test (before an AME) they could never try it again and had to move to e.g. the Lantern test.
Germanwings probably played a further part in this… basically aviation medicals potentially aren’t worth the paper they are written on unless the issue is obvious, and German ones are worth even less
It’s curious to observe that it has taken almost 20 years for the CAAs to move to limit what they called “medical tourism”. Probably way too many airline pilots were doing it and it would have been too controversial to just kill it quickly.
