The long standing situation in the UK was:
Any instructor doing paid instruction on any aircraft in UK airspace (whether or not G-reg) needs to have a JAA Instructor Rating. The last reasoning I have seen on this is this: ANO Art 29 (as it once was) says that the instructor must have a licence granted or rendered valid under the ANO, or have a JAA licence, and the licence must include an instructor rating. Foreign (non-JAA) licences are rendered valid by ANO Art 21(4), but not for instruction in flying. That means you need a UK or JAA instructors rating to instruct for grant or variation of a licence or rating in UK airspace.
This means that if say you pay an FAA CFI/CFII to do a BFR, the instructor needs to be dual (JAA+FAA) rated.
The issue is avoided if the instructor is not being paid for the flight training (is not paid at all, or e.g. is paid for “ground school”) or if the training is taking place outside UK airspace.
Is the above still applicable, and does a similar restriction apply anywhere else in Europe? Obviously if you leave UK airspace you will end up elsewhere in Europe 
From the ANO 2016
Instruction in flying
170.—(1) This article applies to instruction in flying given to any person flying or about to fly a flying machine or glider for the purpose of becoming qualified for—
(a) the grant of a pilot’s licence under this Order or Part-FCL; or
(b) the inclusion, variation, renewal or revalidation of any rating, certificate or qualification in a pilot’s licence under this Order or Part-FCL.
(2) A person must not give any instruction in flying to which this article applies unless—
(a) they hold a licence, granted or rendered valid under this Order or a Part-FCL licence, entitling them to act as pilot in command of the aircraft for the purpose and in the circumstances under which the instruction is to be given; and
(b) the licence includes an instructor’s rating or certificate entitling the holder to give the instruction.
An FAA Licence is not a licence under this order or Part FCL!
Payment will render a BFR Aerial Work so thats where you need to look.
I don’t see any reason for this. If you want to use that training towards something, it makes perfect sense that there might be requirements on the instructor. But why should any European aviation authority care about training for licences or ratings of some other country? The fact that it’s an instructional flight shouldn’t matter. The commercial bit is a different matter (but it shouldn’t matter whether it’s instruction or aerial photography). Those are just my thoughts, I never investigated it.
I think there is old history involved here.
One is an attempt by the UK to keep a lid on some FAA-related training operations which years ago had the wheels come off. I could list examples quite easily since I used a number of them 
but I won’t because they prob99 all read EuroGA and on past form at least one of them would threaten litigation.
The result of requiring a JAR-FCL FI for any paid training in UK airspace was to render illegal nearly all training or BFRs done by FAA CFI/CFII instructors – because most of them didn’t do the 14 JAA ATPL exams etc etc.
And the result of requiring a FAR-FCL CPL for any paid work is the same… however I suspect that bit is now gone since EASA allows a PPL/FI to be paid i.e. a CPL is no longer required to be paid.
But also ask yourself what would happen if any country allowed a PPL school to run a fleet of N-regs. Not a single country in Europe allows that. Why not? What is the precise process which blocks this, in your country? I think a lot of the time there is no law against it; the imposition of the restriction is wholly under the table e.g. the school will never get approved by the national CAA. Even if they maintained the N-reg fleet under Part M (which AIUI is the case if you run an N-reg under a European AOC) they would not get approved.
IMHO the same stuff would be “unwanted” everywhere in Europe but is a lot easier to do under the radar outside the UK – because the UK CAA has got more involved in it and is more sensitive to it. In many countries I can think of you can do what you like provided you don’t p1ss off anybody big…
Peter wrote:
And the result of requiring a FAR-FCL CPL for any paid work is the same… however I suspect that bit is now gone since EASA allows a PPL/FI to be paid i.e. a CPL is no longer required to be paid.
I guess they did it to reduce burden on instructors. But they still need the theory so I wonder whether it’s worth in. You save 15 hours of training. They still need 10 hours of instrument flight training (which would normally be part of either CPL or IR training hence only 15 hours). They need 200 total, 150 PIC unless they have CPL (you need 200 total, 100 PIC for a CPL IIRC, but the requirements are different). I believe you need the same XC “qualifying” flight. Actually, thinking about it, the different conditions on flight time might be important (only 30 hours have to be on SEPs, the rest can be on a TMG; TMGs are limited to 30 hours for the CPL IIRC).
Peter wrote:
But also ask yourself what would happen if any country allowed a PPL school to run a fleet of N-regs. Not a single country in Europe allows that. Why not? What is the precise process which blocks this, in your country?
Don’t know but I imagine they need an AOC which means they have to dance to the tune of the NAA. By the way, I believe there are some schools running N-regs (I would have to check but I believe I saw one or two in Switzerland, another in Austria).
But they still need the theory so I wonder whether it’s worth in. You save 15 hours of training. They still need 10 hours of instrument flight training (which would normally be part of either CPL or IR training.
There is quite a big difference between doing only the CPL theory and getting the full CPL. And that is the Class I Medical. A huge factor for many. Thus, the “theory only” requirement is a big alleviation.
I don’t know of any European flying schools doing primary training primarily on N-regs. There are a few TRTOs operating N-regs (N191MA used to be registered under an Austrian TRTO) but that’s different from having a fleet full of primary trainers on the N-reg).
Peter wrote:
But also ask yourself what would happen if any country allowed a PPL school to run a fleet of N-regs. Not a single country in Europe allows that.
There are aeroclubs in France that have or have had N-regs in their fleet.
AstonFly, a French ATO based at Toussus-le-Noble (LFPN) have a number of N-reg Cirrus in their fleet.
But I do not know of any that have only N-regs in their fleet.
I on’t think anything prevents a school/club owning an N-reg and renting it out.
What would be surprising is if they could train ab initio PPL in it. Because if that was possible, the whole of the European PPL training scene would be N-reg
boscomantico wrote:
There is quite a big difference between doing only the CPL theory and getting the full CPL. And that is the Class I Medical. A huge factor for many. Thus, the “theory only” requirement is a big alleviation.
Yes, I forgot about the medical. I also forgot about night rating as I don’t think you can get a CPL without it (that’s additional 5 hours IIRC).
boscomantico wrote:
I don’t know of any European flying schools doing primary training primarily on N-regs. There are a few TRTOs operating N-regs (N191MA used to be registered under an Austrian TRTO) but that’s different from having a fleet full of primary trainers on the N-reg).
Actually, thinking about it, I’m not sure if any of them did PPL. At least one did CPL/ IR. I think they did FAA PPL(H) but I don’t recall seeing any helicopters in their fleet. I wasn’t looking for PPL training so I have never checked the full extent of their offering.
Wasn’t one issue with ab-initio PPL training outside the US the student pilot certificate or whatever they call it? I vaguely recall something like that.
Wasn’t one issue with ab-initio PPL training outside the US the student pilot certificate or whatever they call it? I vaguely recall something like that.
Yes – the US SPC is not valid outside the USA so the only way to do a totally ab initio US PPL outside the US is to embark on a local (EASA, in Europe) PPL and get the solo parts of that out of the way, pretending that is your intention.
Yes, I forgot about the medical. I also forgot about night rating as I don’t think you can get a CPL without it (that’s additional 5 hours IIRC).
You can also sit the exams in your own country. I am not sure what language they are done it – presumably in English if they are the JAA ATPL QB. Not having to do any flying is great. However as per some old threads here, the CPL-only classroom is not available in some countries and people travel to CATS in the UK, doing three 1-week visits which alternate between Gatwick and Luton.
It is a partial reversion to the pre-JAA UK system where a PPL+FI could get paid for teaching the PPL. This went on for decades. Those people then got a honorary BCPL which IME continued under JAA. Some I knew got an honorary IMC Rating and could teach the IMCR. The BCPL is no longer relevant since a CPL is not needed to teach the PPL or to get paid.
