Interesting interview with Ky

They pretty much have, converting from FAA to EASA licenses is a piece of cake now, almost the same as going from EASA to FAA.

You are missing the point; what’s the safety case that justifies why I should have to convert anyway?

It didn’t feel like a piece of cake to me, and I’m only part way through. Passing an IR initial cannot be beyond the normal person, because I passed it and I am just an ordinary pilot. However it was hard, for me anyway. I don’t want to fly MEP types, yet I had to renew my long expired MEP rating before I could do the IR brush up and test. Next I have to get a type rating or two. And before I can book the type rating course I need to pass a HPA theory course and exam, which nobody will offer me.

The expense is ridiculous, I have spent thousands to get back to doing what I have been doing for years, so I don’t want a piece of your cake if this is what it costs.

The benefits? Nil as far as I can see.

In August 1914 my Grandfather was told “it will all be over by Christmas”.

Why do I think that any improvement in EASA regulation is unlikely in even in the same time scale as was eventually imposed on my Grandfather.

I know of one aircraft operated with an EU national registration based in the US, done so primarily because it is a type never issued an FAA type certificate, and also because the owner wants to export it to the country of registration at sometime in the future. Very uncommon but occasionally done.

I do know a guy who never took the huge D-registration letters off his plane after import to the US register. The N numbers are in small format, not very visible. The answers he gives ground controllers in the US when they ask what D-XXXX means are amusing, as is the ‘innocent, unknowing’ way that they ask, in effect suggesting he remove them.

Well I never claimed that everybody I mix with has a PhD

Sometimes, people have unusual reasons to do things a certain way. A surprisingly common reason is that you have a non-obvious medical issue and your friendly AME has been signing you off for the last 500 years, and you cannot risk moving to another AME.

A friend of mine kept a G-reg TB10 there for years.

nobody with a brain would keep a plane in the USA on anything other than the N-reg, anyway.

Good one

You are not allowed to station and operate an EASA registered aircraft in the US by the way.

Do you have a reference? A friend of mine kept a G-reg TB10 there for years.

I recall reading about some obscure TSA notification requirements; not sure if they apply to > 12500lb.

But nobody with a brain would keep a plane in the USA on anything other than the N-reg, anyway. Even getting your 50hr checks signed off would be a job.

converting from FAA to EASA licenses is a piece of cake now, almost the same as going from EASA to FAA

Depends on how you define “almost”

In terms of effort / time / expense the FAA to EASA hurdle is several times higher.

But, for the usual renter or the fairly typical (non-proactive) aircraft owner, the N-reg route always involved more effort, so its advantages had to be quite significant.

The FAA PPL to JAA/EASA PPL conversion has been 100hrs + 2 exams + checkride for at least 15 years.
The FAA IR to JAA/EASA IR conversion has been stripped of the 7 exams but the rest is almost the same, plus the annual 150-200 quid revalidation.

If Mr Ky had real bottle they would scrap the whole EASA 3rd country rule set, or allow seamless transfer of FAA to EASA qualifications.

They pretty much have, converting from FAA to EASA licenses is a piece of cake now, almost the same as going from EASA to FAA. You are not allowed to station and operate an EASA registered aircraft in the US by the way.

I agree Neil, yet I think Ky has to step carefully. He has basically burst in there and stepped on quite a lot of toes already. If he goes too far too fast, the bureaucracy within will simply refuse to work with him or plot to throw him out.

He does have “bottle” as you refert to it, but he has to use it carefully. I think he tries to go in the direction of the latter. But, and that is a big but, he can not, nor should he do this unless the USA grants the same to EASA license holders. As much as EASA has no reason to shun FAA licenses and certifications, as much does the FAA have no business shunning European ones. What we need is MUTUAL reckognition.

In one way I believe this was the original intention, to get the US to agree to a BASA which would inclulde this, but by doing it the “European” Way they achieved the opposite, namely by taking European license refugees hostage. That was not very clever as the FAA is not to keen on those anyhow and would gladly get rid of the overseas license holders. But I think Ky is moving in the right direction now. If the IR initiative was anything to go by, we can be mildly optimistic about the guy.

But, and that is a big but, he has to last long enough to make it all happen.

In the article there are great words on the basis for regulation being safety assessment. He seems to say that if something doesn’t improve safety they won’t do it. He also seems to suggest the FAA regime produces better safety results.

How do those ideas tie in with the need for European FAA IR holders to get an EASA IR to fly their FAA registered aircraft?

If Mr Ky had real bottle they would scrap the whole EASA 3rd country rule set, or allow seamless transfer of FAA to EASA qualifications.
I suspect things have gone too far for the former to happen, and the latter is a bit radical for the training industry.

I still like the things I’m hearing though. EASA could turn out to be good news for GA, and Patrick Ky seems to have sound and sincere intentions.