FAA PPL in Europe

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

Grelly

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
259
Location
Surrey, UK
Hi,

I have an FAA PPL but live in the UK. At present, I can fly G registered planes in the UK (with some restrictions) without having to convert to a CAA/JAA/EASA licence. However, it looks like EASA may not permit this arrangement to continue. My questions is:
What would be my least-cost route to continuing flying in the UK/Euroland?

Thanks,

Grelly
 

SVSUSteve

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
3,904
Location
Evansville, Indiana
If they might stop recognizing it, it probably would be a good idea to get the license for where you live now just to avoid being caught in a bind if they do actually try to pull this.
 

Grelly

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
259
Location
Surrey, UK
I agree. What I am looking for is the cheapest/quickest route to a licence. It has all got very complicated with the CAA handing authority to the JAA who became EASA (or something like that).
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
15,805
Location
Memphis, TN
For the upkeep of an EASA license you could buy a N registered airplane in only a few years of payments.
 

PTAirco

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2003
Messages
3,661
Location
Corona CA
Or come to the US for a few weeks every year and get your flying fix- might still work out cheaper. Why do they have to complicate things and fix non-existent problems. Has there been a rash of FAA -licensed pilots crashing into hospitals and schoolyards? Just more bloodyminded bureaucracy for its own sake. The logical extension of this would be to require all foreign airliners flying into any European country to have pilots on board with wallets filled with licenses for each and every country they fly over or land in. Sheer insanity. Isn't this what ICAO was for??
 

fly2kads

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
1,830
Location
Justin, TX
Out of curiosity, what justification was presented for these new rules? It sounds totally absurd to me, but I'm presuming that there had to have been at least some effort at rationalizing such a major change.
 

Grelly

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
259
Location
Surrey, UK
Out of curiosity, what justification was presented for these new rules? It sounds totally absurd to me, but I'm presuming that there had to have been at least some effort at rationalizing such a major change.
Popular opinion suggests that it is blatant protectionism hidden behind a "safety" veil. When challenged on the "how many FAA pilots have hit schools" thing, they quickly point out that this isn't aimed specifically at FAA qualifications. The implication is that they have less respect for qualifications from (let's say) Africa.

But, as I say, popular opinion thinks that they are just trying to prevent pilots from picking up lower cost training from abroad.

It is my deepest wish that at some point, somebody with clout will stand up and say "P*ss off!"
 

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,766
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
Out of curiosity, what justification was presented for these new rules? It sounds totally absurd to me, but I'm presuming that there had to have been at least some effort at rationalizing such a major change.
There's two:
*Common sense
*The rest of the world already doing this, including the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.



For anybody that disagrees, first answer this question: Would you find it correct if Americans could fly Zimbabwean registered aircraft, with a license obtained (bought?) in Zimbabwe and the aircraft being maintained to their standards, while having that plane in the US, permanently stationed there?

Unless you say yes and think the US and most of the rest of the world should get rid of their own "absurd regulations" who say exactly the same, this is perfectly logical. EASA-countries have common rules, regulations and specifications, as do the US (FAA), China or Australia. Allowing people to simply "cheat" by going cheaper is idiotic, we don't allow Chinese cars that didn't pass our regulations on your or my roads either and neither do we allow drivers that got their license there.

Don't forget that - even if these rules are enforced - you still can fly in a N-reg aircraft or with a FAA license, just not permanently. If I recall correctly, with an EASA license and plane you can only fly for a maximum of 3 months in the the US. Sounds very reasonably to me, as would be the new regulations, which would be exactly the same, only the other way around.


Not meant to be offensive, but many here have apparantly surprisingly little knowledge about the current regulations of flying over borders or on foreign aircraft...


@ Grelly,

I'd wait it out a little longer. There will be exemptions and temporary fixes. Your best bet is probably AOPA UK, but so far I've heard rumors of a simple PPL SEP consisting of a single exam in regulations and a single (practical) exam.
 

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,752
Location
Orange County, California
...For anybody that disagrees, first answer this question: Would you find it correct if Americans could fly Zimbabwean registered aircraft, with a license obtained (bought?) in Zimbabwe and the aircraft being maintained to their standards, while having that plane in the US, permanently stationed there?...
Unless something's changed that I didn't hear about (and that's entirely possible), it's perfectly legal for someone with a license from an ICAO member nation to come to the USA and fly airplanes here. We've had several vacationers from European countries come fly as PIC at my soaring club over the years, under a temporary membership that we offer, and under their originating-country's pilot's certificate.

Not so sure about the aircraft, though.
 

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,766
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
Unless something's changed that I didn't hear about (and that's entirely possible), it's perfectly legal for someone with a license from an ICAO member nation to come to the USA and fly airplanes here. We've had several vacationers from European countries come fly as PIC at my soaring club over the years, under a temporary membership that we offer, and under their originating-country's pilot's certificate.

Not so sure about the aircraft, though.
I don't know about sailplanes, but to fly with an EASA PPL SEP in the US (on an N-reg aircraft) you need to obtain a temporary (FAA) license. One practical and one theoretical exam if I recall correctly.

As for the planes, it's legal to bring your own plane (glider or powered) to the US and fly it there. Temporary. Nothing wrong with that, that's what ICAO was founded for, but permanently flying a foreign plane on a foreign license is a whole other matter, since you're basically just circumnavigating the regulations.
 

JamesG

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
2,408
Location
Columbus, GA and Albuquerque, NM
If the intent of your licensing and aircraft inspection regulations is flight safety, and you have faith in other countries' approving authorities, why should you not have reciprocal respect for each others' certification without requiring widely traveled pilots to carry a deck of license cards around with them? Couldn't possibly be that it's just a source of revenues could it? Why should someone feel compelled to follow regulations that do nothing but extort money?
 

PTAirco

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2003
Messages
3,661
Location
Corona CA
Aviation by its nature transcends boundaries. It is not the same thing as letting Chinese cars roam across your country. There are reciprocal agreements in place with most civilised nations that recognize the international nature of flying - "you can fly in my country, if I can fly in yours" - simple and commonsense and aviation would be an insane mess if we didn't have these agreements. If safety was an issue here, why would it suddenly become unsafe to have a pilot fly for longer than 3 months in your country? It has nothing to do with safety or standards, just simpleminded bureaucracy and revenue gathering, plus a but of national snobbery thrown in; I have frequently overheard Europeans making fun of FAA licenses, as being something anyone can obtain. Still, most of my German and British friends went to the US to get theirs and simply continued to fly on that license, no problems. The UK CAA probably does not like it because it charges horrendous fees for its papershuffling and misses the revenue.
 

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,766
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
If the intent of your licensing and aircraft inspection regulations is flight safety, and you have faith in other countries' approving authorities, why should you not have reciprocal respect for each others' certification without requiring widely traveled pilots to carry a deck of license cards around with them?
I have now stipulated 3 times in this thread that you are allowed to fly your locally registered aircraft, with your local license without any problem in almost every country. This was valid, this is valid and this will always be valid as long as we have the Chicago treaty.

My comment about very opinionated people here that are uninformed to say the least didn't come from nowhere. If it concerns regulations, opinions are clearly higher valued than the slightest clue about those actual regulations.
Couldn't possibly be that it's just a source of revenues could it?
Just as likely as Martians being the real killers of JFK. These changes include delegating some license issuing to non-government associations. The regulations are going to give the authorities less, not more revenue.
Aviation by its nature transcends boundaries. It is not the same thing as letting Chinese cars roam across your country.
It is exactly the same, except for the lack of land bridge between you and the Chinese, which is probably why you and many of your fellow countryman have that idea, you only have 2 land borders...
There are reciprocal agreements in place with most civilised nations that recognize the international nature of flying - "you can fly in my country, if I can fly in yours" - simple and commonsense and aviation would be an insane mess if we didn't have these agreements.
Nonsense. I mentioned the facts before, if I have an EASA PPL SEP, I'd have to do some exams before I'm even allowed to fly in your country (with an N-reg aircraft). We could argue this over and over; the facts are simply different.
If safety was an issue here, why would it suddenly become unsafe to have a pilot fly for longer than 3 months in your country?
3 months is an acceptable time for people traveling around. The possible increased risk is deemed acceptable. Just asking, but why am I allowed to stay 3 months in the USA (as a person) and then I suddenly have to leave? Am I then also a sudden safety risk? Of course not. 3 months is plenty for travelling, any longer and any authority will ask more from you, whether you're a person (visum) of an aircraft (registration change).
It has nothing to do with safety or standards, just simpleminded bureaucracy and revenue gathering
Nonsense. The fact that every aviation ruling agency in the world, except for EASA has been doing this for the past decades (without any pilots protest) tells us that either we are all terribly stupid for not noticing the terrible injustice in the rest of the world (including the USA), or most of the comments are hypocrite and ill-informed.
plus a but of national snobbery thrown in; I have frequently overheard Europeans making fun of FAA licenses, as being something anyone can obtain.
That's not snobbery, many of it is fact. Compare the SEP IR rating from the FAA and EASA, the difference in requirements is massive. Compare unusual attitude training, massive difference. Compare the legal exams or RT; massive difference. Those are facts, not opinions.

It would be idiotic (and the current situation is), that we impose some regulations on IFR flight for example, but that you can take a backroute and just ignore those. That basically just means that your regulations (like being proficient in IFR) are worthless and we could just as well throw all regulations overboard. Why bother having an IFR-rating at all to fly in IMC?
Still, most of my German and British friends went to the US to get theirs and simply continued to fly on that license, no problems. The UK CAA probably does not like it because it charges horrendous fees for its papershuffling and misses the revenue.
So you wouldn't mind that US citizens got their pilots license in Zimbabwe or Nigeria and then flew and maintained their US-based aircraft under Nigerian law? Apart from the prejudices exactly the same situation, only a bit harder to see, because of those prejudices...






This complete topic reminds me of what an Iranian friend called the "disease of the West":

"I have an opinion, but not a clue".
 

PTAirco

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2003
Messages
3,661
Location
Corona CA
It is exactly the same, except for the lack of land bridge between you and the Chinese, which is probably why you and many of your fellow countryman have that idea, you only have 2 land borders...

Nonsense. I mentioned the facts before, if I have an EASA PPL SEP, I'd have to do some exams before I'm even allowed to fly in your country (with an N-reg aircraft). We could argue this over and over; the facts are simply different.
Many of my fellow countrymen? I am British, with a German mother, born and raised in Germany and Ireland, and England and lived in 5 other countries since and now about 11 years in the US. I can hardly be accused of any ingrained national opinions. There are differences in the flight training syllabus among different countries, sure, but these are mostly procedural, not a fundamental difference in standard.

Any person from an ICAO member country can come to the USA with their license issued in their country, bring a medical, passport and form FAA 8400-3 , go to any FAA office and in 30 minutes you will have a valid FAA license. Valid worldwide. No exams, no checkride. Our local flight school does it all the time for foreign visitors. What is it that is so unthinkably wrong with that in the eyes of European bureaucrats? Is it impossible to grasp the fact that an airplane flies like an airplane in any country or that pilots can be expected to familiarise themselves with local regulations by themselves?

-3 FAA Form 8400-3FAA Form 8400-3
 

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,752
Location
Orange County, California
...Any person from an ICAO member country can come to the USA with their license issued in their country, bring a medical, passport and form FAA 8400-3 , go to any FAA office and in 30 minutes you will have a valid FAA license. Valid worldwide. No exams, no checkride. Our local flight school does it all the time for foreign visitors...
That's been the impression I've gotten with foreign visitors to my soaring club as well. The only reason we require a checkride for such "temporary" club members to be PIC in our aircraft is to satisfy an insurance requirement.

Autoreply, can you point out the FAR that supports your claim? I think you're mistaken in this case, but if my club is doing something wrong, I need to be able to show it to our board of directors.
 

PTAirco

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2003
Messages
3,661
Location
Corona CA
That's not snobbery, many of it is fact. Compare the SEP IR rating from the FAA and EASA, the difference in requirements is massive. Compare unusual attitude training, massive difference. Compare the legal exams or RT; massive difference. Those are facts, not opinions.
.
The difference is the EASA IR needs 50 hours minimum, the FAA IR needs 40. Hardly what I call "massive" difference. The theory for both covers what is needed; nothing more, nothing less - weather, procedures, equipment regulations etc etc. Check the practical standards and tolerances - identical. (Altitude =/- 100 feet. VOR headings within 5 degrees etc etc). If you can achieve these tolerances in 40 hours ( I did; hard work, but certainly doable), you're just paying someone for the extra practice. Which is helpful sure, but hardly an issue.


http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/srg_lts_LASORS2010_Section E.pdf
 
Last edited:

PTAirco

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2003
Messages
3,661
Location
Corona CA
Some more on this in this AvWeb podcast :Podcast: New European Pilot Rules

This is from a German's perspective and he is just as appalled as we are on this side of the Atlantic. Pointless rulemaking just for the sake of it.

If you want to use your FAA IFR ticket in Germany, be prepared for about 10-15 hours of compulsory instruction, 9 written exams (so what do German pilots know about IFR that Americans don't know? Or more to the point , what is it that one needs to know that we over here missed out on?? ) and if you have your own airplane to do it in - sorry, can't do that. Why not ? Well, because. All this will set you back about US$10,000 all told.

Basically what this is saying is that pilots trained outside of European Countries (and not just EU; Switzerland and Norway too) are unfit to fly by European standards. Then why do they even allow foreign airliners to fly into Europe?? They ought to be forced to land at a designated airport and a local pilot should have to take over!

I am an EU citizen living in the US, I have friends in the UK who fly on both UK CAA and FAA licenses. Instructors among them. Not one of them would agree that the FAA license is in any way of a lower standard. Different in details, but not fundamentally. Same with Australia, New Zealand and yes, probably Zimbabwe too.

Just when I was thinking things in Europe were slowly getting better, this kind of thing happens.
 

SVSUSteve

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
3,904
Location
Evansville, Indiana
The logical extension of this would be to require all foreign airliners flying into any European country to have pilots on board with wallets filled with licenses for each and every country they fly over or land in.
Actually that's exactly why JAA was created in the first place...to avoid exactly that scenario.

Isn't this what ICAO was for??
Sort of. ICAO is supposed to be the mediator to avoid situations where one nation is impeding the ability of others to conduct aviation operations.

There's two:
*Common sense
*The rest of the world already doing this, including the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Bingo.

you only have 2 land borders...
The one to south is really only a border in the strictest legal definition once you get away from the part where there's a river. It's kind of like how the Germans viewed Belgium as simply a way to get around the Maginot Line (aka the "Heinz Guderian Panzer Expressway"). The only difference is that you replace "Belgium" with "Arizona" and you've got our situation to the south.

So you wouldn't mind that US citizens got their pilots license in Zimbabwe or Nigeria and then flew and maintained their US-based aircraft under Nigerian law? Apart from the prejudices exactly the same situation, only a bit harder to see, because of those prejudices...
This is totally different! It inconveniences Americans! How dare they!

[/sarcasm]


This complete topic reminds me of what an Iranian friend called the "disease of the West":

"I have an opinion, but not a clue".
That sums up the attitudes of most of my fellow Americans quite well. Shame that most of them won't listen because someone they view as automatically being a "terrorist" pointed it out. Please remind him/her that we're not all like that.

Then again, dealing with some of the idiots I happen to share nationality with as an accident of my birth, I am reminded why Churchill famously pointed out that best argument one could present against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
 

Grelly

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
259
Location
Surrey, UK
Hi Guys,

Thanks for all the responses so far.

It's interesting to see EASA being defended by some. I hope those people are right to have faith. Certainly the idea of a unified European airspace and licencing regime, where I can fly across borders without the worry that I am doing something illegal is hugely attractive.

I came across this article on the subject from a clearly frustrated author. Enjoy.

Grelly
http://www.zen74158.zen.co.uk/aviation/jan-brill-article-20120408.pdf
 
Top