I spoke recently to several UK examiners. As probably some of you are aware, the JAA will be fully replaced by the new European Aviation Safety Agency. Under this new body, new regulations will soon take effect.
According to those examiners, there will be a new regulation prohibiting FAA licensed pilots to instruct EASA qualified pilots. I assume it is for "economic" reasons. Well, what does it mean? From what I was told, Boeing, Airbus, Gulftstream, Cessna, or any other training organizations based in the US will have to hire dual FAA/EASA qualified pilots with the right of work in the United States. It is obviously very difficult to come by. This might be a new opportunity for some to make really some good $$$.
I spoke recently to several UK examiners. As probably some of you are aware, the JAA will be fully replaced by the new European Aviation Safety Agency. Under this new body, new regulations will soon take effect.
According to those examiners, there will be a new regulation prohibiting FAA licensed pilots to instruct EASA qualified pilots. I assume it is for "economic" reasons. Well, what does it mean? From what I was told, Boeing, Airbus, Gulftstream, Cessna, or any other training organizations based in the US will have to hire dual FAA/EASA qualified pilots with the right of work in the United States. It is obviously very difficult to come by. This might be a new opportunity for some to make really some good $$$.
Some FTOs and TROs pitched a major ***** about this and were granted grandfather clauses for existing facilities and personnel.
I work for a company that uses FAA CFIs with limited IP and examiner authorizations in Arizona, and our company will be able to continue that arrangement since it existed before this ridiculous rule was proposed.
I should point out that this proposed rule and the uproar that it has caused has the potential to be good for American pilots since it has some people talking about USA/EU reciprocity for airmen.
I'm not claiming any progress in this area, but at the very least, it was brought up.
It's good to know. One of the examiner in question is convinced it will take effect very soon. He owns a flight school and he looking for qualified candidates. He offered me a flight instructor position for $50/hour and I was told I could have easily bargain between 70 and 85$/hour. I didn't take the position but it certainly made me think for other opportunities.
I should point out that this proposed rule and the uproar that it has caused has the potential to be good for American pilots since it has some people talking about USA/EU reciprocity for airmen.
I'm not claiming any progress in this area, but at the very least, it was brought up.
This has been in talks for years. I doubt it will happen knowing Europeans. There are so proud to differentiate themselves from the FAA. There is this so called conversion but it's nothing like a conversion. I went through so much training, legal paperwork and $$$ that it makes me mad to think about it.
Under so-called "Open Skies" bilateral agreements between the U.S. and the E.U., the issue of licensing was supposed to be resolved by having reciprocity of licenses and credentials. After all, the conceit of the JAA licensing being somehow superior is pure balderdash. There is no reason at all--other than protectionism--for the UK and the EU to require a "JAA" license.
There should be, and there has been talk that there will be, a simple validation or conversion process, much like the one we finally saw implemented between the U.S. and Canada.
You are totally right - it is protectionism. If we were to have a so called conversion today, a lot of businesses in Europe would shut down. I think it will take a long time and some big concessions from both parties to get an agreement. There are just too many differences in basic training and medical. At least that's their point of view. They just take a lot of pride in their system and some will tell you flat out how FAA licenses are "rubbish" (I got that one once).
I flew in Europe for a while as an exchange pilot in the military. I will say that the conceit spread to the military pilots as well. I do believe that they are forced through more rigorous ground schooling with a less structured program (we are more spoon fed and focused with the material, they work a little harder to get through the books). Our licensing process seems to be easier, and we have the mentality that if it's in a chart, we shouldn't have to commit it to memory. As far as stick and rudder goes, I found that we have a little more experience since flight hours are easily attainable here.. it's a wash in the end and one group is no better than the other.. Just a different approach or mindset towards achieving the outcome. I could see a differences test or course before being granted European licenses.. nothing like what they have in place now... That's just too painful.
Hong Kong is loosely based on the UK CAA as far as licensing requirements, with something like 12-13 written tests required prior to issue of an ATPL. I took 5 of them and they were on the most useless information you could imagine. The FAA tests that are required (for any license) are at least some what practical.
Similar Threads
FAA/CAA Qualified Pilots
Linear Mode
