Ibra wrote:
I honestly don’t see why people can’t convert FAA IR to EASA IR?
In a posting on another EuroGA forum page I quoted £6,000.
This hasn’t been disputed by later posters and is confirmed by an article in today’s Instrument Pilot [the PPL/IR house magazine]
In a posting on another EuroGA forum page I quoted £6,000.This hasn’t been disputed by later posters and is confirmed by an article in today’s Instrument Pilot
Some of it is really UK specific with CAA rating fees, examiner fees, 20h of NDB holds, 3h leg between ILS & RNP? also there are some CAA IRE (ones who barely leave circuit or usual routes) who tend to think an FAA IR is distributed in Pohndland grocery shops for 1£, why would anyone with FAA IR will go and fly with them?
A friend of mine did his at FAA IR to EASA IR conversion at Pontoise: 3h refresher training & 2h test
Lot of UK pilots also got this sorted in Poland (far cheaper with Cirrus rental in some international airports)
I did my French medical because the club I was flying with demanded it for membership. It was a complete non-event, and cost iirc €75. I was rather surprised at how thorough it was, compared to the US. In the US, since you’re required to self-declare everything, the actual medical consists of walking unaided into the surgery. They do do a very basic vision test, but that’s about it. Whereas in France they tested my hearing, my heart (ECG), my respiratory capacity, and a few other things I’ve forgotten.
Colour blindness and something to do with picking out shapes in an image which on the surface looks like a load of dots?
They seem to have stopped the standing on one leg with your eyes closed to check balance.
tschnell wrote:
No, it does not. The wording is still “flight time under IFR”, which is defined in FCL.010 as “all flight time during which the aircraft
is being operated under the Instrument Flight Rules”
But at the same time TIP-L defines flight time under IFR differently for FAA and EASA licenses. See Section A, Chapter 3, point (m) on page 3. I would hope that for the purpose of validating via TIP-L the definitions within it prevail over FCL, so for converting from a FAA IR the FAA definition of IFR would be used.
tmo wrote:
so for converting from a FAA IR the FAA definition of IFR would be used
Well, be careful what you wish for. If you look at the “FAA-License-Holder”-Definition…
flight time during which the aircraft is being operated solely
by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument meteorological
condition
… it might actually be much harder to achieve the 50 hrs, because they must be flown either under actual IMC or under the hood (with the latter requiring a safety pilot!). Simply filing and flying IFR does not count, as long as you are in VMC.
Yes, but you get 40h+ of simulated IMC in the process of getting a FAA IR, right? Getting the remainder is basically flying the upcoming exam flight two or three times.
tmo wrote:
Yes, but you get 40h+ of simulated IMC in the process of getting a FAA IR, right? Getting the remainder is basically flying the upcoming exam flight two or three times.
@tmo, for the purposes of conversion from FAA IR to EASA IR (at least AFAIK), EASA definition will be used – flight under instrument flight Rules not Conditions.
That means if you’ve flown 40+hrs in simulated IMC under VFR, that does not count. But if you flown in VMC under IFR, then that should be OK.
Yes, but you get 40h+ of simulated IMC in the process of getting a FAA IR, right?
All flight time requirements in TIP-L stipulate
So neither FTD time nor flight time during initial IR training counts.
… it might actually be much harder to achieve the 50 hrs, because they must be flown either under actual IMC or under the hood (with the latter requiring a safety pilot!). Simply filing and flying IFR does not count, as long as you are in VMC.
It’s harder, you will be north of 500h IFR to have 50h of actual IMC or simulated IMC, not even talking about logistics of finding a dual pilot to observe in VMC
