Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

My journey as an American pilot (PPL-A + IR) transitioning to Europe

About a year and a half ago I started the journey to convert my US PPL + IR to EASA papers, and have just finally completed the IR skill test a couple weeks ago and thereby finally attained equivalent privileges with both authorities. My perspective comes as an American having obtained my PPL in 2000 and IR in 2002 and having only flown in the US prior to starting this.

I found the process itself to be reasonably straightforward, though figuring out all the steps and sequencing was not so easy for me, and the elapsed time to complete all the requirements was orders of magnitude longer than I (or probably anyone coming from the US) expected. I thought it might be helpful for others if I share the story and where I think I could have made the process easier/shorter. I also had to learn many of the Europe-specific customs (that are likely taught to students) all on my own doing research, so I thought it would be useful to document these observations. Sorry in advance for the book! Maybe it belongs in another section than a forum post; if so I assume Peter will let me know!

For starters, while in principle it is possible to convert a PPL and IR at the same time, this could make the process more complex and possibly lengthier. I decided to get the PPL done ASAP, which is much simpler due to the easier theory requirement. IR theory is much more challenging, and it will take time to get ready whether it’s done via the written exams or an oral exam with the examiner. At least this is the path I took, and I leveraged the current provision to the FAA-EASA agreement to fly IFR on my US IR. This provision is currently set to expire in the summer of 2022, so it may not be available in the future depending on whether it’s extended.

Getting my PPL
To start with the PPL, step one is to schedule an appointment with an EASA medical examiner to get a class 2 medical. If for any reason your FAA medical is not current, that must be made current as well. Some centers can do both at once. For IR privileges you need to tell them to do an audiogram as well. I didn’t know this and had to go back…

I also immediately bought copies of the Pooley’s books covering human performance and air law. The former was pretty similar to what I learned in the US and not too difficult. The air law is really important because there are many operational differences in Europe. Once I was comfortable I had to schedule an appointment with an instructor from a local ATO to sign me off for the written exams. I did my exams at Orbit Groundschool in Arnhem, because they offer the tests in English, and they gave me a question bank when I signed up. I just banged at the question bank until I hit 90+% every time. The tests are straightforward, but the elapsed time for all this is longer than I was used to, so I had to exercise a lot of patience!

I then went up for a couple flights with an instructor to get familiar with operations at EHHV before doing the skill test with the chief instructor. Having never flown from a grass field, and certainly not one at 600 meters and obstacles with 700 ft circuit, the familiarization was most definitely necessary. But the skill test was straightforward, and I found it less demanding than my FAA PPL checkride, which was an hours-long and very stressful event. This flight lasted a little less than an hour.

The other requirements are the English proficiency test, which I did online and was obviously not a problem, and going to the FCC website to pay for an RTO license. Both were simple.

The Night Rating
I was surprised to learn the night rating here is a separate thing, and most people don’t have it. In fact most fields have no lights! But having lots of time flying at night I was intent on having the rating. Under the old agreement I had no choice but to do the five hours of training as if I’d never flown at night before. While this was stupid easy it was also annoying, and I think the new agreement allows you to just get the rating based on experience. In theory an ATO could have given me credit for some of the training, but this is quite nebulous in the rules. I tried initially to find one that would do this, but eventually gave up and just did the five hours. This is one thing I wasted way too much time on!

Converting My IR
The IR is another matter altogether. For this there are several paths, each with its own set of requirements. In any case it was necessary to take an IR RT course and performance based navigation theory course. I did each one in an afternoon. You also must pass three theory tests, which include air law and flight planning, then either meteorology or communication depending on the path taken. These are very challenging tests, as they are intended for ATP level pilots. They are highly technical, cover a large quantity of material, and the questions are not simple. They require analysis and judgment, and often don’t have obvious answers. This process took me several months of preparation and lots of time for scheduling and waiting for results. I also did this through Orbit.

One challenge I ran into with the IR theory is that the question bank completely changed in 2020, and with the new questions came an entirely different approach. I used AviationExam.com to prepare and had been earning 90%+ consistently, but I found the actual questions bore little resemblance to those on AE. They were much less obvious, and the much different style required me to really pay close attention to how they might be trying to throw me off. With the practice questions you sort of get used to what the trigger words are, and I found I took way more time than expected to complete the exams. The other option (if you have sufficient IR PIC hours that is) is to do this orally with the examiner. This would have certainly shaved a lot of time from the process, and in retrospect I probably would have done this. At the time I was thinking I’d rather not have the added stress during the skill test (and was certainly glad not to when the time came), but the time required to schedule the exams and get the results really contributed a lot to the total. I cannot comment as to whether the oral would be more or less challenging, but I suspect this is examiner-dependent.

Finally the IR skill test, which also required some preparation. In general very few private pilots have an IR, and it’s mostly intended for aspiring airline pilots (though this is changing somewhat with the Basic IR). But I have to say the skill test was much more straightforward than my FAA checkride. There aren’t that many procedural differences that come into play during a test, except for the wind correction in holding patterns. My preparation was mostly focused on practicing the holds and making sure everything was up to standard. I found the test itself less intense than my FAA check ride, though there were naturally some curveballs thrown that kept me on my toes (steep turns and stalls while in a hold, for example).

Flying in Europe
In general, GA operations in Europe are much different than the US, and it will take some time to get used to it. It can be frustrating at times, because clearly the system is designed for the airlines and things aren’t as simple. But once I got over the initial culture shock, I found there are so many interesting places to go that I’d argue GA is more useful here than in the US.

For someone who’s only ever flown in the US (me prior to last year), you get pretty used to the American way of GA. In some ways this mirrors many other contrasts between the US and Europe, where Americans tend to be very US-centric because they can due to the geographically large monocultural environment. In Europe you have so many cultures so close to each other that this mindset is impossible to sustain, and you come to just expect everything to be different when you leave your local environment. Flying in Europe is much the same way. There are similarities (EASA rules apply basically everywhere), but each country has its own way of doing things. Part of any preflight involves reading the AIP for any country you’ll be crossing so you’re familiar with their expectations. After a while this becomes normal.

Some key differences…

Airspace: The same A-G classification is used, with minor variances in the rules and F largely ignored. However the way it’s applied is totally different. The concept of A being upper level, B applying to large airports, C to regional airports, and D to other towered fields is just not a thing. Any class can exist anywhere with no real pattern, and often they are stacked on each other in ways that seem counterintuitive for a US pilot. For example, most of the Randstad (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Utrecht) is covered by class A starting at 1500 ft. Since you can’t fly in class A under VFR, this means you have all the VFR traffic flying around from 1000-1400 ft AGL for a large section of airspace! I currently fly out of Rotterdam, which sits under this class A, and it’s one of the reasons I almost always file IFR. I don’t like flying over congested areas and buildings at 1000 ft. Larger airports will be surrounded by what’s called a CTR, or Controlled Traffic Region. You have to get permission to enter a CTR. There is also something called an ATZ, which is smaller and not quite a CTR; basically it’s an area surrounding an aerodrome that requires permission to enter/cross. The practical rules for ATZs are a bit nebulous in my experience and can vary from one to the next. Some act like ATC and will give IFR clearances and taxi instructions, while others basically don’t do anything but tell you which runway is in use.

Aerodrome procedures: The concept of “uncontrolled” fields where you just land/take off without talking to anyone is not a thing here either. Some fields don’t require radios, but on the ground you definitely need to check in with the “tower”. There’s usually a tower of some sort (marked with a “C”), even if they aren’t issuing clearances. It’s where you pay your landing fee (there’s always a fee!), get instructions for parking, find out whether the field is closed for whatever reason, etc. Speaking of being closed, since most GA fields don’t have lights and most pilots aren’t night rated, the options dwindle dramatically after sunset. It’s one of the reasons I quickly switched to EHRD from EHHV, which is 24 hrs and has precision instrument approaches.

Unlike in the US where there are standard VFR traffic patterns at uncontrolled fields (which are often ignored), most fields in Europe have published VFR departure/arrival procedures, even small grass strips. These are not optional, and I once got really scolded for messing one up. At first I found these annoying, but now I find them much safer than the US system. You find these in the AIP or on one of the iPad apps.

Prior Permission Required (PPR): Many fields (maybe 25-30%) are PPR in Europe, which means you must contact them for landing permission (you find this in the AD section of the AIP). Under normal circumstances this isn’t a big deal, and it’s typically a form you fill out on the airport’s website. Where it gets tricky is if you’re in the air and want to divert for some reason. It also means there’s much less unplanned flying. You don’t just pop down into an unfamiliar airport while en route because you need to use the toilet!

Temporary Restricted Areas (TRAs): These are everywhere, and are activated by NOTAM. The concept of flexible use airspace is big, because the countries are small and don’t have large uninhabited areas to do things like military training. So they activate these areas at different times to perform those activities rather than having designated MOAs for example. The most practical way to manage this is using one of the dedicated European VFR iPad apps, which depict these visually. SkyDemon is the default, and it’s what I use for all VFR (ForeFlight is still best for IFR).

IFR procedures: Because of the complexity of airspace in Europe, IFR is so much nicer than VFR, because ATC handles all that and you just follow their instructions. Planning is a bit different, because it’s not just filing direct wherever you want to go. If you’re leaving the country (which is often the case), you have to fly published airways on Eurocontrol valid routings. This is usually not a big deal as long as you use the Autorouter (autorouter.aero), which will give you route options you can just plug into ForeFlight and file. When you actually get your clearance, it will usually just be the departure clearance (in my experience) with no other route information, then ATC will direct you point to point after that. If you don’t like the point because it’s too far off route, you just ask for a more direct route and can often get it. Sometimes it takes a bit of negotiation and flexibility to get what you want. Otherwise IFR here and in the US are quite similar procedurally, though understanding the French ATC is another matter… :)

Final Thoughts
Personally, I started last summer at EHHV with the PPL conversion and renting 172’s from a local club. The weather was generally good, and it was daylight from 0400-2200 every day, so operations were generally no problem. It was helpful getting accustomed to short grass strips, since there are lots of them in Europe and many in interesting places. Had I not done this I probably wouldn’t have felt comfortable with these operations.

But as fall came and brought less nice weather and darkness, these limitations became very annoying. So I decided to go join a club at EHRD and get checked out in their diesel Robin DR400s. Great club with fun airplanes at a really nice field for 24H all-weather ops, but I kept struggling with finding a path and knowledgeable instructor for the IR conversion. Then we went on lockdown and instruction wasn’t possible for several months. When restrictions lifted I finally connected with an American instructor who recently got his IRI qualification, and he helped me through that bit. At the same time I realized that rental airplane availability is a serious problem, and going places was going to be challenging. So in February I bought a Socata TB10 which I have based in EHRD. Now, with all my ratings sorted and an airplane available when I want it, European GA has moved from much frustration to a really enriching experience.

It’s been a complicated and sometimes frustrating journey, especially when considering the same thing could probably have been accomplished in less than a month in the US. But the ability to make a quick trip to Switzerland that would be 10 hours in a car makes it all worth it!

EHRD, Netherlands

Thanks for the writeup! I’m sure it will be useful to other americans and also quite interesting for europeans.

A question and a comment:

dutch_flyer wrote:

There aren’t that many procedural differences that come into play during a test, except for the wind correction in holding patterns.

What is that difference?

Larger airports will be surrounded by what’s called a CTR, or Controlled Traffic Region. You have to get permission to enter a CTR.

CTR means “Control Zone” (yes, the acronym isn’t totally intuitive). There are control zones in the FAA system as well, although they’re not called that anymore. They used to be called that with the acronym CZ. These days I understand they’re called “controlled airspace around an airport extending to the surface.” Why that’s better than “control zone” beats me. But it really is the same thing. E.g. that’s the only place where Special VFR is allowed in the USA, just like in Europe Special VFR is only allowed in control zones.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Airborne_Again wrote:

What is that difference?

Primary difference is the expectation for WCAs in a holding pattern for checkride purposes. In the real world of course ATC doesn’t care in either system so long as you generally stay in the hold space and burn up roughly the right amount of time for them. The hold space is so large that it would take a serious error to create a dangerous situation.

But for the test you’re expected to cross the fix, fly the entry or first hold basically on the published headings (except perhaps in really strong winds), use that to determine WCA, then correct on the next trip. The whole 3x WCA on outbound, etc., was completely new to me as well. We were taught to extend the upwind turn rather than adding extra correction on the outbound leg. Of course this was 20 years ago, so it’s also possible instruction has changed in FAA-land since then.

Airborne_Again wrote:

There are control zones in the FAA system as well, although they’re not called that anymore. They used to be called that with the acronym CZ. These days I understand they’re called “controlled airspace around an airport extending to the surface.”

It’s true that in the 90s the terminology changed, and the standardized airspace classification started to be used instead. What you’re referring to as “these days” is the Class D towered airfield. This is only for small GA fields and prob90 is cylindrical in shape with a 4mi radius. Larger regionals (usually serving medium-sized cities) will have the two-layer upside-down wedding cake Class C (the shape can vary if there’s weird terrain). Large international airports will have multi-layer wedding cakes (or often more complex structures, but typically growing in size with altitude) with Class B.

EHRD, Netherlands

I found there are so many interesting places to go that I’d argue GA is more useful here than in the US.

My words for the last 20 years…!

A TRA is a Temporary Reserved Area. A temporary restricted area is something else.

Nice effort on the writeup!

Last Edited by boscomantico at 10 Sep 17:08
Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

Really enjoyed your write up!

I recommend to take your TB10 to some European GA classics like LJPZ or LIPV. Germany, Austria, Slovenia and even Croatia are pretty easy for GA and offer interesting destinations.

always learning
LO__, Austria

Airborne_Again wrote:

These days I understand they’re called “controlled airspace around an airport extending to the surface.” Why that’s better than “control zone” beats me.

The only place you’ll find Class D used in the US is around an airport, and it extends to the ground, so we say simply Class D and it conveys the meaning. We actually only refer to almost any airspace by the class (A, B, C or D), because in each case the class conveys the function.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 10 Sep 21:06

Thank you for the wonderful and very thorough writeup! This is exactly my situation, though I plan to use the post May 2021 rules if I can ever find anyone who knows exactly what they are!

John

LFMD, France

Last time I flew in USA, the CFI who did the checkout asked about SVFR rules in Delta at towered airports? and on rare cases where adjacent Echo nearby touches surface rather than 700ft agl? I mentioned there is no Echo airspace in UK which got me off the hook on the second question

I still wonder if SVFR in US Echo is controlled traffic? also are there any European countries with Echo airspace starting from SFC?

PS: I did not mention “UK SVFR situation”: VMC cloud distance exemption, ANO vs SERA, 10km vs 1.5km visibility, IMCr rating, IFR in Golf, SVFR wx in ATZ decided by ATC, SVFR wx in CTR decided by PIC, legacy SVFR in CTA/TMA…the more you talk the more you dig

The rules for SVFR, NVFR and OCAS IFR seems to vary a lot across countries
Uncontrolled day VFR & controlled IFR are the same everywhere

Last Edited by Ibra at 10 Sep 21:26
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

dutch_flyer wrote:

It was helpful getting accustomed to short grass strips, since there are lots of them in Europe and many in interesting places. Had I not done this I probably wouldn’t have felt comfortable with these operations.

Lots of private pilots never go to grass strips. Then there are lots of pilots who never fly anywhere except at grass strips (fields in uncontrolled airspace is probably more correct). You could get by just fine doing exclusively one or the other, but you lose a lot of action, places and people/communities.

dutch_flyer wrote:

However the way it’s applied is totally different.

It’s very different from country to country in Europe as well.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Great report and thank you for posting it, @dutch_flyer.

I reckon the number of people who knew about the FAA-EASA treaty route can be counted on one’s fingers

The checkride indeed differs a lot – for example, mine, Arizona, 2006 was 99% partial panel and incredibly hard work – and it varies between countries. But actual IFR flying doesn’t vary much around Europe. It can’t otherwise airlines and other business operations would have problems.

The main variation in flying is ATC ELP (English language proficiency – for decades the butt of many jokes and funny reports among pilots); this has improved in recent years but you still get ATC in notably Spain and France who quite obviously understand no English at all – even if their spoken English sounds good. You realise this when you say something “not quite standard” and you get absolutely no reply, over and over. The technique they use is to go silent and then no evidence is recorded on the tape.

The main variations around Europe are on the ground, with airports varying from wonderful and flexible to totally horrible and inflexible, and the more south you go the more of the latter you get. Most of the effort of flying around Europe is in this “planning” department.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
46 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top