I did just that many years ago, however I had well over 100 hours PIC post-PPL at the time. From – admittedly vague – memory, it was 100 hours PIC post-PPL, but, as @Peter, I may be wrong. Also, the regulatory environment has changed in the intervening years. Re-reading @Dougal’s quote, I wonder how the term ‘pilot’ is defined there.
From Annex III B of Part-FCL:
2. The holder of the licence shall comply with the following minimum requirements, for the relevant aircraft category:
(a) pass a written examination in Air Law and Human Performance;
(b) pass the PPL, BPL or SPL skill test, as relevant, in accordance with Part-FCL;
(c) fulfil the requirements for the issue of the relevant class or type rating, in accordance with Subpart H;
(d) hold at least a Class 2 medical certificate, issued in accordance with Part-Medical;
(e) demonstrate that he/she has acquired language proficiency in accordance with FCL.055;
(f) have completed at least 100 hours of flight time as a pilot.
On the other hand, concerning conversion of a third-country IR, it states:
(c) have a minimum experience of at least 50 hours of flight time under IFR as PIC on aeroplanes.
If terminology is used consistently, one would need to conclude that “flight time as a pilot” is “total time” as opposed to “PIC”.
Aviathor wrote:
From Annex III B of Part-FCL:
Yes this is the route that I did with an ICAO PPL (non EASA).
I still think the requirement to do human factors exam is much over the top, as is the ICAO(!) Language proficiency
But it’s the hoops you jump through…
p.s. In my memory it was 100 PIC after PPL issue, but you may be right that is doesn’t have to be in command. Typically that would mean that with a standard PPL (70 hours) and 30 PIC hours post-PPL you could convert to EASA.
Aviathor wrote:
(f) have completed at least 100 hours of flight time as a pilot.
My understanding is that it is 100 hours of total time, not PIC time, which would therefore nicely include the pilot time accumulated spent obtaining the licence.
Wolfgang
wbardorf wrote:
My understanding is that it is 100 hours of total time, not PIC time, which would therefore nicely include the pilot time accumulated spent obtaining the licence.
All of a sudden I have a doubt. I do not find any definition of “pilot” in Part-FCL, so “pilot” could mean “licenced pilot”. In that case it would mean one needs 100 hrs total time after having successfully passed the PPL skill test… I do not know what the practice out there is.
Edit: I just found this in the Basic Regulation
Article 7 Pilots
2. Except when under training, a person may only act as a pilot if he or she holds a licence and a medical certificate appropriate to the operation to be performed.
So I think that “pilot” includes PPL candidates under training and experience acquired before obtaining the license counts towards the 100 hours requirement.
These EASA (and before that, JAA) conversions tend to be drafted so there is a “sufficient” disincentive for too many young people with little money but (relative to “us” oldies) lots of time, to consider it worthwhile spending say 6 months in Florida, Arizona, or California, getting their US papers there and coming over here and converting and thus decimating the European FTO airline pilot training business. That (the 50hrs IFR as PIC) is what shaped the CB IR conversion route also; I was told by someone in the process at the time that this was designed to be highly inconvenient for an ATPL student most of whom aren’t at all interested in GA flying but would have to rent a C152 or some such to clock up the 50hrs.
The UK cases I have seen involved 100hrs post-PPL but to be honest there weren’t that many, because I have not revolved in the ATPL sausage machine, instead flying as a private pilot.
@tumbleweed may know more about the UK history of this conversion route.
Peter wrote:
These EASA (and before that, JAA) conversions tend to be drafted so there is a “sufficient” disincentive for too many young people with little money but (relative to “us” oldies) lots of time, to consider it worthwhile spending say 6 months in Florida, Arizona, or California, getting their US papers there and coming over here and converting and thus decimating the European FTO airline pilot training business.
But would training in the US be economical in any case? I don’t see how you could spend six months in the US and get a PPL without spending at least the 10k € that say a German EASA PPL costs (all costs included).
Just the PPL would be 6 weeks, 4 if you have good aptitude and especially if you had previous unlogged practice.
As a comparison, I did my UK IMCR to FAA IR conversion in Arizona in 2 weeks for a total cost of $3.5k! Today it would be more because everything has gone up, but before the CB IR route a Euro IR gave you no credit for anything previous and you had to sit out the 50hrs (55 for ME) and would cost c. 20k.
This is off on another tangent but a huge factor in US training being cheaper (more so in the old days) was that when you went there, you were 100% engaged 24/7, whereas the vast majority of European pilots do stuff at weekends, when permitted by family etc, make 2 steps back for every 3 forward, take a year to get a PPL, take for ever to get an IR, etc. If you camped next to your German PPL school, having picked a nice 4-6 week period, you would also do it in 4-6 weeks and at a price which makes it not worth going to the US. Another factor was the adventure of flying in the US – again possible if you have no family etc. The post-9/11 stuff has made it a lot more hassle, and the recent abolition of the written exam route in Europe has probably more or less killed it. This is all a pity because, taking Europe as a whole, a huge part of the pilot community which really uses GA seriously did start in the US… it was a massive enabler of GA activity. Of those who trained wholly in say the UK, some 90-95% gave up shortly after getting the PPL, largely due to a lack of confidence. OTOH, US training tends to be rigorous. For example David (of EuroGA) did a US IR on a long training flight around the USA.
Thanks for the responses ref the 100-hour rule.
I’m pretty sure US training hours do not count towards the 45hour min training required for an EASA PPL unless you do it at an EASA approved ATO in the US.
In my case I actually did 50hours in France and was signed off to take the EASA skills test 5 years ago, it would have been after 45hours if another club member hadn’t bent the propeller of DR221 I was using for training. However, I never got to finish it as the French took 3 months to confirm approval for the skills test and by then I was living in San Francisco starting a new job. 2 years later I decided to take the FAA PPL.
The US PPL cost me considerably more than the training in France. 3 things put a lot of the negotiating power in the hands of my instructor allowing him to squeeze my pockets dry:
1) TSA approval for “aliens” is required to start training, which takes about 5wks.
2) The changing school requires another TSA approval. So if you’re on a tight schedule it makes changing school unattractive
3) the instructor has to sign absolutely everything before you can progress at each stage including applying for a student license which you need to start flying solo
The points above don’t matter too much if your selected school are A good and B don’t use their effective monopoly situation to rip you off but the risk is there.
The fuel is cheaper so the rental cost of planes is a little less than western Europe especially for higher powered planes, and there were no landing fees but everything else cost me far more than in France. The instructor was my biggest expense at 100USD an hour charged for every second I was in his presence, so it worked out about 200use+ to the instructor + 140 for the plane (Citabria) for each hour flown. He was a master of stretching the time I spent with him (and thus the fee). He also made me do the entire US course (40hours) signing me off to take the test just in time for me to do it before moving back to Europe. … its my fault for telling him how long I had I suppose and turning up in a nice car…
I did manage to squeeze in a trip in a DA40 in around various national parks though – Grand Canyon – Bryce etc before I left and the weather was virtually always good if but hot — The day of my exam in Chico was 105F !
The idea of doing my PPL effectively for the 3rd time does not really appeal (seems like I’m on a treadmill) but I’ve given up waiting for the bilateral US-EASA PPL agreement to happen and want to start flying again…
I’m pretty sure US training hours do not count towards the 45hour min training required for an EASA PPL unless you do it at an EASA approved ATO in the US.
I am pretty sure you are 100% right 
The other way round it works: the FAA accepts non-US training fully.
3 things put a lot of the negotiating power in the hands of my instructor allowing him to squeeze my pockets dry:
It has been the same here in Europe when it comes to FAA checkrides. A particular individual (whose service we do not advertise here on EuroGA) has positioned himself to run a sole agency for checkrides for Europe, Africa, etc. However, with FAA written exams having to be done in the USA, I suspect the willingness to pay those fees has become irrelevant for most, since they may as well go to the USA for the whole lot. And if you get “pre-trained” over here and just do the checkride over there, you probably don’t need the TSA and Visa stuff. Unfortunately the FAA scene here in Europe has over the years become “optimised” for cash-rich and time-poor customers.
I got shafted over by having to change the US school too, after the original one sent the I-20 to the wrong place. They also kindly placed a “did not complete training” on my US passport record, so when I go to the US I likely get arrested and interrogated – here That said, my FAA IR was the most rigorous training I ever had, and the FAA PPL (done in the UK many years ago, when it was still possible) likewise.
I’ve given up waiting for the bilateral US-EASA PPL agreement to happen and want to start flying again…
Much previous discussion – search here for “treaty” and you find 2 threads right away.
You should definitely go for the 100hr conversion route; maybe in a country which interprets the 100hrs as total time. Nowadays the exams can be done in any EU country also and the flight test in any other.
