Icao Atpl

[pilotboy76]

Hey Fellas. Does anyone know what the difference is between this license and a plain old American ATP? Are they one in the same, or is it a conversion license? If an overseas based company requires this license, would it be a simple paper work step to convert my ATP to a ATPL? Thanks in advance!
GB

 

[Lou3]

Just finished reading the Cathay Pacific profile in Air Inc?

 

[viper548]

I was wondering the same thing

 

[bafanguy]

I think your FAA ticket is an ICAO license. I think ICAO license means a license from a country that is a member of ICAO...which the USA is.


It won't take long to get corrected if that's not right.

 

[Tinstaafl]

You're correct. The following link might help with some of the background detail:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=134076

 

[ackattacker]

No, your certificate is a certificate. Other countries issue licenses.

What's the difference? Not much. Most ATP "licenses" expire if they're not renewed, but certificates don't.

Could mean the difference between getting the job. I've heard stories that many employers interpret their "ATPL" requirement to exclude the good old American ATP. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Tinstaafl]

Not really correct. Australia's *licences* are permanently valid. And doesn't the US instructor certificate lapse if not renewed? As far as ICAO is concerned it matters not a jot whether a country chooses to call their qualification a 'licence' or a 'certificate'. The point is that an ICAO member nation's licences/certificates are ICAO qualifications if they conform to ICAO's SARPS.

 

[typhoonpilot]

No, your certificate is a certificate. Other countries issue licenses.

What's the difference? Not much. Most ATP "licenses" expire if they're not renewed, but certificates don't.

Could mean the difference between getting the job. I've heard stories that many employers interpret their "ATPL" requirement to exclude the good old American ATP. Your mileage may vary.

Usually a company that requires something other than a straight ICAO ATPL ( which the U.S. ATP is ) will specify what they require. Generally speaking the European airlines will require a JAA member state license, such as a U.K. CAA ATPL. In my latest edition of FI two ads illustrate this point: One for Royal Brunei specifies "Pilots must have a UK CAA issued JAA/ATPL", another one for a cargo airline in Shanghai specifies "Current A300B4 JAA, ICAO or FAA Licenses ( JAA license is preferred )".

I personally believe that Dragonair in Hong Kong looks down on the FAA certificate. While they don't specifically say so, they prefer the UK or Australian/New Zealand licenses.

The problem is one of perception. There are some who perceive the US FAA ATP as easy to obtain. This is primarily the result of our easy written tests and not so much the flying skills portion. In Europe a candidate must pass 14 (or so) written exams, none of which have the questions and answers published like ours.


Typhoonpilot

 

[ackattacker]

Not really correct. Australia's *licences* are permanently valid. And doesn't the US instructor certificate lapse if not renewed? As far as ICAO is concerned it matters not a jot whether a country chooses to call their qualification a 'licence' or a 'certificate'. The point is that an ICAO member nation's licences/certificates are ICAO qualifications if they conform to ICAO's SARPS.

I did say "most".

You are correct... but the point is that some companies do advertise for "ICAO ATPL" but won't take the FAA ATP. If you are trying to get a foreign flying job it is helpful to have an "ATPL" in the European sense. Most countries around the world base their CAA on the European model and the FAA certificates are looked down upon. It varies quite a bit from country to country and company to company. For example, generally you can't fly in Europe with an FAA certificate, but I know someone who is flying in Switzerland on a Luxembourg endorsement of his FAA certificate... all kinds of things can be done, but it's more difficult.

 

[Tinstaafl]

Whilst individual companies may choose not to accept FAA certificates that is not the case at the regulatory level. If you hold an FAA qualification that falls under the auspices of ICAO then you will gain the same level recognition as would the holder of any other ICAO licence.

Your right in at least one aspect though: The FAA licence can be viewed as a bit 'light' in other countries compared to their own licences.

 

[aeronautic1]

Aug 6th, the FAA started issuing aircraft specific SIC TYPE RATINGS. It is purely an admisitrative procedure. Make an appointment with your FSDO, walk in the the airmen application filled out, your Part 61.55 signoff in your log book and sim school records (if SIC program) and voila!! Your are now a TYPE RATED SIC making it LEGAL to fly in ICAO airspace (Brazil, Europe et al).


No guarantee that FSOD will know what a G200 is though (and I am not kidding).

 

[80/20]

Some would lecture a few impressive pages about ICAO ATPL and how some nations have more differences from ICAO standards than others but at the end the conclusion is:
There is no original pure ICAO license - only national licenses (or certificates) issued by each nation.

Certificate/License in this context, is the same thing just different names used by each country.

When someone require an ICAO ATPL they usually also accept FAA ATP. The only way to find out for sure is to contact the operator and ask or even easier ask on this or other forums - if there are any pilots working there with a FAA ATP.

Just apply - go get that job if you wan't it - good luck!!

 

[pilotboy76]

Thanks everyone for the great responses!
GB

PS. I was curious about Cathay... and recently heard that they accept FAA licenses.

 

[80/20]

Many operators are looking for experienced crew with time on type or operational experience. They don’t care too much about FAA versus for example CAA written tests which often were done many years ago. The issue tends to be what their national aviation authorities require. Outside Europe and the Americas there are many nations that accept all ICAO Licenses/Certificates. There are however some nations that are very UK based. Others like Bermuda Department of Civil Aviation (DCA) will also accept FAA. An increasing number of transport category jets are registered under agencies like DCA but based and operated in other courties all over the world.

 

[TheInsider]

The US FAA is a member of ICAO and all it's rules and regulations (mostly) EXCEPT airman certification. Our FAA certificates and licences do not meet the regulations set forth by ICAO. That rule explains the recent change requiring SIC's a SIC Type Rating.

If you want to fly in a country that use JAA rules there are ways to circumnavigate most of the written tests: have at least 1500 hrs. PIC in heavy iron flying internationally. You may then be issued a JAA license after you take the air law test BUT you are limited to fly for only that airline you got a job with. Does that make sense?

 

[b757driver]

I did say "most".

You are correct... but the point is that some companies do advertise for "ICAO ATPL" but won't take the FAA ATP. If you are trying to get a foreign flying job it is helpful to have an "ATPL" in the European sense. Most countries around the world base their CAA on the European model and the FAA certificates are looked down upon. It varies quite a bit from country to country and company to company. For example, generally you can't fly in Europe with an FAA certificate, but I know someone who is flying in Switzerland on a Luxembourg endorsement of his FAA certificate... all kinds of things can be done, but it's more difficult.

FYI I have a US FAA ATP with an Icelandic validation to fly the whael currently. Moreover, I have also flown the 757 and 767 in Europe - again on validations.

Mind you, I used to have a UK CAA ATPL - now expired but still have an Iish IAA ATPL valid for another year.

I think it's called multi-tasking but it can be done if you know how!!!!

 

[Say Again Over]

ICAO ATPL = FAA ATP, same same but different.