Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Changes to EASA flightcrew licensing

I dont know about you but here in Europe you should have a sunrise and sunset rating. It is very difficult to fly and land with the sun over the departure end of the runway. This rule should be put in force immediately cause I think it is a safety of flight issue. I also think EASA has been derelict in their duties by not even thinking of such an rating. Even if they are not pilots it should dawn on them that this can in fact be a safety issue as they are driving to and from work and staring into the sun. Of course if they take the subway they may be forgiven .

My concern over S/S rating makes about as much sense as the night rating.

I think I better put in the for any EASA employee who might be lurking among us.

KHTO, LHTL

Gene, to be fair you should also realize where EASA/aviation is more liberal than the FAA:

  • complex rating not required
  • most liberal cost sharing vs very strict cost sharing rules
  • allowed to use oxygen cannulas at any altitude versus face masks at FL180 and above
  • insurance companies do not require a lot of experience and premiums for new pilots are not high like in the US
  • much easier to keep an IR alive for a pilot that does not fly much (yearly checkride instead of 90 days rule)
  • effortless crossing of country borders even outside EU/Africa etc. versus huge administrative hassle in the US
  • no tax on sale and ownership of private aircraft (e.g. no VAT for private sales)

I’m not saying that I don’t envy the US for the FAA but it’s not black and white, there are things that are better here under EASA etc.

I completely agree, C210.

EASA should also mandate differences training for yoke-equipped airplanes vs stick vs wheel. People who have been trained on aircraft equipped with GNS430 or the like should not be allowed to fly with Bendix/King KX165. We also would also require differences training for free-castering nose wheel (differential braking).

Too bad April 1st was two weeks ago, otherwise we could have a lot of fun over this

This whole differences thingy may make sense for complex airplanes, but for the GA fleet it is a complete farse and another example of overregulation.

A logbook endorsement (MSLP) is required to fly behind a TAE/Austro engine, but a person that has never flown anything else than MSLP does not require any endorsement to fly behind a Lyco. Some people now claim that you need an EFIS endorsement to fly an airplane equipped with GNS430/530 although the primary instruments are round gauges. Is a turbo endorsement required for the TDI engines?

Does it really make sense to require an EFIS endorsement for VFR? The only thing one needs is to tune the radios, set the transponder and QNH.. and enter a GOTO. If one cannot figure out the speed/altitude instruments, one can use the backup instruments. And if one has any common sense, RTFM and/or ask someone for help to get familiarised with the equipment.

For differences and familiarization training under FCL.710 EASA clarifies, that familiarization training may but does not have to include an instructor. It can be done alone or with another experienced pilot.

That makes a lot more sense, but it occurs to me that it will be hard to document that one have familiarised oneself with the plane/systems. The need for familiarisation is just common sense even for the simplest of airplanes.

Since most pilots rent, familiarisation/differences training will be imposed by the owner or insurance anyway, so the problem does not really exist.

Last Edited by Aviathor at 15 Apr 07:00
LFPT, LFPN

A logbook endorsement (MSLP) is required to fly behind a TAE/Austro engine, but a person that has never flown anything else than MSLP does not require any endorsement to fly behind a Lyco.

I guess you are right and yes, it does not make much sense.

Some people now claim that you need an EFIS endorsement to fly an airplane equipped with GNS430/530 although the primary instruments are round gauges.

Ask yourself: does the airplane have an EFIS? No? Then no such endorsement required.

Is a turbo endorsement required for the TDI engines?

Do they have a turbo? I think you have the answer.

Does it really make sense to require an EFIS endorsement for VFR?

The rules for differences trainings don’t differentiate between flight rules. If they did, things would become even more complex. Would that be desired?

Let’s not make it seem worse than it is. Yes, there are a couple of inconsistencies, but that’s true for most regulations.

Last Edited by boscomantico at 15 Apr 07:24
Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

allowed to use oxygen cannulas at any altitude versus face masks at FL180 and above

The FAA rule applies only to “fitted” systems. Those have an AFMS and legally you have to do what the AFMS says, regardless of reg. See here

much easier to keep an IR alive for a pilot that does not fly much (yearly checkride instead of 90 days rule)

The FAA rule is 6 approaches etc in the last 6 months, not 90 days.

This is easy for anybody who actually flies. I would say it is much safer than the annual IR test which does not make good IFR pilots because low time pilots just do a bit of practice before the annual test.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

This is easy for anybody who actually flies.

I beg to differ. My homebase is VFR only and I often fly to VFR only airfields, being IFR enroute. Often I cancel IFR to not block any unnecessary capacity and to be on the ground sooner. It’s certainly not easy in the winter half. I am much better off with the yearly EASA checkride.

Here is yet another oddity: EFIS/Turbo/SLPC/RU/VP differences training is not required for MEP.

Let’s not make it seem worse than it is. Yes, there are a couple of inconsistencies, but that’s true for most regulations.

There are two ways to look at it.

  1. We can very pragmatically interprete the rules to our advantage like you seem to do, boscomantico. In that case I would say you do not need a turbo endorsement for flying TDI MSLP because it is totally transparent to the pilot. Not tits to watch , no worries about CHTs… I cannot remember whether the DA42TDI/DA40TDI AFMs even mentions that the engine has a turbo.
  2. We can worry sick about compliance and err on the safe side to make sure that we will never be found in violation of FCL.710.

Originally I would have said we should do away with all this differences training requirement for light aircraft. Now if formal training to obtain an endorsement is not required, but the pilot is responsible for familiarising himself with the equipment one way or another, either by seeking formal training, RTFM or by some other means, I am all for it.

Last Edited by Aviathor at 15 Apr 08:40
LFPT, LFPN

AFAIK, the term “endorsement” does not exist in in EASA flight crew licensing.

Last Edited by boscomantico at 15 Apr 08:54
Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

AFAIK, the term “endorsement” does not exist in in EASA flight crew licensing.

You are right. But I meant to refer to the entry in the logbook signed by the instructor mentioning the variant you have received differences training for.

LFPT, LFPN

The EASA “familiarisation” was actually a step forward, at least in Sweden. Pre-EASA, conversion between different types of aircraft in the same class required what is now called “differences” training with an instructor. I.e. if you took your PPL on a C172 and wanted to fly a PA28, additional flight time with an instructor was required. Sometimes, when types where considered to be sufficiently similar, you could do without training. I.e. if you was trained for a C172, you could fly a C152 without additional training. If you were trained for a PA28R and a PA32, you could fly a PA32R without additional training. The Swedish CAA published extensive tables about this.

Thank god for the EASA familiarisation concept, I say!

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 15 Apr 10:25
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top