Thanks Bosco, very useful note on the new FCL rules. I actually had seen them, but apparently not much stuck. It helps to have someone knowledgeable write down the essence.
I’d like to put in a word of defence for the concept of difference training. It is easy to get one. All it requires is a qualified instructor and a flight. No paperwork, no CAA approval. (A questionnaire could make sense in some cases, to eliminate the worst misconceptions, but it is not required.) A VFR pilot can get one just doing his bi-annual 12th hour renewal flight, in which case it is often “free”.
Looking at the safety, there are quite frequently accidents that traces down to lack of training or understanding in system differences on types unfamiliar to the pilot. One pilot that never actually had done an emergency gear extension, also failed to do one when it became necessary. An otherwise experienced, but EFIS-wise self-educated pilot failed to fly the right speed on final approach and blew it. A pilot new to tail-wheels ground-looped on his first landing with a cross-wind, which was without an instructor. And I have seen many many more.
There may be some slight inconsistencies in the rules, but on the other hand the EASA rules are not very detailed, except in the UK, where there is a (non-compulsory?) fairy extensive syllabus for each kind of differences training. As far as I know, the syllabus is usually not followed to the letter. What EASA requires is just a flight with an instructor and leaves it to the instructor to do it in a reasonable way without further bureaucracy.
There are burdens from EASA that are a lot heavier and less justified than differences trainings, which I think work fairly well.
achimha 15-Apr-15 06:38 #12
Gene, to be fair you should also realize where EASA/aviation is more liberal than the FAA:
complex rating not required
A complex rating is not required just an endorsement in your log book that you have had instruction in and had met the competency level
most liberal cost sharing vs very strict cost sharing rules
I like that makes sense. The FAA rules do not make sense.
allowed to use oxygen cannulas at any altitude versus face masks at FL180 and above
Im not so sure that is such a good rule. I hope pilots have O2 pulse meters to monitor.
insurance companies do not require a lot of experience and premiums for new pilots are not high like in the US
Now here is where I get on my soap box. First in the US you dont need ANY insurance. It is not required. Only the banks require them. If it were mandated by the govt, I can assure you our insurance would be much more expensive than it is. My insurance is less premium wise than here in Europe for the same hull but not liability. I had 1 mil smooth for liability which was expensive already.
much easier to keep an IR alive for a pilot that does not fly much (yearly checkride instead of 90 days rule)
Yes that may be so, to keep the IR rating alive, but not necessarily the the pilot. I’ll give an example some of the most convoluted and needlessly complex STARS and approaches are right here in Europe. For a 1 runway airport like Corfu it has about 19 pages of printouts for STARS APPROACHES and SIDS. I have a lot of IR time and after seeing those spaghetti plates and procedures, Im not comfortable. They are needlessly complicated.
effortless crossing of country borders even outside EU/Africa etc. versus huge administrative hassle in the US
Well I cant agree with you more. Thank you Mr Bush, Mr Obama, and all those other morons in the US govt. Ever since 9/11 we have had a systematic evisceration of our Constitutional freedoms in the name of security. Lets not forget that most of the BS that resulted from 9/11 was to cover the FBI NSA CIA asses because they HAD the information regarding the terrorist but as true Govt employees either they could not be bothered or it was not quite in their jurisdiction. The result was, to show the public that we are doing something ie. airport screening and invasive spying on everybody cause heaven forbid if we are labled politically incorrect and profile Muslims.
no tax on sale and ownership of private aircraft (e.g. no VAT for private sales)
Thats a good one I like it. But the initial buyer has to pay 20-30% That should put the breaks on new aircraft 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
Let me tell you since Ive started flying, GA in the US has gone down hill. For many reasons. It is not nearly as good as it once was. If it wasnt for the electronic revolution it would be orders of magnitude worse. I no longer reminisce of what it could be but what it used to be.
True. But no “variant” EFIS/turbo etc.
Here is yet another oddity: EFIS/Turbo/SLPC/RU/VP differences training is not required for MEP.
It is required for every single type, which is a LOT more restrictive.
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!
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.
AFAIK, the term “endorsement” does not exist in in EASA flight crew licensing.
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.
, no worries about CHTs… I cannot remember whether the DA42TDI/DA40TDI AFMs even mentions that the engine has a turbo.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.
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.
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.
