Of course, if you deliberately want to misunderstand me – go ahead!
What did I write?
“I am not talking about bureaucracy, rules, paperwork … i am talking about safety, intelligent behaviour, responsibility twds your passengers.”
You not only misinterprete what I wrote, you also have the facts wrong. WHY is the accident rate for the SR22 so much lower today than it was? Is it because pilots train themselves better? I think it is because Cirrus and COPA established a professional culture of saftey mindedness and developed methods to train pilots better. In no way is this positive development the result of pilots training themselves better.
In the beginning many of the SR22 accidents happened to pilots who though they could buy an SR22T, do their IR in 4 weeks and fly IFR in FL250 over the Rockies to California with 75 hours total time.
And if you want to talk about Europe and its regulations: Try to buy an SR22 in the USA as a beginner and try to insure it without proper training. Tell the insurance that you checked yourself out on the SR22. Good luck :-)
Sorry for repeating myself, but the EFIS endorsement is plain daft.
Not only is there no requirement for pilots having received initial training with EFIS to get an endorsement for flying with a six-pack, but there is no requirement for differences training between EFIS systems. Same thing for SLPC.
However, Europeans need checks, sign-offs, logbooks with regulated columns, etc forever, in aircraft where it is not relevant, and have to learn about the differences between non-high-performance complex and high-performance non-complex aeroplanes, because of non-performance overly-complex regulations.
Hear, hear.
There is no connection between FAA light aircraft regulations and insurance in the US. You could certainly make a case that insurance companies effectively regulate US training, as I think Flyer59 is doing, but there are multiple insurance companies, you can negotiate with them and pay in proportion to their risk, and you are not required by FAA regulation to do business with any of them.
Flyer59 wrote:
“I am not talking about bureaucracy, rules, paperwork … i am talking about safety, intelligent behaviour, responsibility twds your passengers.”
Sorry if I do, it was not deliberate… but are you not advocating mandatory differences training for EFIS/TAA/…?
No, i am advocating responsible behaviour, only :-) I just think it’s a good and intelligent thing to get a good checkout.
Well, I for one actually quite enjoy flying with an instructor and learning something new!
As for the EFIS: at least here in the US, this is insurance driven. I doubt you can rent a glass cockpit a/c here without some proof that you know what you are doing. Certainly the case where I rent from. And frankly – I would not want to fly anything more complicated than a local VFR flight in good wx with a glass cockpit (I am not familiar with these systems).
Aviathor wrote:
Not only is there no requirement for pilots having received initial training with EFIS to get an endorsement for flying with a six-pack,
GM to FCL.700 could be interpreted as making such a requirement…
the EFIS: at least here in the US, this is insurance driven. I doubt you can rent a glass cockpit a/c here without some proof that you know what you are doing. Certainly the case where I rent from. And frankly – I would not want to fly anything more complicated than a local VFR flight in good wx with a glass cockpit (I am not familiar with these systems).
Not so sure it is all insurance driven. I think they are inthe same boat with the flight schools. Means: Flight schools are more than happy to bundle and sell nice and shiny “10 hour G1000 conversion” courses to their former students, particulary because PPL student numbers are decaying so much.
Like this , they can sell many hours on rather expensive aircraft, and some also charge premium instructor rates, since he is “G1000 qualified”.
The legal thing in EASA land:
(NB: I don’t know the definition of an EFIS aircraft, it’s not in the part FCL regulation, it might be in part 21, although I’m sure that the G1000 is an EFIS)
If you have a SEP class rating, you may not fly an EFIS aircraft without having received a difference training.
For instance if you fly a Seneca G1000 on a regular basis and you want to fly a C182 G1000, you will need a SEP with EFIS (and VP) difference training.
It’s not necessarily logic, it’s just statute.
The training may be provided by a FI or CRI out of an ATO and the instructor must sign your logbook once the training is satisfactory completed. There is no mention of the EFIS training in your licence, the CAA does not keep any record of difference trainings, and according to my experience, no one has ever asked to see my logbook to check for a difference training signature, even the gendarmes who have several times wanted to see my documents.
A dual flight is not mandatory by statute, but the EASA says that a dual flight is an AMC.
If you happen to be near La Rochelle or somewhere around Bergerac some time in August, I could sign your logbook for EFIS difference training after a dual flight in my C172 G1000, provided you’ve done your homework with a training software. It would be on a cost sharing basis as I don’t fly for money (it would be to much tax paperwork for to small a gain, just imagine the cost of the accountant who would have to find how to declare a training flight made in France by a Belgium resident for a UK resident student)
