Airborne_Again wrote:
If you’re referring to GM1 FCL.700, then you’re misinterpreting the table. SEP (land) with EFIS is not a separate class rating.
I got the semantics wrong :-) . You are right, the “class” is SEP (land) and the class variants are listed. You need differences training to go from the one to the other.
Aviathor wrote:
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.
At the local club we need to have theory, then a check ride. We even have a Garmin 1000 simulator 
This is for renting the newest C-172 with Garmin 1000s. This is of course a club regulation. The reason is that people jumped into the aircraft, started up only to stay there for 30-40 minutes at idle figuring out how to set qnh. Other times people sat in the airplane using battery only to figure out how this work, ending up with flat battery. Others had to taxi back from the runway because they messed up something.
In my opinion Garmin should need an endorsement so they stop making such hopeless systems. I have used other systems (Dynon) which is super intuitive in comparison. With the MGL, I will set up everything myself (it will probably also end up un-intuitive for others than myself )
I mean a commercial and certified EFIS should go through a “intuitive test” or something. A really strict one too. An EFIS that needs training is meaningless and unnecessary. Everything should be self explanatory for those who know the particular functionality and opaque for everyone else.
LeSving wrote:
strict one too. An EFIS that needs training is meaningless and unnecessary. Everything should be self explanatory for those who know the particular functional
I am afraid this is not achievable. Some system are more intuitive, some less but some prep is required anytime. I personally found Avidyne a bit more intuitive that G1000 but it might be a function of features available. None of the systems will ever allow you to jump into that and simply learn during taxi. This is (was) achievable with some of the GPS (and I had done that) but any glass cockpit is a completely different story.
Balliol wrote:
For the purposes of this requirement, an EFIS display requiring differences training is
an electronic presentation of the primary flight instruments that presents gyroscopic
instrument, pressure instrument and navigation information that is used by the pilot as
a primary reference for control of the aircraft in flight.
This has popped up recently in my club when we got an VLA with a G3X Touch. A Tecnam P2008. The setup is:
Regarding this EFIS endorsement, what exactly is an EFIS? The MD-302 is also a digital primary instrument, but it lacks all kinds of NAV/GPS, and cannot connect to anything. Would it still be considered an EFIS? Where in EASA regulations is it defined?
The G3X is a standard uncertified EFIS package. It has flight instruments, engine instruments, NAV (VOR), GPS and so on. Two displays.
IMO, the MD-302 is NOT an EFIS (but not 100% sure). The G3X is NOT an EFIS (in an endorsement sense), since it cannot be used as primary instruments. EFIS endorsement on this plane is IMO nonsense. Learning how to use the G3X is of course not nonsense, but an EFIS endorsement will not do that, because the G3X is NOT a primary instrument. To fly this plane, particularly VFR N, it should be no doubt that the G3X is for SA only. This is very different from a G1000 equipped aircraft where the G1000 is the primary instruments. Some knuckleheads is the club are of a different opinion. They think an EFIS endorsement is still needed for the P2008, if for no other purpose than as a “club rule”.
For all practical purposes an EFIS is still an EFIS of course. Any pilot would treat the G3X the same way as the G1000. But IMO that is beside the point. The purpose of an EFIS endorsement is to use an EFIS as the primary instruments (I think?) When the EFIS is not the primary instrument, it is essential that this is crystal clear to the pilot, because he/she should be able to fly the aircraft just as well (night as day) if the EFIS goes completely black (the aircraft is indeed set up to do just that with every needed engine instruments displayed on the G3X also are handled with non-G3X annonciations and steam gauges).
To get the facts straight;
An EFIS tends to be the presentation with the altitude and speed tapes, and a horizon e.g.
Traditionally, installation of an EFIS requires an STC, but some “standby” products out there with this don’t need one. The MD302 is mentioned here as having some STCs. But the MD302 is not an EFIS IMHO
I don’t know any more… perhaps an instructor here knows what this endorsement is about?
I wasn’t taught what’s it about (but can teach about it). I just try to make sure that the student understands
- the basics
- how to explore
- the failure mode
- the tricky stuff (eg you get into the plane and your PFD is completely dark due to a bad light sensor)
Noe wrote:
the tricky stuff (eg you get into the plane and your PFD is completely dark due to a bad light sensor)
Or — in the case of the G1000 — if the brightness control knob is in exactly the wrong position. It controls both the display brightness and standby instrument illumination but with a twist for the displays. If the brightness knob is turned fully down then the displays goes to full brightness – the reasoning being that if you turn down the instrument lighting fully, then it is daylight and you want full brightness on the displays. So if you turn the brightness knob only slightly away from the fully down position the displays will go to very low brightness which will make them look dark in daylight.
We once had a pilot abandon an aircraft away from base for this reason, believing both displays had failed. He also took the aircraft keys so we couldn’t ask anyone at the airport to check. We went to some effort getting ATC approval for ferrying the aircraft to an airport with a shop through two control zones without working COM or transponder. Also there was a 74 NM overwater stretch so we brought a second aircraft to lead the way for the problem aircraft and to call SAR if anything happened…
It was a bit of an anticlimax when we checked the brightness knob…
Moral: Know your systems.
I think that this underlines the paucity of understanding in the regulator(s) about all this equipment. There are at least three (if not four) “bands” of glass equipment, with grey areas in between.
The grey areas would place the G5 between (1) and (2) and the G950 between (2) and (3), but I still think that the classification is useful.
The fourth band is pushing up towards airliner systems and Proline, but that probably doesn’t bother us here.
My point is that one line in the regulations and a couple of explanatory paragraphs is never going to cover this range of realities.
Indeed, I don’t think that one “qualification” is going to cover you even within these bands. I fly Aspen and G600 about equal amounts, and GTN and GNS, and, additionally, some G1000 and some steam gauges, and am thoroughly familiar with these boxes, but I still (at ~300 hours per year) get momentary confusion about where my fingers should be going, and what I am seeing.
I would not think that someone familiar with Aspen would be safe to jump into a G500 aircraft and set off in IMC.
But I don’t think that regulation is the answer, at least not for Part-NCO/Part 91; the answer is for pilots to be grown-up, responsible and sensible and to get the instruction or experience they need before they need it.
However, if pilots choose not to be grown-up, responsible and sensible, then you can’t really legislate against that. That is one of the reasons why private flying is less safe than commercial aviation, and we just have to live with that risk.
(Incidentally, I would add that I have very limited experience of Avidyne EFIS, and, despite writing the book and having hundreds of instructional hours doing EFIS, I would not dream of setting off in an Avidyne aircraft without either thorough reading of the manual, playing with sims or instruction.)
I think, like Timothy, that most of this is a bit silly.
I fully understand making sure a pilot knows how to safely use a G1000 aircraft before letting him rent one. That is sensible business for a club. But an endorsement is silly – the variety and differences amongst the systems is huge and hence unless you are going to require a new one for every combination, relying on pilots to be sensible and brief the system is the only way forward. Most systems can be understood by reading the manual (on the ground not at the hold short line) or by flying with someone who has experience.
