I usually get sent home from those obligatory formalised theoretic training events, because I tend to ask too many questions the instructor doesn’t know the answer. So for me these events have been a complete waste of time.
Why activate an approach, what does it mean. I could go on
Obviously, I agreee, but my point is that these inter-GPS differences are much bigger than GPS-navaid differences, yet there is no formal “type rating” for a GPS.
Should there be? That’s quite a can of worms to open. I would suggest that a large % of SR22 / DA42 / etc owners would be grounded if they had to attend such a course and pass a test at the end of it. OTOH if I was teaching somebody I care about to fly I would make sure they do understand all the kit – as per jet practice where, as what next suggests, it is obviously important because of the potential of killing more people. But in light GA it would kill innovation because a lot of pilots can’t get their heads around the details, and modern avionics are really cryptic and – for non anoraks – very hard to figure out. No doubt that is why there are so many “IT professionals” in flying at the IR level; few others can understand it so they stay with the basic PPL.
Garmin would need to completely overhaul their user interface design and the stuff would be like an Ipad – so banal that I often struggle with trivia like how to open an email attachment. (OTOH a lot of that is because Apple went to massive lengths to pretend there isn’t a file system).
I’ve written this before, but I used to know a guy who had difficulty driving a car with a manual gearbox. He bought a light jet and tried to get the IR (basically a TR) several times and failed, finally buying a turboprop which he could finally get his head around to the extent of flying it between the UK and N France. He is probably quite common, though obviously most don’t have his money.
However when I bought my new TB20 (2002) I never found an instructor who knew how the KI525 HSI worked. I flew with several, one of whom claimed to have an ATPL (it was fake) but the others had what here they call frozen ATPLs (a CPL/IR done at an FTO, but not enough TT). They knew what the heading bug did, allright, but the course pointer? That was a mystery. Especially if you pressed the NAV/GPS switch so “GPS” lit up… I solved it by flying on autopilot over Kent at 5000ft while fiddling with the knobs, having downloaded the manuals (nothing useful came with the plane). So, should there be a TR for anything with an HSI? After all, you can get both the FAA IR and the JAA IR without using an HSI.
As I say, a can of worms…
because I tend to ask too many questions the instructor doesn’t know the answer. So for me these events have been a complete waste of time.
Well, yes, see above 
But then you are a super clever IT bloke who could develop a GNS530 given enough time. As indeed I could… and I know what next could too. That isn’t really the point however.
They chose this profession for completely different reasons.
I wonder what those were? When I was briefly mixing with a bunch of ATPL students at some crappy Bournemouth hotel I did wonder what motivated them. I think they watched Leonardo DiCaprio and thought it would be a great job in which you would be shagging Size 8 stewardesses. Not on European short haul you won’t be 
They chose this profession for completely different reasons.I wonder what those were? When I was briefly mixing with a bunch of ATPL students at some crappy Bournemouth hotel I did wonder what motivated them. I think they watched Leonardo DiCaprio and thought it would be a great job in which you would be shagging Size 8 stewardesses. Not on European short haul you won’t be
From my observation, I would call their main motivation “laziness”: Nineteen years old, finished school, no idea what to do, but convinced that another four to five years at university studying over books is not for them. Even less so working for three years to learn a “real profession” by doing an apprenticeship. The parents don’t care either, whether they subsidise them for five years of university or pay for an ATPL course makes not much difference financially. So off to the flying school they go. Six months of theory, another three months to a year to pass their theory exam. Differently from back when I did it, you can now take one subject at a time, so even with zero interest and motivation you will eventually pass. And then as long as it takes to fly your 199 (or whatever) hours, depending on season and weather another six months to a year. The good ones finish within two years and are already traveling the world in the company of pretty young ladies and earning serious money when their classmates are only halfway through their bachelor course. Until a couple of years ago at least, now there are no jobs. But obviously they don’t care about that either because the number of students is as high as always.
If you want to meet really motivated and interested and technically minded students, you must look at PPL courses. Unfortunately there are not many of those left. (If you haven’t noticed already: I am very close to give up instructing – it is very frustrating to try and teach people something that they couldn’t care less about.)
Maybe not exactly “a full type rating” but we do require here in Australia a logbook “sign-off” for each “new” GNSS installation we intend to use during IFR ops. For example, G1000 must be singed-off separately from units of a G400/500 series.
A separate “endorsement” for each “new” GNSS installation is not required (by Australian CAOs) to be entered in one’s logbook. However, it is a common practice here to do so since such “permanent” records are often useful when renting planes equipped with different GNSS receivers.
Civil Aviation Order 40.2.1 – Instrument rating
….
13.4A For regulation 5.16, a person who has a RNAV endorsement must not conduct a RNAV approach in I.M.C. as pilot in command of an aircraft unless he or she has carried out at least 3 RNAV approaches in flight, or in a synthetic flight trainer, using a GNSS receiver:
(a) which is the same as that fitted in the aircraft; or
(b) which CASA has determined in writing is to be taken as being the same as that fitted in the aircraft.
