Or any ramp inspector you may encounter anywhere.
How can any ramp inspector determine this? Are you carrying all your logbooks from the beginning of time with you? I don’t, and I’m not the only one.
How can any ramp inspector determine this? Are you carrying all your logbooks from the beginning of time with you? I don’t, and I’m not the only one.
When there is reasonable doubt that you are really familiar with the aircraft you are flying (e.g. obvious difficulties or mistakes operating the radios, obvious difficulties performing the landing) they can ask you to submit copies of the relevant logbook entries within a certain number of working days (usually three here in Germany). Wether they can hold you on the ground until you provide that information I don’t know.
Regarding leagally required differences training: There is a table in annex 1 to FCL 1.215 that lists the various complexities that require d.t. for SEPs (e.g. VP prop, pressurisation). This same table also states that all MEPs require differences training. As simple as that. What it does not say, however, is that differences training is required between the same type of MEP with glass and conventional instruments.
I dislike how ‘differences’ and ‘familiarisation’ is implemented and understood, and I don’t mean understood by pilots but understood by those who supposedly write the rules. I made a thread on here some time ago about whether or not a turbocharged signoff was required for an MEP as there are no such differences defined between MEPs, just that differences are required for each type. I also wanted to know whether having been flying a turbocharged MEP commercially for the last year, could I then fly a turbocharged SEP.
I couldn’t get a really solid answer, and for what it’s worth I still don’t have a turbocharged signoff in my logbook, despite having a MPA type for a turbocharged MEP on my licence. I emailed EASA FCL to clarify these queries last year and was told that they would have to investigate. They came back to me several months later and said something along the lines of “The regulations are not clear enough to provide a definitive answer and therefore we cannot advise you”.
Most likely what I will do is get our chief pilot to sign my logbook for the differences training since this makes the most sense.
I made a thread on here some time ago about …
… which I remember and I also remember, that the answers you got here were more or less consistent with what the authority told you.
Most likely what I will do is get our chief pilot to sign my logbook for the differences training since this makes the most sense.
If he is qualified in any way (FI, CRI-SEP) certainly. Otherwise his signature is as good as yours.
There are two issues here as far as differences training is concerned. Firstly one needs glass panel sign-off and secondly each type of MEP requires differences. Each of these requires a signature from an appropriately qualified instructor. Most instructors apply common sense with such sign-offs and each individual circumstance brings different criteria. For example, Seminole – Seneca 6-pack differences traing will be relatively short compared with DA42 – Aztec.
Finally, there is a difference (pardon the pun) between the law and reality. Most sensible pilots will not leap into an unfamiliar aircraft and launch into the sky without ensuring they feel competent on type. I tend to sign-off pilots when both of us feel happy.
Still on my French BIR application form :
the holder of a class or multi-engine rating, who wishes to obtain a multi-engine BIR for the first time must take a course at an ATO that must include an approach and go-around procedure instruments in asymmetric flight with one engine stopped.
Interesting to note they specify stopped because I think most do with the inop engine at idle.
Jujupilote wrote:
Interesting to note they specify stopped because I think most do with the inop engine at idle.
Wait, what? Are they really suggesting shutting down an engine and then doing a go-around? Which, on one engine, is a maneuver that is severely discouraged my any MEP POH I have seen and only to be used in a dire emergency. In the US, you fly the approach with one engine reduced to +/- zero thrust and there is no go-around during the MEP skills test.
I recall there is an assymetric approach and go-around on MEL+IR tests in FAA land? even done on VOR neddles with partial pannel, unless people are exaggerating FAA checkrides 
The multi-engine test in EASA does require actual engine shutdown & restart but only during the cruise sector, the missed on one engine is done on idle (actually 10%-20% power to mimic low drag from feathered prop)
“stopped” is used in all application forms not just BIR, I gather it’s a bad translation?
Here you do not stop the engine or feather, at least not below, normally 3000ft AGL, The instructor/ examiner will reduce power to idle or just above if there is an alarm screaming.at you. You are expected to control, power, reduce drag, identify, verify etc up to the point you would normally feather from there you would point to the rest of the procedure eg crossfeed if needed, regulating power on good engine and retrimming Throughout you need to announce aloud what you are doing and point and announce the parts of the procedure you are not doing for real, eg engine master off, alternator off, non essential bus off if not enough electric etc
You might get a simulated engine failure during final approach and you would be expected to go around assymetric and then land OEI.
You would normally, never do a touch and go on one engine but if the runway is long enough you may be expected to land OEI and transition to two engines for take off without coming to a halt.
