I agree it should be removed together with all of the differences training requirements including for twins and including the regulatory abuse of the SET endorsements which are type ratings through the back door.
There is no real problem these things adress. Sensible pilots get sensible training, and no renter will rent out their airplane without some sort of check, so the only real issue could be owner pilots, and if they land gear up or groundloop, it is their problem.
But there is little hope of that – far too much of the flying community including private pilots are too wedded to the idea that “there must be rules”.
Well I have no problem doing difference training just because of an ASPEN 1000. It has a lot of buttons and features.
But it is troubling that that 2 CFIs don’t say the same thing diff or familiarization.
“SLPC endorsement (Single Lever Power COmmander)”
Now there is a fascinating one……do I need that for my fixed pitch prop aircraft, ….that has a single power lever? ;-) Or if I have flown vp prop with the usual prop and throttle, do I need to be shown how to manage without prop lever? What utter nonsense!
UK CAA issued detailed guidance on Differences Training in CAP804
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
SLPC is for FADEC controlled engines and the recommended content covers things like the system config, usage, displays, failures modes etc.. Would be for say someone flying a DA40 TDI having only flown PA28s before.
I don’t know why people get wound up about it all, none of it is difficult to do and is just what everyone would do common sense wise as a quick check out before flying something unfamiliar.
Because it is bureaucratic nonsense with no real justification.
I have suffered a cost of several thousand pounds because of silly rules like this – I tried to get an IR check on a Cessna T303 twin. There was no examiner who had the differences training for that type, so they requested I arrange for and pay for differences training. There was ONE instructor available who had the required differences training, but arranging a summit between the two proved impossible, not even mentioning paying around 1k for the privilege.
So I had to do the SE → ME conversion upgrade on a DA42, the flying characteristics of which are very different. 7 hours of flying entirely wasted, I pretty much did the same again on the Crusader to be current.
Not everybody has an instructor readily available to teach something.
MEP differences are a totally different case as they only last for two years and each variant requires them
They are equally unnecessary and silly. Before these rules, it was the judgement of the individual examiner, and for an IR skills test in VMC the examiner could simply go o the basis the candidate was rated and current on the aircraft. Now he has to have formal sign-offs because the examiner is PIC.
Likewise, in the absence of an instructor, the experienced owner could previously show the experienced pilot the quirks of a particular type, now he needs to be a ME instructor or CRI.
To add my experience working with the Avydine, the Aspen and the G1000.
The Avydine I got during the differential training on the Cirrus SR20 first generation. And to be honest, it was not worth to prepare for it, because with the functionality at this time the transition was intuitive and we didn’t spend much time on it.
To prepare for Aspen 1000 I have invested in the online course via App an this was really helpful to understand the concept behind. Checkout was in flight with instructor and well prepared, again no issue.
Last was the Garmin G1000. I was not prepared for it. I was surprised when doing my IRI that the simulator was equipped with the G1000, although everyone knows it’s kind of standard nowadays, and this was really hard. In my experience the concept on the GTN750 which I know very well is different in so many points, that I was really confused about how to achieve the expected results. In my point of view at this time I had to do always two additional steps to achieve what can be achieved with the GTN750 in one step. So it took me a while to get really familiar. It was great to know, that I was only in the simulator, because in real situations in flight with my system knowledge in the beginning, the outcome would have been a desaster.
So it really depends where you are coming from and which system isin use. In my opinion the rule makes sense, because I know many guys doing it the way I did with the G1000, but in real flight.
Of course training for something that you are not familiar with makes sense.
The rule, however, does not male sense.
– even if you have thousands of hours behind a G1000 in a twin, you need at least one flight with an instructor and a signature to fly behind one in a single
– if you move from a classic instrumented aircraft of the same type to one with an easy to understand EFIS such as avidyne, you could easily self study, yet you need am instructor and a flight, which may not be available and costs money.
– and even if it is a more complicated system, anyone experienced could easily teach it safely, yet it has to be an FI.
There is simply no justification to require “differences training” for an EFIS. “Familiarisation training” (which can be self study, and has no formal requirement) would be entirely sufficient. That “familiarisation training” requirement itself is as useful as a rule saying you need to remove your pants to have s**t, because it is so obvious, but “there must be rules”.
The main reason this one annoys me so much is that the vast majority of IR instructors (the ones who do not have real life experience using these things outside the training environment) know a lot less about the practical use of these devices than the experienced single-pilot IR holder, whether they have an instructor raring or not.
The reason everyone “dances around” this topic is because while everybody with any sense will agree that familiarisation is necessary (if you rent a car you work out how to switch on the headlights, before driving off; if renting in S. Europe you check they work at all ) nobody wants to create a Type Rating for X and a Type Rating for Y, etc. They do exactly that on jets but in GA the pretence is that it isn’t necessary, which is fair enough, a PPL in a Chipmunk is a PPL for an SR22, but all the time the PPL is taught mostly like it was in WW1, and so many instructors don’t know about modern avionics (I never found one who knew the KLN94) this issue will keep coming up.