Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Welcome to our forums

Differences training

On a JAR Licence, anyone know if a German Instructor can sign off for Injection engines and VP Props on a UK Issued JAR-PPL...?

I didn't know that fuel injection was relevant difference.

Egnm, United Kingdom


Normally, JAR is JAR, so I wouldn't hesitate to sign. I got one of my own type ratings in the States from American instructors with British JAA licenses that was added to my German license... That's one of the reasons why JAA was invented :-)

And as flybymike says, the fuel injection alone does not necessitate differences training, "Vertrautmachung" (= familiarisation training) by reading the manual should be sufficient (the differences between carburetor and fuel injection are done to death the PPL theory syllabus anyway!). However for the VP prop - even if it were not a requirement - I do recommend to get an instructor to show you how to do it properly!

Regards, Max

EDDS - Stuttgart

Thanks all. I knew for definite that VP was. It's on 2 aircraft... 172R and a 182. Last 2 aircraft that my club have that I am not checked out on. I need a club checkout on each reg; club rules. So knew I had to actually fly it, but was not sure if I could get the signatures. Good news about Injection not being a difference... could have sworn I saw it somewhere as a difference course; maybe a money grab opportunity by a club somewhere!

I found this list of features that require differences training (not in my copy of JAR-FCL 1 but on the net, so it may or may not be complete):

  • Verstellprop (VP=variable pitch)
  • Einziehfahrwerk (RU=retractable undercarriage)
  • Turbolader (T=turbo)
  • Druckkabine (P=cabin pressurization)
  • Heckrad (TW=tail wheel)

Fuel injection is not on this list!

EDDS - Stuttgart

I get CSP, pressurisation, retractable and tailwheel but not sure really why turbo is there.

EGTK Oxford

FYI, in FAA-land you'll also have the high-power (i.e. >200hp) endorsement; relevant for the 182. However, there's nothing re the turbocharger. The others are the same.

FYI, in FAA-land you'll also have the high-power endorsement

There's nothing like that in JAR/EASA-FCL. And "our" HPA (high performace aeroplane) endorsement is completely different.

On the other hand, reasonable owners/operators will always make sure that their customers fully understand how to safely operate their aircraft and will at least insist on a thorough briefing and a familiarisation flight, even if this is not official differences training. Their airplane, their rules!

Back in the old days when I got my fresh IFR (that I had done on a non-retractable C182) someone offered to hire his C210 as he desperately needed the aircraft to produce some income so that his tax-scheme would work. There was no such thing as formal differences training before JAR-FCL. When I asked about the technicalities of the 210, all he said was "you've flown the 182, you'll get along easily with the 210. Just don't prime the engine before start". That was the easiest bit, because it had no mechanical primer (and I had never before seen or operated an electrical one) but for the rest, both me and the airplane can consider themselves very lucky to have come home in one piece... I still wonder what the insurance would have said if had I broken it. We bounced at least 5 times during landing - I din't even know what a good approach speed an flap setting was. Since that day, at least I have always browsed through the manual before flying new types.

EDDS - Stuttgart

FYI, in FAA-land you'll also have the high-power (i.e. >200hp) endorsement; relevant for the 182. However, there's nothing re the turbocharger. The others are the same.

Differences training is not part of FAA regulatory phraseology. Assuming the discussion is for light single engine land aircraft (under 12,500 lbs), pilot log book endorsements by a certificated flight instructor are needed for the following. No FAA records are generated.

1) Tailwheel, 2) High Performance (over 200 HP), 3) Complex (flaps AND retractable AND variable pitch propeller)

No complex endorsement is required unless the aircraft has all three of the items listed. I am currently flying an aircraft with flaps and a variable pitch prop, have never flown a retractable, and have no relevant log book endorsement.

If the pilot certificate and endorsement (if required) cover the configuration of the aircraft, no specific differences training needs to be recorded for a new aircraft type. Insurance requirements (assuming the aircraft is insured, not mandatory but normal practice) are sometimes the limiting factor in that regard.

When I bought and insured my latest aircraft, nobody was available who had flown the type or even anything from the same manufacturer. My highly experienced friend flew it without issue, verfified that it was benign enough for me, and made his first and only landing in the type as good as any I have made in the subsequent two years. He was insured because the policy required a 1 hr checkout for me but requires none for any certificated pilot I allow to fly the aircraft - the thinking is that I'll be very careful about who I let fly my property.

Thanks for the answers again all...

So I'll probably try to fly the 172R and 182 in the next couple of weeks... although there is A LOT of snow falling here at the moment. So that would tick off the VP Difference in JAA-Land. (Sorry EASA-World)...

What would be the situation if I say went an rented something in FAA-Land, and it had retractable... would I be legal to fly it on a JAA ticket without endorsement?

311 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top