Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Differences training

Absolutely fantastic.

I am not sure if that is what they intended to write – since it makes absolutely no sense, all you would do is kick out the instructor and fly one more circuit – but it is great to see that the incompetent drafting of regs – you know, the one that gave us mandatory multi engine training for a CPL done in a single because they forgot to insert “if the skill test is performed in a multi-engine aircraft”, and that made it illegal to fly privately with a class 2 medical if you held a CPL – finally works FOR us.

Wonderful. That will teach me to read things much more thoroughly.

Let’s all keep quiet and delete this thread so they don’t fix it in the next update, at least not before they fire the guy in charge of the class and type rating list.

;-)

Biggin Hill

all you would do is kick out the instructor and fly one more circuit

I suppose if the instructor wouldn’t let you do that, it would mean something.

Cobalt wrote:

Let’s all keep quiet and delete this thread so they don’t fix it in the next update, at least not before they fire the guy in charge of the class and type rating list.

The “guy in charge of the class and type rating list” is actually excellent, a pilot’s pilot. The Operational Evaluation Branch (OEB) does some good scientific flight tests on types and variants and turns the results into a type and variant taxonomy. The differences are classified on 5 levels from A (requires self-instruction) through C (requires some sort of device or sim) to E (needs its own prof check). It works well for big aircraft.

The OEB team has never evaluated piston singles and twins for inclusion in the list as they are. Rather the list of variants for singles was inherited from JAR-FCL times and was probably developed like much of JAR-FCL1, by taking the most demanding rules from each JAA member state. The MEP class has never really been considered. The addition of the note on MEP variants in the class and type rating list was an attempt at clarification, not imposition of a new requirement. My informal conversations suggest that there’s a willingness there to get rid of difference training for all but a few essentials — e.g. which end the third wheel hangs off is probably significant enough a difference to require training in the aircraft.

So I’d suggest patience for a while, and we’ll get the mess cleared up when we can.

bookworm wrote:

So I’d suggest patience for a while, and we’ll get the mess cleared up when we can.

Wonderful. I’ve been quite upset by these meaningless differences training.

SLPC for example. Someone who has trained on Continental diesels will have the SLPC logbook entry, but he is not required to do any training on avgas burners. And then you get a debate on whether the Cirrus is SLPC or not.
Another is EFIS. If you were trained on Avidyne/GNS430 and got your EFIS logbook entry, you are good to go on the G1000.
Then turbo. If you fly a Continental Diesel (which has a TC), are you good to go on a TC avgas burner? And as has been stated earlier in this thread, flying with a turbo only requires a watchful eye on temperatures.

This tendency to micro-manage every aspect of people’s lives is pretty unnerving.

Last Edited by Aviathor at 18 Jan 15:50
LFPT, LFPN

Aviathor wrote:

This tendency to micro-manage every aspect of people’s lives is pretty unnerving.

I guess I’ll get a blast from Norway (not you) for saying this, but in comparison to previous Swedish rules, the EASA rules were a major improvement. In older days, what is now called differences training was basically required for every aircraft type and variant (that didn’t require a type rating). The Swedish CAA published extensive lists of what aircraft types (and variants!) were sufficiently alike to waive the differences training requirement.

E.g. if you had trained in a C172, you could fly a C152 without differences training, but not a PA28.

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 18 Jan 14:47
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

bookworm wrote:

So I’d suggest patience for a while, and we’ll get the mess cleared up when we can.

Was he in charge of the last so-called simplification? If so, I am not holding my breath.

In theory, it replaced the individual class-ratings-that-were-really-type-ratings with a proper “single engine turbine” rating, but still requires

  • a type-specific “licence endorsement”, so licence paperwork for each type rather than the more appropriate “let’s do training as appropriate and then go flying” approach this should have.
  • separate revalidation for each SET aircraft type (i.e., a check flight for each type every two years)

So, actually, no real progress.

Last Edited by Cobalt at 18 Jan 14:56
Biggin Hill

Can someone explain how difference training is supposed to work like like I’m a dumb American coming from the land of (if it doesn’t need a type/class rating that you don’t have and its not HP or tailwheel, and someone will insure you than you can fly it).

Say I took my SEP in a normal 172s, do I need differences training to fly a Piper cadet and if so is it a yes because it’s a low wing and has carb heat or because it is a different type?

If I do differences training for an aircraft with retractable undercarriage and constant speed prop (say a 177rg), does that mean I can also fly a 172rg without further differences training?

What does the training need to consist of? Studying the manual? Flying with an instructor until they are satisfied?

Thanks

Sweden

Unless in a club context, and excluding class/HPA/tailwheel, if you are happy with your insurance arrangement none is required.

I do know one pilot who went from a DHC Chipmunk to a Pitts S1, and despite his superior skills (genuine) his early landings were quite exciting.

I also know another pilot who read the manual and jumped into a PC12, no problem at all. He did have the required HPA and High Altitude endorsements, and the aircraft was Part 91 operated.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

You get instructor signed off practice.
Duration: until your FI/CRI is happy to sign his name into your log book
(…15min can be sufficient for a CS prop).

Once you have these sign offs, e.g. RG, CS, EFIS… they are valid for all planes within your aurhorized class (for me: SEP).

Gettting some intro training on a new model is smart, but not legally necessary ;-)

...
EDM_, Germany

@Cttime: short answers first

Say I took my SEP in a normal 172s, do I need differences training to fly a Piper cadet …

No.

If I do differences training for an aircraft with retractable undercarriage and constant speed prop (say a 177rg), does that mean I can also fly a 172rg without further differences training

Yes.

What does the training need to consist of? Studying the manual? Flying with an instructor until they are satisfied?

Yes. Same as FAA – ground and flight training.

Long answer: The process is very similar (ground and flight training, and an entry into your logbook), but the list for what you need it is different

Endorsements with similar “differences training” under EASA:

  • FAA Complex —> EASA retractable undercarriage + EASA variable pitch propeller
  • FAA Tailwheel —> same
  • FAA High Performance (>200 hp) —> no equivalent, you can fly any engine size without restriction, but you need one for turbocharged engine
  • FAA High Altitude —> no real equivalent, but pressurisation requires differences training

Endorsements which do not exist in FAA, but you might need differences training under EASA

  • Glass cockpit / EFIS
  • Turbocharger
  • Single-lever power control

The real oddball is the “High Performance” category in EASA, which means any aircraft which EASA deems to be “High Performance”, and has nothing to do with FAA “High Performance” (>200hp engine). These require extra theory and an exam, and more paperwork, but unless you want to fly a Malibu or somesuch, that is not likely to be an issue.

Biggin Hill
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top