Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Differences training

Airborne_Again wrote:

AFAIU the Cirri are VP and not SLPC.

That is a sensible interpretation. But the Danish CAA did not agree when I was introduced to the Cirrus, they deemed it Single Lever. And that is the point. There is so much room for interpretation.

huv
EKRK, Denmark

So what to do? Get both (VP & SLPC)?

always learning
LO__, Austria

Snoopy wrote:

So what to do? Get both (VP & SLPC)?

Or ask EASA for their opinion. In the end, they decide.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Anyone have a contact there?

always learning
LO__, Austria

AMC1 FCL.710 – Guidance on differences training says:-

Single Power Lever control: a single lever automated power control that combines electronically the functions of all engine and propellor controls.

I can’t see how a Cirrus comes even close to meeting that definition as:

1) it’s not a single lever
2) it’s not in any way automated
3) it certainly doesn’t ‘combine electronically the functions of all engine and propellor controls’

Snoopy wrote:

Anyone have a contact there?

https://www.easa.europa.eu/contact-us

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

stevelup wrote:

AMC1 FCL.710 – Guidance on differences training says:-

Single Power Lever control: a single lever automated power control that combines electronically the functions of all engine and propellor controls.

I can’t see how a Cirrus comes even close to meeting that definition as:

1) it’s not a single lever
2) it’s not in any way automated
3) it certainly doesn’t ‘combine electronically the functions of all engine and propellor controls’

Thank you, that’s what I was looking for!

always learning
LO__, Austria

The one on Variable Pitch is also clear:

Variable Pitch Propellor: a system where the propellor blade pitch/engine RPM are directly
and independently controlled by the pilot

The engine RPM control is neither direct nor independent; the prop is set to 2,500 RPM, and once past a certain point of advancing the throttle (around 3/4) the prop speed is then increased towards the maximum. Ad for the TN, it is set at a fixed 2,500 RPM (don’t know about the T)

Biggin Hill

In the case of the constant speed prop, manipulating the RPM governor setpoint does not allow the pilot to directly control blade pitch. In the case of a non-CS variable pitch propeller the pilot controls blade pitch directly but not RPM directly. In neither case is the pilot controlling both, independently. The description of a Variable Pitch Propeller seems to me technically inaccurate, grammatically incorrect and useless.

However it could be fixed easily by replacing “blade pitch/engine rpm are directly” with “blade pitch or engine rpm is directly”

Good afternoon,

since I have almost completed my flight training on our club’s fleet of Diesel-powered Robin DR40s, I was wondering with regards to the differences resp. familiarisation training as laid out in FCL.710 if the requirement of FCL.710(c) “differences training shall be entered […] and signed by the instructor” is by implication already fulfilled when my FI signs the resp. training flights. Especially in the case of solo flights on the resp. variant, it seems counter-intuitive if allowing them in the first place and subsequently signing them off by the instructor would be OK if the student is not familiarised with and trained for differences of the plane.

Second question in that regard: GM1 FCL.700(a) lists a number of variants for SEP(land) for which additional differences training is required; in particular VP prop, turbo-charged engine, EFIS, and single-lever power control. As the Continental-Diesel-powered Robins are a) turbo-charged, b) have a variable-pitch prop., and c) have SLPC, and as I could not find in the FCL document any mentioning that a technical capability has to be accompanied by a resp. control mechanism, it appears that by training on those planes, I should have implicitly the endorsement for at least turbo, VP, and SLPC (and as one of our planes has a G500, and I did a Saturday’s cross-country flying with it, I assume that the EFIS endorsement could also be ticked). Here is an opposing view that essentially states that SLPC would void a turbo-endorsement due to no special controls being manipulated and no VP-specific training being necessary, but no further arguments are provided.

I am not arguing that for practical flying with a “real” VP or TC plane, I should get practical training, even if following FCL the requirements for such endorsements would already be met by training e.g. on our Robins.

Cheers,
Sebastian

EHRD / Rotterdam
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top