Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Differences training

LeSving wrote:

What should be done, IMO, is to go back to the old system with type ratings, but with a course or training or something for how to do the “ratings” yourself.

There never was an old system with type ratings. Some countries, e.g. Sweden, required what is now called differences training with an instructor for every individual aircraft type. The training was signed off in the log book. (There was also a very long list of aircraft types deemed similar enough that no training was required, e.g. if you had training on a C150, you could fly a C152. If you had PA28R and PA32 you could fly a PA32R etc…)

I much doubt that all countries used this scheme, though, as it was a matter of national regulation and there is, as far as I can see, no such ICAO requirement.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

@gallois :

At least for the SEPs and TMGs the 2 years do not apply, once you have the difference training, you are good forever.

EASA FCL.710 (b)
If the variant has not been flown within a period of 2 years following the differences raining, further differences training or a proficiency check in that variant shall be required to maintain the privileges, except for types or variants within the single-engine piston and TMG class ratings.

EDXN, ETMN, Germany

CharlieRomeo wrote:

At least for the SEPs and TMGs the 2 years do not apply, once you have the difference training, you are good forever.

True, but AFAIK there are no variants under the TMG class (so no required difference training to fly TMG tail-wheel, turbo, vp, rg, sea, pressurized and glass cockpit…just self moderation, but it is was good idea for my case to get proper training on the tail-wheel TMG bit)

Last Edited by Ibra at 09 Sep 14:11
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Does a FI need differences training (for example, by another FI)?
Thanks!

always learning
LO__, Austria

Yes, or a proficiency check in the relevant variant, when required by Part-FCL because flight instructors must be entitled to act as the pilot-in-command when giving flight instruction, except for training on new aircraft types. See FCL.915(b)(3) and Annex IV (essential requirements for aircrew), point 1.9.2, to the Basic EASA Regulation.

See also recent changes to FCL.710 (pdf link).

London, United Kingdom

Snoopy wrote:

Does a FI need differences training (for example, by another FI)?

I guess so (exception: the first FI in the world )

Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

What was first… hen or egg, uuhmm, I mean, FI or differences training trained FI.

always learning
LO__, Austria

I think very old FIs were actually eagles that grandfathered their rights to be chickens or eggs, I think new FIs need to get those difference training before flying themselves or instructing

Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

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 need a little assistance. I can see that the document that we have been discussing here, the AMC1 FCL.710, has an EASA url (see post #08 by @Snoopy), but I am unable to find that AMC anywhere among the authorised documents . Neither can I find it in the latest Easy Access FCL document , which is a March 2019 edition, i.e. later that the reference to the document by Snoopy.

Last Edited by huv at 16 Jan 09:09
huv
EKRK, Denmark

Apparently the AMC1 FCL.710 does not exist. There is still no regulation defining when a particular difference training is required, nor what that training should constitute.
While the AMC was suggested in an NPA some years ago, it is clear from the EASA pages with official documents that it has not been implemented.
There is still, and have been all along, very much room for interpretation regarding when and how to perform difference training.
As this thread shows, some of us think it would be a good idea with more guidance on when and how to do a difference training, while others think not. And the draft of the AMC not been implemented could indicate that the same split exists within EASA.

huv
EKRK, Denmark
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top