Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Differences training

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!

Indiv. CBIR Instruction
LOWG, LEBL

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”

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

Indiv. CBIR Instruction
LOWG, LEBL

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

Snoopy wrote:

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

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

ESSEX, United Kingdom

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

Indiv. CBIR Instruction
LOWG, LEBL

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

ESSEX, 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