Yes, the instructor should have specifically noted "VP"and “RU” in the logbook (and he should know). This is what would allow you (legally speaking) to fly say, a Mooney, a 177RG, a Beech Bonanza, or similar, without any further flight training.
Just noting “Piper Arrow” is not good, even though it is evident that this includes VO and RU.
Thanks boscomantico, I’ll ask them to include that as well the next time I’m around.
This site usefully has the language for FAA endorsements.
http://faaflighttest.us/pilot_endorse.html
Note the Arrow qualifies for complex, but not for 61.63 (f) high performance. This requires sign off in an aircraft with an engine with more than 200 HP. A Seneca 1 with 400 HP total does not qualify, as each engine is only 200 HP.
Therefore your Arrow sign off does not make you legal, in FAA terms, for a Bonanza, or a 182, for that matter.
All N reg operators with engines above 200 HP should check they have 61.63(f) in the logbook.
In EASA land the following should be endorsed in the logbook:
Differences training (RU, VP, as applicable) has been completed in accordance with Part.FCL.710.
Signed Instructor
Date
Name of Instructor
Licence number
Cheers
A lot of “FAA complex” owners of N-regs don’t have that signoff 
It’s easily forgotten; not something that gets picked up in Europe. An FAA CFI should know about it of course but if you have been N-reg for years then nobody will think about whether you ever got it done.
Jonathan wrote:
In EASA land the following should be endorsed in the logbook:
Differences training (RU, VP, as applicable) has been completed in accordance with Part.FCL.710.
Interesting, I have in my logbook: “qualified on M020”, that means I fly RU en VP but don’t have the endorsement. Next time I will ask it my FI/FE.
For the other types I have: “checkout C172SPG1000/C172/C152: satisfactory”
What is the difference?
I am trained with full glass cockpit (Avidyne), so after my PPL I should have the EFIS endorsement, but it is not like that in my logbook, so also again: I don’t have any endorsement although I fly Glasscockpit G1000/Avidyne and analog?
Peter wrote:
A lot of “FAA complex” owners of N-regs don’t have that signoff
I doubt that VERY much. Nobody here will rent you a complex / high-power airplane w/o it. Also, you’d be flying sans license and insurance.
Unless of course you had time in complex or high perf type before the FAA endorsement rules came into effect, on August 4th, 1997
April 15th, 1991 for tailwheel planes.
In that case you don’t need the endorsement, and I’d imagine that would be the case for a lot of European pilots who have been flying N-Reg for years, almost by defintion.
I guess Peter was only referring to “in Europe”.
Under EASA, legally, there are no “checkouts” in specific aircraft types within the SEP class and shouldn’t be endorsed as such such by instructors. What should be endorsed is the “features”, i.e. “RU”, VP, etc.
However, I guess it will take another two generations of instructors to get used to that it seems.
It’s a bit relieving to see that not only my school does not apply these endorsments as they should.
boscomantico wrote:
However, I guess it will take another two generations of instructors to get used to that it seems.
Especially if new pilots (and that includes very much new instructors) are not encouraged to look up authoritative information themselves, but are spoonfed with “knowledge” passing from generation to generation.
