What happens if you were trained on VP/RG aircraft, say, before the rules of differences training existed? Do you need to have an instructor certify differences training in your log book based on previous experience or is it enough that you have logged flights with VP/RG aircraft?
In the UK I believe if you have logbook evidence of P1 time with the differences pre JAA yo7 have grandfather rights, not sure where that is referenced though.
What happens if you were trained on VP/RG aircraft, say, before the rules of differences training existed? Do you need to have an instructor certify enter differences training in your log book based on previous experience or is it enough that you have logged flights with VP/RG aircraft?
There is no reference to any grandfathering whatsoever in the EASA reg. Which means that there isn‘t.
I wouldn‘t see how any member state could thus make up rules in how such grandfathering may work. But hey, anything seems possible in aviation regulation.
In the FARs there is a clear cutoff date for PIC time on tailwheels before the endorsment come up (1990 something?) but yes there is nothing as such in FCL
I guess if you have been trained and got PPL on RG/VP before the rules come up it should be ok, but then you may need “fixed gear/prop training” depending on who you ask?
If you got just PIC time logged that is a different story but NAA will usually give some exemptions (in the UK people grandfathered a lot: aeros, tmgs, micros… but they will usually ask more than just logbook entries when looking on a case by case basis + as you will not find a reference in the rules, you will have to make your case and sell it !)
Ibra wrote:
If you got just PIC time logged that is a different story but NAA will usually give some exemptions (in the UK people grandfathered a lot: aeros, tmgs, micros… but they will usually ask more than just logbook entries when looking on a case by case basis + as you will not find a reference in the rules, you will have to make your case and sell it !)
The case in Sweden is a bit special as pre-EASA you needed the equivalent of differences training for every aircraft type. Thus I have instructor signoffs in my log book for every type I flew pre-EASA and that includes tailwheel, retractable gear and variable prop types. Thus I have always assumed that I have TW, RG and VP grandfathered as I provably have been trained on aircraft types with those characteristics. Oh, well….
What happens if you were trained on VP/RG aircraft, say, before the rules of differences training existed? Do you need to have an instructor certify enter differences training in your log book based on previous experience or is it enough that you have logged flights with VP/RG aircraft?
- There is no reference to any grandfathering whatsoever in the EASA reg. Which means that there isn‘t.
I don’t think that’s the way it works. In fact, there is generally not much about grandfathering mentioned in the rules if you read about specific rules, but that never meant that pilots lost their rights when Part-FCL came along. I think there are general provisions for grandfathering described somewhere. I think there is a kind of base rule about generally not losing pilot rights because of changes in the rules. I’ll get back if I find something more specific, or perhaps someone will beat me.
Danish CAA examiners have told me specifically that grandfathering works for difference training, but I still think it is a grey area, because of the potential documentation problems. What if the only turbo aeroplane you have ever piloted was taken off the register many years ago – how do you prove that it was indeed a turbo?
So what happens when you lose your logbook?
Then many bad things happen. Don’t do it, keep a backup.
Ok, how about you have an electronic logbook with tailwheel signoff during a Tiger Moth flight in 1960 ;) ? (Hint: pilot date of birth 2000)
Backup is called electronic logbook :)
Went paper free for logbooks and maps1 a while ago, and not looking back (I do keep paper backups of approach plates on the occasional critical trip, but even then I think it’s wishful thinking)
1 But I’ll make an exception for open cockpit, just for the spirit of it.
