Yes, while renting you may ending up needing a PA28 checkout even if you only flew 100h on PA28s, the school may label it as “local area familiarisation”
In the other hand, I did a checkout for PA28 & C172 & C152 & C150 all in one flight in the C152 and got ground breifing for other aircrafts/avionics, I think it just depends on who you speak to…
Peter wrote:
In the UK, if you trained in say a PA28 you would definitely need a checkout in a C172 before anybody would rent you one. It’s not FUD at all.
I was talking about legislation, not the prerogative of an owner to decide who will fly his/her aircraft.
For clarification:
Checkout = owner of plane wants to see prospective renter before letting him fly.
Differences Training = EASA FCL legislation to legally fly a plane which for instance is turbocharged* if prospective pilot has not flown turbocharged airplanes before.
* or variable pitch, retractable undercarriage, efis cockpit etc…
To be clear, I have no problem with an owner demanding that I do some familiarism check-ride with them before they will rent me their plane, especially if they are totally different types or there is something different about the a/c (like glass avionics or constant speed prop etc). I am a low-hour pilot after all. I anticipated the C172 would be the main available a/c in blighty so I intended to do a type checkout rating in a C172 before I left Czech Rep (Czech-out?… sorry) but didn’t get the chance. However, it’s seemed to have worked out in my favour as I really am not that keen on the C1x0s, but I liked the idea of trying a PA-28 and maybe eventually owning my own. Then after I arrived in the UK, I saw they are everywhere.
Coda wrote:
I anticipated the C172 would be the main available a/c in blighty so I intended to do a type checkout rating in a C172 before I left Czech Rep (Czech-out?… sorry) but didn’t get the chance. However, it’s seemed to have worked out in my favour as I really am not that keen on the C1x0s, but I liked the idea of trying a PA-28 and maybe eventually owning my own. Then after I arrived in the UK, I saw they are everywhere.
Well, there is no type rating for the C172 anywhere in EASA-land. If you have a SEP class rating you can fly it, period.
Airborne_Again wrote:
no type rating for the C172
+1
boscomantico wrote:
Did you also enter non-turbo differences training in his logbook?
No. Our CAA had earlier stated that the turbo diff. training does not apply for a FADEC controlled turbo diesel, mainly because a pilot trained on one of those would not be prepared to handle a conventional turbo Lyconti. I think that makes sense.
mh wrote:
I think it’s described very well.
Because of the poor – or should we say extremely vague – description of what should be taught and trained, competition between schools very easily leads to too little training if the pilot himself do not insist. Because of too little knowledge and training, accidents have happened. As an example of this, a pilot with landed gear-up some years ago. He had not trained emergency gear extension and had only been told about it in general terms at his differences training, and that was deemed a causal factor by the AAIB.
No. Our CAA had earlier stated that the turbo diff. training does not apply for a FADEC controlled turbo diesel, mainly because a pilot trained on one of those would not be prepared to handle a conventional turbo Lyconti. I think that makes sense.
Of course, it does make sense. It‘s just that it should have rather been defined by EASA. According to the very meagre EASA regulation, turbo is turbo.
Letting these things up to the single CAAs (was this really intended? The EASA reg doesn‘t say a single word about this…) just leads to unharmonised rules in the various countries. The German CAA for example has never said a single word about these difference training related topics… so over here, this turbo topic for example is still unclear.
boscomantico wrote:
It‘s just that it should have rather been defined by EASA.
Yes, that is exactly my view.
