There is no further guidance out there from EASA, hence there are no answers to your questions.
You might want to ask “your” CAA about what they say.
On your first question – the logbook has to say that the differences training has been conducted. So wherever and however, the words “differences training” and the difference itself should be mentioned. That can of course be next to the flight. You cannot simply imply “aircraft X has feature Y, and it was a training flight, so obviously I was trained in feature Y”. You need to prove that specific training was performed, not just a flight,
On your second question – does SLPC count for VP and turbo in a Thielert / Austro Diesel?
Since you learned how to push forward and pull back a power lever, it should be clear that you can’t get as sign-off for preventing blowing up the engine (turbo), and tweaking three separate levers (VP prop), as you learned neither.
You also learned about how to manage the ECUs and their failure modes, but strangely enough (and fortunately) that does not require yet another silly sign-off.
On your first question – the logbook has to say that the differences training has been conducted. So wherever and however, the words “differences training” and the difference itself should be mentioned. That can of course be next to the flight. You cannot simply imply “aircraft X has feature Y, and it was a training flight, so obviously I was trained in feature Y”. You need to prove that specific training was performed, not just a flight
Is that a universal principle?
My vague recollection of the US system is that if you do a checkride in a given type, then you are checked out on that type.
However, in the US system, the examiner is entitled to request a demonstration of everything installed, which is not the case in Europe.
Peter wrote:
My vague recollection of the US system is that if you do a checkride in a given type, then you are checked out on that type.
Any endorsement has to be written in the log book as such and I’m paraphrasing here: I, CFI (number) certify to have given (name) ground and flight instruction in (fill in type) and find him/her to be competent in the operation of high-power/complex/ tailwheel / whatever airplanes.
You cannot do a checkride in an airplane you’re not legal to fly for the simple reason that during a checkride YOU are PIC.
It’s indeed highly country specific- our Estonian CAA said last year that for PPL holders all SEP(land) variants are OK without any written record, for LAPL they want differences training signed by instructor .
If you have done your PPL training e.g. on a SEP with EFIS and SLPC then no differences training is required.
If you then fly something turbocharged or with retractable gear, you need a flight with a FI and his signature that a differences training for RG and TC has been performed.
Anyway, it doesn‘t seem like – in the past 16 years – anybody has ever been charged for flying without the prescribed differences training. Nor during a routine check and neither during a post-incident investigation. Or?
The German ramp check form that I got presented with this January didn‘t say a word about this…. it‘s a fringe piece of regulation not „practiced“ by the aviation authorities…
I did a series of checkouts (and flights) in N reg SR22s (both in Europe and the US) and no one ever asked to see that endorsement.
Since I’m on a 61.75, I wasn’t sure if that was a requirement, but last time I renewed my (outfit) currency on an SR22 in the US, I asked the instructor to “sign” it (type it on my e logbook) just to be 100% if ever I need to have an annoying chat with the insurers.
He was surprised I didn’t have it, especially since I had flown an SR22 quite a few times with them :)
Noe wrote:
He was surprised I didn’t have it, especially since I had flown an SR22 quite a few times with them :)
Had same story for “high performance sign-off” in the US on 61.75 license based on EASA license that does not need it !
The guy who did my BFR and checkout in the US was not even sure how this work for FAA61.75 on EASA, also not sure if this was required for >200hp or >=200hp or if the aircraft was 200hp, 201hp or 199hp 
At the start he told me I will not need one, at the end he changed his mind and decided to add that entry in my logbook to be on the safe side, he meant for him as CFI doing BFR and checkout: he told me worst case scenario I have an HP sign-off that I don’t need on a non-HP aircraft, so better than the other way around
Thank you for all your answers! I will ask the Dutch CAA next week what their position on the matter is as it seems to hinge on additional national legislation.
Cobalt wrote:
he logbook has to say that the differences training has been conducted. So wherever and however, the words “differences training” and the difference itself should be mentioned. That can of course be next to the flight. You cannot simply imply “aircraft X has feature Y, and it was a training flight, so obviously I was trained in feature Y”. You need to prove that specific training was performed, not just a flight
I concur that a training flight as such in a particular variant does not necessitate any particular training, but the point I raised was that a solo flight on a particular type, the flight being signed off by an instructor, necessitates that the (student) pilot needs to be acquainted with the differences of the plane, and that such a logbook entry therefore has all the features of a differences training endorsement (and as long as the Dutch CAA in my case does not prescribe a certain format, there is no legal basis for any specific entry format).
Cobalt wrote:
On your second question – does SLPC count for VP and turbo in a Thielert / Austro Diesel?Since you learned how to push forward and pull back a power lever, it should be clear that you can’t get as sign-off for preventing blowing up the engine (turbo), and tweaking three separate levers (VP prop), as you learned neither.
For similar reasons as above I would contest – barring any further specific regulation by “my” CAA – that your statement has a legal basis. It is understood that a turbocharged engine with controls for the turbo might necessitate additional training, but in GM1 FCL.700 there is no mentioning that a feature of the airplane (VP, TC, etc.) needs a cockpit control thereof in order to qualify. Again, it is not contested that from a purely practical perspective any change in airplanes needs getting acquainted with its respective peculiarities, but if the authorities wanted a difference training for an aircraft with TC controls, they would need to write that in the regulations, and not that the aircraft simply has a turbo-charged engine as laid out in Part-FCL. Similar reasons would also apply for e.g. a Rotax 914 engined plane.
Cheers,
Sebastian
