It indeed says nothing about a flight… training device or aircraft, yes, however no mention of an actual flight. Regards, Nit Pick
There is a regulation that stipulates any training needs to follow a syllabus. So just sitting in the plane on the ground and signing a logbook isn’t enough.
EFIS differences training could actually make more sense ground based than inflight. What I mean is that a typical EFIS Diff. Training for e.g. a G1000 is usually a short flight and a sign off. That leads to many G1000 flying around with people who can do two things: Direct to and set COMM 1. A thorough training on a G1000 Sim can yield better results, as one can focus on the system and isn’t distracted by flying a plane.
In the end, a flight is practically, but (strictly by the wording of the regulation) not legally required. To me it doesn’t matter, I’d always complete a given training by a flight.
huv wrote:
Pre-JAR there was no such thing as a tailwheel endorsement in Denmark. Each pilot had a type card, and to start flying C172’s, I had to do a questionnaire and fly with an instructor, who then had to fill in a form and send to the CAA. So back then the CAA had a record of every single type for every single pilot.
It was similar in Sweden, except that you didn’t need to send a form to the CAA – a logbook endorsement sufficed. So in EASA terms, the basic requirement was differences training for every single aircraft type. The CAA published long lists of what types were deemed similar enough that you didn’t need separate training. If you had the Cessna 150, you could also fly the 152 and vice versa, but not the 172. OTOH, If you had the 172 you could also fly both the 150 and 152. Fortunately that nonsense went away with EASA.
151
I just need a reference to where it says that pre-JAR/EASA endorsements/model check-out is still valid. Maybe there aren’t?
No, from EASA there aren‘t. EASA has never weitten anything about this in their regs. But some CAAs have decided to do some grandfathering nevertheless.
Of course training device does not imply “actual flights” but apart from that, I always read this to mean that actual flight was indeed required.
I understood the same, the GM does not imply an actual flight (again it’s “just” GM)
PS: I see no issue with getting EFIS signed on FSX/XP or G1000 simulator without an actual flight but I don’t think we will let someone loose in club TW without consistency in few crosswind pavement landings…
I just need a reference to where it says that pre-JAR/EASA endorsements/model check-out is still valid. Maybe there aren’t?
ErlendV wrote:
endorsement pre-JAR/EASA, is it still «valid»?
Pre-JAR there was no such thing as a tailwheel endorsement in Denmark. Each pilot had a type card, and to start flying C172’s, I had to do a questionnaire and fly with an instructor, who then had to fill in a form and send to the CAA. So back then the CAA had a record of every single type for every single pilot.
The concept of differences trainings was introduced with JAR-FCL. I don’t recall any grandfathering procedure, but if you had BL8 on your type card (Bellanca w/ tailwheel), then you had the TW diff. training. P28R on the type card gave you VP and RG, and so on.
Ibra wrote:
In addition, FCL does not even state actual flights are required for variants (TW, T, SLPC, VP, RG) difference training, maybe it was a typo
It does!
GM1 FCL.710 Class and type ratings – variants
DIFFERENCES AND FAMILIARISATION TRAINING
(a) Differences training requires the acquisition of additional knowledge and training on an appropriate training device or the aircraft.
(b) Familiarisation training requires the acquisition of additional knowledge
Ibra wrote:
In addition, FCL does not even state actual flights are required for variants (TW, T, SLPC, VP, RG) difference training, maybe it was a typo
FCL says very little about differences training, but it has
Differences training requires the acquisition of additional knowledge and training on an approproate training device or the aircraft. (GM1 FCL.710 (b))
Of course training device does not imply “actual flights” but apart from that, I always read this to mean that actual flight was indeed required.
Ibra wrote:
Yes TW variante is grandfathered in both EASA & FAA systems not sure about cross crediting but “difference training” do not require an actual flight, a breifing with CRI or CFI could be enough?
Differences training does require an actual flight with an instructor. Familiarisation training, on the other hand, does not – nor does it require a logbook entry.
But yes, if you already have a pre-JAR/EASA logbook endorsement then it should still be valid.
how can TW be learned other than flying in one?
If you never been in one yes NFW you would go and fly without training & checkout, usually, the question of skipping TW sign-off did always come from people who had training & load of time on them before the new rules come up 
also, remember in Gliders, TMG and Microlights you don’t need TW but I don’t think it’s enough to skip a checkout in Pitts…
