Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Differences training, and endorsement logbook entry: implicit due to variant?

bookworm wrote:

It’s worth reading that wording very carefully.

I can see that now, very clever.

Though I am still confused about the relevance pertaining to variants. Maybe I am a bit thick, but can you name one example of a “variant” for which you would need to do this “further differences training or a proficiency check”? AFAIK all variants exist only for SEP and TMG, and those two are specifically exempt? Or am I not getting answers because the question is too stupid? Then I’d still like a hint.

Absolutely fantastic.

I am not sure if that is what they intended to write – since it makes absolutely no sense, all you would do is kick out the instructor and fly one more circuit – but it is great to see that the incompetent drafting of regs – you know, the one that gave us mandatory multi engine training for a CPL done in a single because they forgot to insert “if the skill test is performed in a multi-engine aircraft”, and that made it illegal to fly privately with a class 2 medical if you held a CPL – finally works FOR us.

Wonderful. That will teach me to read things much more thoroughly.

Let’s all keep quiet and delete this thread so they don’t fix it in the next update, at least not before they fire the guy in charge of the class and type rating list.

;-)

Biggin Hill

all you would do is kick out the instructor and fly one more circuit

I suppose if the instructor wouldn’t let you do that, it would mean something.

EGCW

Cobalt wrote:

Let’s all keep quiet and delete this thread so they don’t fix it in the next update, at least not before they fire the guy in charge of the class and type rating list.

The “guy in charge of the class and type rating list” is actually excellent, a pilot’s pilot. The Operational Evaluation Branch (OEB) does some good scientific flight tests on types and variants and turns the results into a type and variant taxonomy. The differences are classified on 5 levels from A (requires self-instruction) through C (requires some sort of device or sim) to E (needs its own prof check). It works well for big aircraft.

The OEB team has never evaluated piston singles and twins for inclusion in the list as they are. Rather the list of variants for singles was inherited from JAR-FCL times and was probably developed like much of JAR-FCL1, by taking the most demanding rules from each JAA member state. The MEP class has never really been considered. The addition of the note on MEP variants in the class and type rating list was an attempt at clarification, not imposition of a new requirement. My informal conversations suggest that there’s a willingness there to get rid of difference training for all but a few essentials — e.g. which end the third wheel hangs off is probably significant enough a difference to require training in the aircraft.

So I’d suggest patience for a while, and we’ll get the mess cleared up when we can.

bookworm wrote:

So I’d suggest patience for a while, and we’ll get the mess cleared up when we can.

Wonderful. I’ve been quite upset by these meaningless differences training.

SLPC for example. Someone who has trained on Continental diesels will have the SLPC logbook entry, but he is not required to do any training on avgas burners. And then you get a debate on whether the Cirrus is SLPC or not.
Another is EFIS. If you were trained on Avidyne/GNS430 and got your EFIS logbook entry, you are good to go on the G1000.
Then turbo. If you fly a Continental Diesel (which has a TC), are you good to go on a TC avgas burner? And as has been stated earlier in this thread, flying with a turbo only requires a watchful eye on temperatures.

This tendency to micro-manage every aspect of people’s lives is pretty unnerving.

Last Edited by at 18 Jan 15:50
LFPT, LFPN

Aviathor wrote:

This tendency to micro-manage every aspect of people’s lives is pretty unnerving.

I guess I’ll get a blast from Norway (not you) for saying this, but in comparison to previous Swedish rules, the EASA rules were a major improvement. In older days, what is now called differences training was basically required for every aircraft type and variant (that didn’t require a type rating). The Swedish CAA published extensive lists of what aircraft types (and variants!) were sufficiently alike to waive the differences training requirement.

E.g. if you had trained in a C172, you could fly a C152 without differences training, but not a PA28.

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 18 Jan 14:47
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

bookworm wrote:

So I’d suggest patience for a while, and we’ll get the mess cleared up when we can.

Was he in charge of the last so-called simplification? If so, I am not holding my breath.

In theory, it replaced the individual class-ratings-that-were-really-type-ratings with a proper “single engine turbine” rating, but still requires

  • a type-specific “licence endorsement”, so licence paperwork for each type rather than the more appropriate “let’s do training as appropriate and then go flying” approach this should have.
  • separate revalidation for each SET aircraft type (i.e., a check flight for each type every two years)

So, actually, no real progress.

Last Edited by Cobalt at 18 Jan 14:56
Biggin Hill

Good afternoon,

since I have almost completed my flight training on our club’s fleet of Diesel-powered Robin DR40s, I was wondering with regards to the differences resp. familiarisation training as laid out in FCL.710 if the requirement of FCL.710(c) “differences training shall be entered […] and signed by the instructor” is by implication already fulfilled when my FI signs the resp. training flights. Especially in the case of solo flights on the resp. variant, it seems counter-intuitive if allowing them in the first place and subsequently signing them off by the instructor would be OK if the student is not familiarised with and trained for differences of the plane.

Second question in that regard: GM1 FCL.700(a) lists a number of variants for SEP(land) for which additional differences training is required; in particular VP prop, turbo-charged engine, EFIS, and single-lever power control. As the Continental-Diesel-powered Robins are a) turbo-charged, b) have a variable-pitch prop., and c) have SLPC, and as I could not find in the FCL document any mentioning that a technical capability has to be accompanied by a resp. control mechanism, it appears that by training on those planes, I should have implicitly the endorsement for at least turbo, VP, and SLPC (and as one of our planes has a G500, and I did a Saturday’s cross-country flying with it, I assume that the EFIS endorsement could also be ticked). Here is an opposing view that essentially states that SLPC would void a turbo-endorsement due to no special controls being manipulated and no VP-specific training being necessary, but no further arguments are provided.

I am not arguing that for practical flying with a “real” VP or TC plane, I should get practical training, even if following FCL the requirements for such endorsements would already be met by training e.g. on our Robins.

Cheers,
Sebastian

EHRD / Rotterdam

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.

Frankfurt (EDFZ, EDFE), Germany

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.

Last Edited by Cobalt at 23 Aug 15:41
Biggin Hill
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top