Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

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

I have been endorsed VP RU and T recently on an Arrow 4 turbo, my ppl been run on da40 thielert last year, and in no way I could imagine been proficient on an Arrow 4 turbo after some hours on a thielert DA40. These planes (thielert) are dead easy to play with and doesn’t require any care except 1minutes after stop before to shutoff, and a good battery. A Tio360 is another story… And I would be curious to know about an insurer that would let you fly an arrow4 after some hours on a dr400 diesel.

Last Edited by greg_mp at 24 Aug 20:48
LFMD, France

Good morning,

Cobalt wrote:

You claiming you learned anything abut VP prop and turbo operation in a Thielert diesel is just plain silly.

maybe I wrote my arguments less clearly than necessary, but I fail how you read any of my statements above as me claiming having received practical education on manual VP and TC operation. The whole point I was trying to make was that EASA seems to have written the passages in FCL.700 and FCL.710 in a way that would render it unclear if modern planes such as Rotax 914 (integrated turbo) or Thielert/Continental-Diesel-powered planes would fall under the wording of more variants than expected.

Again, please do not take the legal point of my arguments as meaning that I believe having received sufficient practical training on VP or TC planes; and frankly as I have made that distinction in my posts hopefully clear, I am baffled by your aggressiveness.

Cobalt wrote:

And the fact that you claim this makes it obvious why the law so clearly says “The differences training shall be entered in the pilot’s logbook or equivalent record and signed by the instructor as appropriate” – the instructor needs to enter which training was conducted to avoid nonsense like this.

Well, it is a fine point to argue, but if you read the passage of FCL.710(c) that you quoted, there is actually no requirement to “enter which training was conducted” as you state. The text simply says that differences training shall be entered and signed into an appropriate record, and the GM for said passage specifies further that differences training requires acquisition of additional knowledge etc. Therefore, the fact that a logbook entry for a solo flight for a certain variant is signed off would in my opinion only be legal if the instructor has provided the student with the relevant differences and operational knowledge for said plane, i.e. provided differences training. Thus, I raised the question in the first place if and how such entries are deemed implicit differences training or not.

Summarising, I concur of course that operating a plane with additional technical systems and their controls than trained on or experienced before should for all practicality be done only after approporiate additional training has been received. I would be happy if you could understand that the point I was asking questions for and arguing is a legal point that I found unclear, and has no bearing on me believing that I could safely operate a more advanced plane than trained upon until now.

Let’s see what the Dutch CAA answers me in that respect, and then we have a more solid point than personal opinions on a legal matter.

Cheers,
Sebastian

EHRD / Rotterdam

Sebastian_H wrote:

I am baffled by your aggressiveness

I’m not Seriously though, I think when the regulations changed from the old system of ratings for each individual type, something got lost in the process. There are too many technical variations to make such a system work without becoming as too complex or too obscure. The EFIS endorsement for instance. There is no definition any place what an EFIS really is, and glass instruments comes in all shapes, sizes and functionality. What should be done, IMO, is to go back to the old system with type ratings, but with a course or training or something for how to do the “ratings” yourself.

I think the whole differences training regulations have got out of hand and are gradually getting worse. They do not IMO improve safety they do little to advance tje causemof ATO’s.

Any sensible pilot who decides to buy a significantly different aircraft from the one they have been trained in or owned before would be stupid not to do some sort of training in the new aircraft before going solo in it.
In the clubs here, normally it is part of club regulations that you get checked out/trained/solo (laché) on any of the club’s aircraft before you are allowed to use ot as you would any other aircraft. The instructor then signs your log book to say you are apt.
All very sensible IMO and not in need of page after page of regulation.
But it is the secondary effects of the regulations that concerns me if those listed by Cobalt are correct, and I have no reason to doubt it.
For instance if one was MEP trained in a Seminole or a Seneca but you have not flown one for more than 2 years because you have been flying a DA42, or you might have been flying a Seneca 1 for 2 years but had trained in a Seneca 2 you would not be able to return to the Seneca 2 without turbo differences training which would mean not only finding an ATO but one with access to a Seneca 2 and an instructor who has the correct qualification.
The same applies to returning to a Mooney from a DA 40 or to a tailwheel from tricycle, which also brings the ridiculous situation of some older pilots having thousands more hours in a tailwheel than the instructor dispensing the differences training.
An all this coming at a time when there is a shortage of instructors, when ATO’s seem to only use diamond aircraft, when costs are rising and GA numbers are falling (if you don’t include ULM’s)
What we need is regulation where it is necessary only, and in this case I do not see how it serves a useful purpose.

France

gallois wrote:

I think the whole differences training regulations have got out of hand and are gradually getting worse.

I completely agree, it is entirely unnecessary. Just to add – the prudent pilot will get sensible training, but should have the option to just self-teach, for example if training is not available, especially on avionics/EFIS. On several “checkouts” I actually showed things to the instructor, a ridiculous situation.

gallois wrote:

For instance if one was MEP trained in a Seminole or a Seneca but you have not flown one for more than 2 years because you have been flying a DA42, or you might have been flying a Seneca 1 for 2 years but had trained in a Seneca 2 you would not be able to return to the Seneca 2 without turbo differences training which would mean not only finding an ATO but one with access to a Seneca 2 and an instructor who has the correct qualification.

In the twin world, it is even worse. You need differences training per type, there is no such thing as a turbo “sign off” for a twin, you need a Seneca “sign off”. To make it even more ridiculous, if you fly a turbo charged EFIS equipped twin (which will in all likelihood be VP prop and retractable, too), you do not get ANY of the single engine piston difference training credited, if you follow the letter of the law.

In most situations, that will not be as big a deal as it sounds – with that experience, any instructor should be happy to sign off all four (turbo, VP, EFIS, retractable) in a single short flight, but it is still silly. I have also seen instructors signing of the SEP differences in the logbook anyway.

Biggin Hill

There’s a similar and older thread [threads merged – see posts at the start] discussing some of the same issues which I did not find until now.

LeSving wrote:

What should be done, IMO, is to go back to the old system with type ratings, but with a course or training or something for how to do the “ratings” yourself.

gallois wrote:

An all this coming at a time when there is a shortage of instructors, when ATO’s seem to only use diamond aircraft, when costs are rising and GA numbers are falling (if you don’t include ULM’s)
What we need is regulation where it is necessary only, and in this case I do not see how it serves a useful purpose.

Yes, simplifying the weird micromanagement zoo would probably not decrease safety at all. As far as I understand it as a newcomer, keeping the tailwheel endorsement seems to due to the different handling on the ground, for takeoff, and landing quite sensible; the further differences should be done away with as there’s already the requirement to familiarise yourself with any different vehicle you drive/fly anyway.

Alas, looking at the similar situation with driver’s licences, I fear that this will not happen: I got my German “Klasse 3” licence before they rolled out the current EU licences, and with driver’s education on the ubiquitious VW Golf, I got what amounts to (more or less) the current classes B, BE, C1, C1E, M, and L, i.e. also mid-size lorries with a single-axle or tandem-axle trailer, weighing up to 18t altogether. Of course I don’t hop into such a vehicle without having a quick training session, but common sense seems not something the regulator believes we possess …

EHRD / Rotterdam

Cobalt wrote:

On several “checkouts” I actually showed things to the instructor, a ridiculous situation.

Maybe compare that with driving: While I can show my nephews the ropes of stick shifting, double-clutching, etc., I would be initially stumped when faced with a Tesla and its touch-screen malarkey. Weirdly, the regulator does not require a touch-screen or EV endorsement in the driver’s licence.

Cheers,
Sebastian

EHRD / Rotterdam

Two identical threads merged. Older posts are at the start of this new thread. Bookworm’s posts in particular are interesting. He used to post good stuff in those days

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

LeSving wrote:

What should be done, IMO, is to go back to the old system with type ratings, but with a course or training or something for how to do the “ratings” yourself.

There never was an old system with type ratings. Some countries, e.g. Sweden, required what is now called differences training with an instructor for every individual aircraft type. The training was signed off in the log book. (There was also a very long list of aircraft types deemed similar enough that no training was required, e.g. if you had training on a C150, you could fly a C152. If you had PA28R and PA32 you could fly a PA32R etc…)

I much doubt that all countries used this scheme, though, as it was a matter of national regulation and there is, as far as I can see, no such ICAO requirement.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

@gallois :

At least for the SEPs and TMGs the 2 years do not apply, once you have the difference training, you are good forever.

EASA FCL.710 (b)
If the variant has not been flown within a period of 2 years following the differences raining, further differences training or a proficiency check in that variant shall be required to maintain the privileges, except for types or variants within the single-engine piston and TMG class ratings.

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top