We had a recent thread debating whether differences training and sign off were really necessary for EFIS.
This is just one of 7 aircraft features that mandate differences training and instructor sign off. To be fair, this doesn’t necessarily require actual airborne flight (an instructor might assess you already know it and sign you off), but generally its required. There are other additional ratings (eg Mountain, Test Pilot etc.) which I’m not considering here.
So which of the following do you think should be removed, and instead just rely on common sense of PPLs to learn and adapt where required.
The UK CAA lists the following 7 features for PPL
UK pilots holding an NPPL-SSEA don’t share exactly the same set
There is no requirement (at least in the UK) for additional training to use a side-panel GPS system such as a Garmin 650/750 or autopilot to make an instrument approach, it’s only if the glass display is used as an AI that you’ll need it. I believe the Aspen Evolution would require it.
I would have thought we would immediately dispense with the EFIS and SPLC, probably also turbo/super charging.
The first three (Retractable Gear, Variable Prop, Pressurisation) and tailwheel seem sensible to stay.
While a faster plane can be more difficult to keep up with, I’m dubious about mandating official sign off for >140 knots (which I guess is less about the landing speed and more about keeping up in the cruise)
I have only EFIS, retract, variable prop myself so appreciate I am talking about some feature I’d don’t fully understand and may be missing something.
Thoughts?
SPLC can go away, as far as I am concerned. Why train something that is a simplification?
EFIS is a different thing though. I agree that that I can see not much requirement for in-flight training, but for first-time glass cockpit pilots, some kind of professional training is absolutely necessary. On a simulator recurrent training for the Citation Bravo (which is an evolution of the first straight-wing Citation) some three years ago, I was paired with another pilot not from our company. He was a very experienced pilot (over 10.000 hours IIRC) on turboprops of all sizes and had some previous experience on an old Citation II with steam gauges. However, during those three days of simulator sessions, he was totally lost. Even if the instructor and I did the best we could to coach him, it was decided that he better skip the checkride on day four and come back for more training. Which means 15.000 Euros burnt for nothing. During an initial type rating, three or four days are dedicated to the glass cockpit, both in the classroom and with some hands-on training in either a cockpit mockup or a non-flying simulator.
I question the legal requirement for any of them at all.
In the good old days (not that long ago) none of them were required, and yet we all somehow survived using just common sense and a natural sense of self preservation.
In the good old days (not that long ago) none of them were required, …
Before JAR-FCL maybe and that came 15 years ago. And JAR-FCL did not invent anything new but just threw all the regulations of it’s various member states into one big pot. So there must have been places where this kind of differences training has “always” been a legal requirement. I really can’t remember how it was in Germany, but nobody would have rented you a retractable or pressurised or turbocharged or tailwheel aircraft unless you would have some training on it first.
I agree with FBM.
Don’t require any such training, and leave it up to common sense.
As What next says, nobody will rent you an aircraft without making sure you can fly it properly.
Anyone with any sense will get some training on a new aircraft that they own rather than risk their investment.
So that leaves trying to protect the dumb from themselves. Hardly something that leglisation can manage.
In the good old days (not that long ago) none of them were required, and yet we all somehow survived using just common sense and a natural sense of self preservation.
I wonder how much of the low accident rate was due to
)This is one of the biggest issues in GA and in trying to work out why something is OK when on the face of it it might be a problem / something was OK x years ago, etc. When you look at what people are actually doing, you find a load of reasons.
I think once you get outside the “IT anorak” community which makes up a large % of any group of European pilots who fly a lot, especially IFR, and yeah I am probably one of those too, it is an unfortunate thing that a lot of people find the “glass” stuff impenetrable and definitely need classroom training.
Some of the stories I have in email I could not post here because, being fairly obviously type specific, I would get a lot of criticism.
Most people operating these more complex types are owners and have been owners of such for years, so they are fairly current and it then becomes a non-issue. It is an issue only for those dipping their toes into it. If I had owned an F16 for the last 10 years and somehow got into it without any official training, I would probably be quite good at flying it now. Shock horror! Well, I do have SE papers 
Blissfully unexperienced, I question the need for differences training for retractable gear. I mean it cannot be that hard, can it?
After take-off, retract (optional). Before landing, lower (mandatory).
When retracting be prepared for some nose-up, depending on aircraft type.
When lowering, be prepared for some nose-down ( …)
The last two points ought to be covered by type approval training anyway.
And all of it should be in the various checklists, too.
While I’m normally against any state intervention into my life, I have to disagree here. EFIS systems are hugely different from ‘steam gauges’ and I would not want to fly behind a glass cockpit in anything but the most benign VFR situations.
IMHO the only thing that is really superfluous is the SPLC. I mean – moving a lever fore or aft? Not rocket science, methinks. Btw, this is also the only one that doesn’t exist in FAA-land (the turbo per se does neither, but is usually covered in the high-power endorsement).
Blissfully unexperienced, I question the need for differences training for retractable gear.
Normal operation of a retractable landing gear is indeed trivial. There are some speed limitations to observe and one should have made it a habit to use checklists of some kind (paper or mnemonic or electronic is anyone’s own choice unless he flies for someone else who will decide that for him). Not much different from flap operation really. Then come some emergency/alternate procedures and the some considerations about the best way to do a gear-up landing. So all in all more a classroom type of training than one that requires the aircraft itself.
dublinpilot wrote:
Don’t require any such training, and leave it up to common sense.
I agree to some extent, actually about 100%. But – what does such a rating actually mean? Tail wheel for instance. A Cub with a small Continental is very different from a Pawnee with a 540 on the tip of the long nose. The Pawnee is super easy, as is any RV, while the Cub is more than a handful for many on hard surface (personally I have no problems with it). On grass, tail-wheel or not is hardly noticeable. Still, I am glad I got proper training (and rating) for tail wheel with a Cub on tarmac and cross wind, because it won’t get worse than that. A rating obtained on grass is worth nothing in my opinion.
