;) true enough, I was searching for the right word all the while.
I would get rid of SEP,TMG,SLMG,microlight and make it all SEL with differences training as required between types.
Why an earth an SLMG rated pilot needs microlight training to fly a Chevvron is plan daft.
172driver wrote:
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).
SLPC is superfluous.
EFIS does not make any sense the way it is currently implemented.
First of all, all EFIS are different. You may be vary familiar and proficient on the Avidyne R9, but that does not mean you know up from down on the Garmin G1000. So in order for an EFIS differences training to have any merit, you would need to have the training specifically for each type of EFIS you intend to use, and for the type of usage you want to make of it.
I did get EFIS differences training. That consisted in making sure I was able to set altitude bug, read the speed tape, change radio and NAV frequencies, set transponder and do a GOTO on the GPS. Nothing beyond that. This training did not for example prepare me for using the system for IFR at all. Beforehand I had of course read the manual and played a number of hours with the G1000 simulator, so I pretty much knew the capabilities of the system and the buttonology, which did not mean I was “fluent”. After having received the differences training I went flying with another IR instructor as safety pilot to gain some comfort in flying IFR with G1000.
The fact that my logbook says I have undergone EFIS differences training means I can legally fly with an Avidyne system, but I certainly will not until I have read the manual and either played around with the system or a simulator quite a bit.
Did the EFIS differences training teach me anything I did not know beforehand? No.
Since then I have flown a few hours with an Aspen 1000 coupled with a GTN650. This system is quite a bit simpler, but I still do not feel entirely comfortable with it.
dublinpilot wrote:
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.
This is pretty much the way it used to be, and that worked. Before renting you a VP/RG airplane, the owner/lessee/aeroclub would check you experience in similar aircraft and do an in-flight assessment/training to make sure you were proficient. That would cover at last SLPC, EFIS, VP/RG, turbo and maybe even pressurization.
I am horrified by the number of pilots who have never read the POH for the airplanes they fly. They will be content with a familiarisation flight and never open the book. So if anything needs to be done, it is to drill into PPLs that they should read the POH at least once for all of the types they fly. Maybe that should be one thing that should be emphasised during the bi-annual (EASA) revalidation flight.
bi-annual
Once every two years is bad enough, never mind twice a year.
I’ll go further.
(Excluding jets and aircraft above 5.7t)
There should be two ratings – single engine, and multi-engine.
There should be two differences be trained formally – turboprop engine, and pressurisation
Why?
A lot of stuff requires familiarisation and training. The list is endless. Not knowing how to use the fancy buttonology won’t kill you, not will the gear up landing. From a safety point of view, a turbocharged dinosaur engine is probably the only thing that the current list includes that could be really dangerous – you can damage it so quickly that it fails shortly after take off. Show me a pilot who gets into an EFIS aircraft, does not know how set the QNH, and THEN TAKES OFF.
Flying single engine in a twin on a failure, having the completely different performance characteristics of a turboprop, or flying high up can be lethal if done wrong and deserves attention, so a separate multi engine rating, and mandatory training for TP and pressurisation, can be justified.
Just one more example how the current rules are silly:
If I go from a Piper Cub straight into an Antonov AN2 I am legal, provided I have a tailwheel sign-off.
We rely on the educated pilot being able to tell the subtle difference between an AN2 and a Cub, and his/her wisdom to get some training.
Once again, in the old days (pre “ratings”) that would have been a group A or group B Licence, with no renewal, no revalidation , no 90 day rule, no annual MEP test etc, and yet the 2007 CAA safety analysis of this plethora of additional JAA regulation, showed zero resultant improvement in safety statistics.
Maybe that was because pilots just got checked out voluntarily for whatever and whenever they thought necessary because they simply didn’t want to die, and the flying school renters didn’t want their aircraft wrecked either.
Hey ho…..
dublinpilot wrote:
Then they want to go onto a much more complicated system. As far as the law is concerned, they’ve done their EFIS training, so no need for more
Is that really true? I.e. for my GPS training for IFR, there is actually a statement in the logbook which model GPS I was trained on. I could imagine the EFIS differences training would result in a license, or statement in the logbook to the same extent stating what EFIS type you have actually trained on?
I think the point is becoming moot quickly anyway. It will just become part of any PPL/CPL syllabus, because most flying schools will soon (give it a couple of years) be equipped with at least one EFIS plane. So all students leave the school with the normal SEP and the SEP EFIS as per standard. Not?
But as for the reason for the need for differences training. I don’t think the law (as usual) is trying to catch the good and diligent ones. It’s trying to keep the bad ones away from a cockpit they couldn’t handle no matter how highly they think of themselves.
Cobalt wrote:
Not knowing how to use the fancy buttonology won’t kill you,
In IMC it very well could!
I agree. Although I did have good training by people who flown EFIS for a long time, I still see the risk to press the “wrong buttons”. A glass cockpit can be a very dangerous thing in IMC if you’re not absolutely sure how it works.
It will just become part of any PPL/CPL syllabus, because most flying schools will soon (give it a couple of years) be equipped with at least one EFIS
I would be amazed if that were the case.
