Yes, but the word “training” in line with familiarisation is obviously a leftover here at GM1 (b).
If you read FCL.710 you can see that it is either
Differences Training
or a
Familiarisation.
The difference between the two is mentioned in both of my previous replies.
FCL.710 Class and type ratings – variants
Regulation (EU) 2019/1747
Pilots shall complete
differences training
or familiarisation
in order to extend their privileges to another variant of aircraft within one class or type rating. In the case of variants within a class or type rating, the differences training or familiarisation shall include the relevant elements defined in the OSD, where applicable.Bold
So does it mean in practice to follow a syllabus?
In my club, where the VP variant is obtained during initial training, the FI simply specifies the variant at the first solo (something like “authorized solo, VP variant”). No further mention of this exists, in the PPL exam, license or other.
This isn’t required because it is only required “in order to extend their privileges to another variant of aircraft within one class rating.”
The airplane used to obtain a license or rating obviously includes its privileges.
So does it mean in practice to follow a syllabus?
That is the regulator’s intention. Training = syllabus.
If the instructor enters the diff. training into a pilot’s logbook, nobody can check what exactly was done… so practically speaking a lot of FCL.710 is a bit grey.
That guidance material needs updating to conform to the current rule. The rule changed in early Nov 2019 following this proposal in NPA 2014-29, explanatory note, p 14:
2.4.10. In Part-FCL, Subpart H — Class and type ratings is amended in FCL.710 Class and type ratings
— variants. The word ‘training’ is moved from the end of the sentence to the place right after
‘differences’. This change is necessary to lift unnecessary burden from General Aviation pilots.
The essential requirements (ERs) defined in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 stipulate
that all training must be given through a training course for which a syllabus must be prepared,
which has to contain theoretical and practical training elements. Furthermore, ERs require that
all training must be given by suitably qualified instructors. The Agency and the members of the
working group considered this not necessary for a familiarisation with a new variant within the
same subgroup of a class or type rating and, therefore, decided to clarify the issue by
differentiating ‘difference training’ from ‘familiarisation’.
One consequence of this change is that non-instructor pilots may act as a coach or mentor to facilitate other pilots who must complete the familiarisation requirement.
The referenced essential requirements (for aircrew) is now in annex IV to the current Basic Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2018/1139.
@Snoopy “… practically speaking a lot of FCL.710 is a bit grey.”
The rule is certainly written badly, eg the need for follow-up differences training on MEPs does not (explicitly) to apply to variants used on a skill test or proficiency check.
@boscomantico “So does it mean in practice to follow a syllabus?”
In theory! However, see EASA’s response to FOCA/CH, CRD 2014-29 pp 148–149 and to DGAC/FR ibid pp 140–141:
Has anyone an archived copy of the mentioned Joint Implementation Procedures? @Tumbleweed perhaps…
I finally got around to publish the books Differences Training and Familiarisation (Apple Books / Google Play Books) and Taming the Taildragger – A Tailwheel Pilot’s Guide (Apple Books / Google Play Books)
I’ll buy some ads later, Peter :)
