Archie wrote:
A bit difficult if your flight school only has G1000 aircraft…
What would be difficult about that? Just because an aircraft has some equipment, doesn’t mean you have to teach all of it at once. E.g. you can teach pilots without EFIS differences pressurization in an aeroplane with G1000 and only endorse pressurization differences because it’s not necessary to provide full training for EFIS to accomplish it. And vice versa. As long as you stay on board.
Archie wrote:
But yes it’s in the AMC to the FCL, and within the same class rating the variants listed are “SEP (land)” and SEP (land) with EFIS". It also says if you want to go between the two you need differences training.
Real aeroplanes often fall into more than one variant (e.g. VP+RU). Does that mean that all of them are in the SEP(L) variant, or does it mean that only those that are bare, don’t fall under any other variant, belong there? And you could go from EFIS+VP to just VP. It seems to me the list was simply made under the assumption that people start on simple, traditional (but not historic or specialized – e.g. tricycle, not tailwheel) types and then go on to more complex, specialized, not the other way around.
Archie wrote:
What more guidance do you need?
Well, not need but I would like something like a sylabus. Some guidance on what should that training entail. Especially since this is something freelance instructors can provide and there is no approved training manual. Because you only need to familiarize yourself with the particular system in the next plane. So the training has to be comprehensive. You must be able to understand different solutions. Otherwise the system still relies on you knowing when to ask for help. I’m not really calling for more regulation, I just don’t get the half cooked state.
Archie wrote:
What more guidance do you need? To go between variants you need differences training, this must be endorsed in your logbook.
But where do you record the instrumentation the plane had on which you did your initial class rating? Or any other plane you flew since then?
Because I would say for all other variants, it is clear from the ICAO type designator what variants the plane has (except maybe for some bizarre STC’d retrofits). But this is absolutely not the case for EFIS. You could have a “steam” Cirrus SR22 and an EFIS PA18 if you want.
boscomantico wrote:
For example, there is nothing to say you can’t teach and endorse two “differences” in one go.
A bit difficult if your flight school only has G1000 aircraft…
But yes it’s in the AMC to the FCL, and within the same class rating the variants listed are “SEP (land)” and SEP (land) with EFIS". It also says if you want to go between the two you need differences training. Reading from the FCL this must be endorsed in your logbook as such.
Martin wrote:
I mean, why specify the variants and then provide no guidance?
Just reading from FCL.710 here, which is referred to in the AMC and GM Subpart H.
boscomantico wrote:
The whole guidance EASA gave us with reference to differences training is one page. Actually just one table plus a few lines. Anything beyond has not been defined. For example, there is nothing to say you can’t teach and endorse two “differences” in one go.
I’ll be damned if I recall where I got it. You’re right that the AMC/ GM to Part-FCL is pretty much useless in this regard. I dug into it (what should it be like, how to log it, etc.) at one point but information wasn’t easy to find. Baffling. I mean, why specify the variants and then provide no guidance? Not that I’m calling for more regulation.
The whole guidance EASA gave us with reference to differences training is one page. Actually just one table plus a few lines. Anything beyond has not been defined. For example, there is nothing to say you can’t teach and endorse two “differences” in one go.
boscomantico wrote:
Requiring SLPC training for an SR20/22 is indeed daft. Money-making, most probably.
And that’s not the part I really object. Imagine an outfit renting SR22 requiring this and providing the training. What is actually being taught? If that person then goes on to fly say DA40 NG, that training might be completely worthless. Unless they actually cover FADEC which is irrelevant to SR22.
boscomantico wrote:
Pretty much a moot point though, since those who have never flown a variable pitch prop would need differences training anyway
I thought you can’t combine training for multiple differences (you can do one after another). And covering the SLPC would require additional time anyway. So I don’t see it as moot.
i saw some outfits requiring SLPC differences for SR20/ SR22 which seems wrong – they have two levers, not one (and it’s a crude mechanical linkage). AFAIK this is supposed to be for FADEC equipped aeroplanes.
Requiring SLPC training for an SR20/22 is indeed daft. Money-making, most probably.
Pretty much a moot point though, since those who have never flown a variable pitch prop would need differences training anyway (despite there being no real manual control over the prop pitch, the Cirrus still has a variable pitch prop, and that’s what the differences training requirement refers to).
For the rest, indeed we discussed the Part-FCL differences training rules at length here, including the “reverse” differmeces training. These rules were an attempt to deal with differences among types within one single class, but however you do it, somebody will always find ways to make it look stupid. One simply has to apply some good sense.
Archie wrote:
Slight topic drift, but how you feel about this is probably the reason that EASA now require differences training if someone who has only flown with EFIS now wants to fly a steam-gauge cockpit, correct?
When did this happen and where is it? I know that you need differences training for EFIS, but not the other way around (for “six pack”). And it was debated. Not that I need it in the law.
I recall seeing a document I think from the UK (CAA or NATS) stating that if one trained for SEP class rating on SLPC (single lever power control) equipped SEP, one should get differences training for traditional engine controls. Same principle. But I never saw this requirement in EASA documents either. On a side note, i saw some outfits requiring SLPC differences for SR20/ SR22 which seems wrong – they have two levers, not one (and it’s a crude mechanical linkage). AFAIK this is supposed to be for FADEC equipped aeroplanes.
One big difference between glass and steam is that on the glass panel you will (hopefully) get the instruments crossed out in red when they stop functionning so it is obvious they are out, whereas if your steam AI runs out of steam 
, you may not even notice it unless you do a good cross-check with T&B/TC (for bank) and Altitude/ASI (for pitch) (which are normally powered by other sources than the AI).
The majority of my VFR flying takes place on planes with steam gauges. It’s only my IR that I did on glass cockpits. And I haven’t regretted it so far, because that is all that I have been flying since then, and I think I was much better prepared having trained directly on a glass panel.
So this class rating differences training doesn’t really apply. But as you can see, pilots usually don’t need a regulation for everything, they have a desire to stay alive, so will get the necessary training even if it’s not a regulatory requirement. And you cannot regulate all the different cases without making it a bureaucratic nightmare.
I think it is just common sense to get sufficiently trained with the equipment on the plane that you intend to fly, for the conditions in which you want to use it.
