Glass cockpit tuition

[oversteer]

Say you were to fly with someone in order to show them how a glass cockpit functions, how to navigate using it, and so on - what level of certification would be required?

Assuming that pilot is fully licenced for the flight, and the "instructor" does not take the controls at any time, would they need FI(R) or even a FI (Instrument) rating - and possibly a CPL if they were being paid for the service?

[GearDownFlaps]

If they had not previously been trained on glass cockpit then it would require diffrences training which would have to be signed off by an FI ,not sure where exactly in lasors this is but its there somewhere.

[G-STAL]

Either an FI or CRI can give you differences training for glass cockpits - it is in LASORS.

The FI or CRI has to be qualified themselves - it is not assumed in the instructor rating.

Also it is not a generic sign-off. The training is specific to the type of glass cockpit it is (for example G1000 or Avidyne).

I can do the G1000 if you need help.

[lasseb]

JAR has only one endorsement regarding glass cockpit, and it's called EFIS.
It does not distinguish between Avidyne, Garmin or other.
So legally you may get your endorsement on Avidyne and then fly on a Garmin.
Weather it's wise is another story...

[BillieBob]

Not the old "It's in LASORS" line again:rolleyes:. LASORS is not a definitive document, it is merely a (often inaccurate) copy of some parts of JAR-FCL with occasional CAA-specific guidance attached. The real requirements for differences training are here (http://easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/c/doc/List_of_Aeroplanes_class_and_TR_and_endorsement_list.pdf) and, as lasseb correctly states, the requirement is only for EFIS differences training, there is no mention of individual manufacturers.

[212man]

Not the old "It's in LASORS" line again. LASORS is not a definitive document, it is merely a (often inaccurate) copy of some parts of JAR-FCL with occasional CAA-specific guidance attached.

Well, I think you've reversed your own argument unwittingly. It's FCL that's the guidance and it's the "CAA specific" bit that counts. Whether other NAAs from the JAA decide to offer similar expansion on the basic guidance is up to them.

[BillieBob]

It's FCL that's the guidance and it's the "CAA specific" bit that countsWrong! The relevant bits of JAR-FCL are adopted into UK law by the ANO, so it's hardly 'guidance'. LASORS has no legal status whatsoever and so can never be more than guidance.

The 'CAA specific' bits of LASORS are restricted to administrative arrangements and those areas where JAR-FCL delegates detailed requirements to the NAAs. The CAA cannot make any requirement in excess of those in JAR-FCL. In the event of a conflict between LASORS and JAR-FCL (of which there are a number) it is JAR-FCL that takes precedence, by virtue of its status under the ANO, and it is JAR-FCL that should be the primary reference.

[212man]

Interesting viewpoint! Obviously, what is in the ANO in Part 6 and 7 has legal standing. Everything else is just 'policy' - not law. The ANO does not somehow legitamise all of FCL. If the CAA choose to expand or ignore an FCL statement they can. JAA is/was just a 'club,' FCL and OPS are just guidelines. The NAAs can do what they want but cannot state a rating or licence is issued in accordance with FCL unless it was. Otherwise it's an NAA rating or licence. If it meets FCL and then some, it's still i.a.w. FCL.

[Whopity]

Article 67 States that differences training shall be conducted in accordance with JAR-FCL1.235:(2) The holder of a licence to which this article applies is not entitled to exercise the privileges of an aircraft rating specified in Section 1 of Part B of Schedule 7 which is included in the licence on a flight unless—

(c) the holder has undertaken differences training in accordance with paragraph 1.235 of Section 1 of JAR-FCL 1 in the case of an aeroplane and paragraph 2.235 of Section 1 of JAR-FCL 2 in the case of a helicopter; and
(d) detailed information about that differences training is entered in the holder’s personal flying log book.
but JAR-CL 1.235 fails to identify what that differences are; it contains no reference to JAA Administrative and Guidance Material Section Five: Personnel Licensing Part 2: Procedures (http://easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/c/doc/List_of_Aeroplanes_class_and_TR_and_endorsement_list.pdf) the document which lists the differences but which has no legal status. 1.235 only says:(1) Differences training requires additional knowledge and training on an appropriate training device or the aeroplane. The differences training shall be entered in the pilot’s logbook or equivalent document and signed by a CRI/TRI/SFI(A) or FI(A) as appropriate.
(2) Familiarisation training requires the acquisition of additional knowledge. In other words another legal fudge that would be thrown out of court.