Variable Pitch Propeller Training

[JT8D-17]

Hi all,

My group has just purchased a lovely Europa which has a variable pitch prop. I understand that differences training is required.

Two of us have ATPL's and completed our commercial training on a Piper Seneca. Would I be correct in thinking we have already ticked the box for VP training?

The rest of the group have PPl's. Would flying with an instructor who has not flown a Europa but instructs on Seneca's be qualified to sign their VP training off and also check all of us out on the aircraft?

Thanks in advance!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Differences training is valid for 2 years. If you haven't flown a VP prop in 2 years you need to refresh that BUT it does not legally require flight - a briefing and signature are fine.

Whether it's legal or not, a Europa is a very different beast to a Seneca - most especially for take off and landing. Find an instructor who knows the type and use them - there are plenty of type-familiar CRIs in the LAA coaching scheme.

Where are you? I know the type and am VP current as an instructor, although there are probably people more local and/or with better type recency as it's about 3 years since I fflew a Europa.

Regarding Seneca .v. Europa, they require different class ratings. So far as I know, to instruct on it (or to sign off differences training) an instructor needs to be qualified to fly the aeroplane, which means an SEP rating. Happy to be corrected if somebody knows better, as I'm not totally certain on that point. But, as I said previously, I think that on a somewhat unusual type, familiarity with that aeroplane is most important here, not scraping through the legalities.

G

[Fl1ingfrog]

Genghis, do you have a reference for; "Differences training is valid for 2 years and If you haven't flown a VP prop in 2 years you need to refresh that BUT it does not legally require flight - a briefing and signature are fine."

Difference training is not a rating and does not require renewal/revalidation, it is simply an experience requirement although must first be delivered by a suitable instructor. Those who had the relevant differences experience before the requirement was introduced are not required to do further training but having said that I await your reference.

JT8D-17 is not required to undertake any formal training on a Europa above that of common sense. Of course a SEP (land), NPPL or LAPL must be valid. On a different matter it is advisable to check with the insurer because they may stipulate that each pilot undertakes formal training from a suitably qualified instructor(FI/CRI).

[hoodie]

GtE, that is NOT correct for SEP/TMG. FCL.710(b) refers:

FCL.710 Class and type ratings – variants
(a) In order to extend his/her privileges to another variant of aeroplane within one
class or type rating, the pilot shall undertake differences or familiarisation training.
In the case of variants within a type rating, the differences or familiarisation training
shall include the relevant elements defined in the operational suitability data
established in accordance with Part-21.

(b) If the variant has not been flown within a period of 2 years following the differences
training, further differences training or a proficiency check in that variant shall be
required to maintain the privileges, except for types or variants within the single-engine
piston and TMG class ratings.

(c) The differences training shall be entered in the pilot’s logbook or equivalent record
and signed by the instructor as appropriate.

My bold.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Thanks for the correction hoodie - although I'd point out also that the Seneca isn't in the SMG or TMG classes.

(Actually, thanks very much for that correction hoodie, as that provides something that benefits me directly!).

G

[hoodie]

No problem.

Your point, though: The Seneca bit is irrelevant; the Instructors have the differences training valid for SEP/TMG, despite initially getting it on MEP, and for the other Europa group members it's moot.

[Genghis the Engineer]

A further thought - it's likely that anybody with a professional licence has done some training in a complex single anyhow, which would include a VP prop.

At the same time, I'm going to come back to my original point - the Europa is NOT a standard SEP that you can just fly on the numbers. It does want an instructor with significant time on type, just to be sensible.

G

[ivorPhillips]

A further thought - it's likely that anybody with a professional licence has done some training in a complex single anyhow, which would include a VP prop.

At the same time, I'm going to come back to my original point - the Europa is NOT a standard SEP that you can just fly on the numbers. It does want an instructor with significant time on type, just to be sensible.

G
Perfectly valid if it’s a Europa Mono wheel but if it’s a Tri gear they are a pussy cat in both take of and landing and won’t present a problem with the majority of SEP pilots

[Genghis the Engineer]

Also, is it an electric variable prop I assume and not a CSU?

A very good point which brings one to the engine. Is it a Rotax 912? Management of that engine is substantially different to the older Lycoming and Continental air cooled engines with a lot of detail (gurgling pre-flight, coolant...) not particularly intuitive if you are not familiar with them.

G

[Flyingmac]

A very good point which brings one to the engine. Is it a Rotax 912? Management of that engine is substantially different to the older Lycoming and Continental air cooled engines with a lot of detail (gurgling pre-flight, coolant...) not particularly intuitive if you are not familiar with them.

G



Then there's the 15 minutes to warm up if it's chilly.

[TheOddOne]

Then there's the 15 minutes to warm up if it's chilly.

I find gurgling our C42 warms me up quite efficiently, thank you!

Hat, coat...

TOO

[Vilters]

VP prop training should be replaced by systems training.

A hydraulic CS prop with a governor behaves completely different from an electric VP prop without a governor.

[Pilot DAR]

Other than misuse of reverse features that some VP props have, for a certified aircraft, and having read the flight manual for the aircraft, what could a pilot do wrong managing a VP prop which could cause an unsafe condition?

I'm certainly not suggesting that training is a bad idea, but these are systems which meet the design requirements for safe operation, and no unsafe conditions....

[Pilot DAR]

you can very easily create combinations that your engine will not thank you for.

That is certainly a possibility, and to be prevented by skillful engine management. The skills to correctly manage an engine, beyond what the flight manual describes, are usually more in the realm of tribal knowledge, and to some degree engine and propeller model specific. I wonder how much benefit generic VP prop training would be?

[OpenCirrus619]

I think it is fair to say it won't create an unsafe condition

Depends on the aircraft - on ours try and go-round (after touch down) with the prop set coarse, on a grass runway, and you simply won't leave the ground.

I think, as I approach the trees at the end of the airfield, that would make me feel a little unsafe.

OC619

[Pilot DAR]

Depends on the aircraft - on ours try and go-round (after touch down) with the prop set coarse

I expect that would be similar to nearly all VP prop aircraft, which is why (I hope) that the flight manual states that the prop is to be set to fine pitch for takeoff, and presumably approach.

I think that flaps, and their possible misuse, are about equal in the possibility of creating an unsafe flight condition at certain times, but flap equipped aircraft don't require differences training? Pilots read the flight manual, and fly the way it says.

There are many ways to create damaging or unsafe conditions by disregarding the flight manual for an aircraft.