Logbook endorsements for ppl-training-aircraft needed?

[Morten afd]

Hello Colleagues,

I was wondering about the how logbook endorsements are working, the situation:
I passed my EASA PPL(A) - SEP(land) some month ago and made all training hours on a Tailwheel, variable pitch, retractable gear aircraft.

Besides the name and examiner license number non of these endorsements is mentioned in the logbook.
Of course, theoretically the aircraft model in the logbook implies that I am able to do fly these specific planes, but how can I "officially give evidence".

Now, my license is passed and I join soon a club where I can charter a C172 with variable pitch. In the end, I can not give hard evidence that I am allowed to fly that.
I can potentially show the operating handbook of that aircraft I flew which shows all the specifics.

My flight instructor is unfortunately unorganized and not accountable with these formalities. Should I request him to write retroperspectively an endorsement "I hereby certify that xxx is able to fly VP, TW, RG ... "

Thanks a lot for help and pointing in the right direction!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Yes you can - you show them your logbook. If you were trained and examined in an aeroplane with those characteristics, under EASA, you're qualified.

However, you will need differences training for nosewheel, that can be signed off by the instructor who checks you out in the C172. No harm in asking them to sign off VP/prop differences at the same time however, as it provides duplicate confirmation. There are no minimum hours requirements - just a happy instructor.

G

[Morten afd]

However, you will need differences training for nosewheel, that can be signed off by the instructor who checks you out in the C172. No harm in asking them to sign off VP/prop differences at the same time however, as it provides duplicate confirmation. There are no minimum hours requirements - just a happy instructor.
G Thanks for confirmation Ghengis. You lead me to another question, which I had in the back of my mind.
You said I would need an endorsement/difference training for nosewheel. Silly question: Why?

I interpreted it like this, that if I have a normal SEP I can fly any aircraft which does NOT have one of this 7 characteristics.
If I want to fly something more/in addition/different, I need the difference training. So I thought the tailwheel includes the nosewheel/trigear setup.

Following your logic it would mean, that if I have made the SEP on a variable pitch model, I need an endorsement for fixed pitch?

Comment: Not that I am avoiding to ask my FI for that, I just want to understand the logic.

[TheOddOne]

Following your logic it would mean, that if I have made the SEP on a variable pitch model, I need an endorsement for fixed pitch?

Probably. I have a student at the moment, who is returning to flying after a few years lay-off. His previous aircraft was a PA32, with an injected engine and a Variable-pitch prop. I'm not signing him off until I am confident that he will remember to handle the carb heat consistently (not so far!) Also, he keeps referring back to the higher speeds and different landing technique. We're currently flying a PA28 Archer, which isn't so very different in some respects from the PA32 (possibly a part of the problem).

TOO

[Genghis the Engineer]

I would take the view that going VP to fixed pitch you have to do less - no pitch control, no need to monitor MAP. But there is nothing actually new or different that is added into the flying equation.

Going from tailwheel to nosewheel you have to do things *differently* - pitch attitudes on take-off for example. This requires some additional knowledge to do safely.

G

[foxmoth]

The rules are here https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/Explanatory_Notes_EASA_List_of_Class_or_Type_Ratings-08042012.pdf

If you are flying EASA aircraft it is not just differences training in the general aspect of the aircraft such as tailwheel/CS prop/pressurisation but in individual variants though this can just be a briefing and or reading the flight manual FCL.710 addresses class and type ratings concerning variants. In order to extend his/her privileges to another variant of aircraft 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.

Differences training requires the acquisition of additional knowledge and training on an appropriate training device or the aircraft. Familiarisation training requires the acquisition of additional knowledge (GM1 FCL.710)

If you are flying any of the following you need specific difference training on the variation that needs an endorsement and these are all additions to the straight SEP (Land) - you may note that there is no SEP(LAND) with nose wheel, though if you have done all your flying on tailwheel it would be daft to jump into one without at least a checkout and I doubt that anyone would hire you an aircraft without anyway!
SEP (land)
SEP (land) with variable pitch propellers
SEP (land) with retractable undercarriage
SEP (land) with turbo or super charged engines
SEP (land) with cabin pressurisation
SEP (land) with tail wheels
SEP (land) with EFIS
SEP (land) with SLPC

[Kemble Pitts]

There is no formal 'Differernces Training' requirement for nose wheel undercarriage or fixed pitch props. That's not to say that it wouldn't be a good idea to get someone to cover how they differ and what to do about, just that they are not things listed in the Regulations as requiring Differences Training.

I'd get your instructor to anotate your log-book to say you are trained to fly tailwheel, VP prop and retractable u/c. There is no actual need but it might stop an argument/discussion where none is needed in the future.

Belt/braces...

[S-Works]

I would take the view that going VP to fixed pitch you have to do less - no pitch control, no need to monitor MAP. But there is nothing actually new or different that is added into the flying equation.

Going from tailwheel to nosewheel you have to do things *differently* - pitch attitudes on take-off for example. This requires some additional knowledge to do safely.

G

It however is not of the "required" differences training items. As a CRI you should know this....... ;)

Tailwheel
Pressurisation
Retractable Gear
Variable Pitch Propellors
Turbo Chargers/Super Chargers
SLPC
EFIS

[Whopity]

In all fairness, in the UK a CRI may train for both EASA and UK National Differences where, Schedule 8 of the ANO lists the differences for a UK SSEA rating and includes:
(3) If the aeroplane—
(a) is fitted with a tricycle undercarriage;
before exercising the privileges of the rating, the holder must complete appropriate differences
training.

[biscuit74]

Simple question, since this one is new to me - what is 'SLCP' please ?

[hoodie]

It's not 'SLCP', it's 'SLPC'. 'Single Lever Power Control', as found in Cirrus and the like.

[biscuit74]

Sorry - sloppy typing by me! Thanks hoodie. (I shall now have a think about what in that requires 'differences training'.)

And - I looked up the differences training. Hmm. Sounds depressingly like quite a lot of computer related stuff - understanding its limitations and of course the answers to the " what the **** is it doing now?" question & its implications may be a significant item!

[Genghis the Engineer]

In all fairness, in the UK a CRI may train for both EASA and UK National Differences where, Schedule 8 of the ANO lists the differences for a UK SSEA rating and includes:
And whilst I didn't train him myself, I do know somebody who got his NPPL(SSEA) in an Auster, and had to get signed off for tricycle to fly a C172.

Common sense also says that nosewheel and tailwheel aeroplanes absolutely do not fly the same near the ground - particularly on take-off, and no sensible aeroplane owner (or, likely, insurer) would ever allow a pilot with only tailwheel time to fly a tricycle aeroplane without training in how to fly a tricycle aeroplane. The regulations were clearly written by somebody who assumes that nobody ever trains in a taildragger!

G