Differences traing - I am totally confused?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Differences traing - I am totally confused?
Differences training - so I thought I understood the concept.
Start with a SEP - a class of aircraft on which most pilots first qualify to fly. One engine and piston powered! I remember when broadly speaking if the aircraft had just the one engine any PPL could fly it!
Then of course the concept of differences training was introduced. If it had a wobbly prop. or bits that went up and down underneath, or a tail wheel, turbo charger or was pressurised these were considered differences. If you had flown one of this type before, you had grandfather rights, if not, it was a check out with an instructor.
Clear and reasonably sensible, although whether there is any evidence pilots were getting themselves into trouble through the absence of difference training I don’t know.
More recently more advanced avionics have appeared and some new systems.
That is were I am no longer sure I understand the position.
Consider a Cirrus. It comes with FADEC on all Cirrus. FADEC is considered a difference requiring a log book sign off, so to fly any Cirrus regardless of your class rating a log book sign off is required even though the aircraft may be little different from other high performance singles that don’t require a sign off.
Then there is the version of the Cirrus with “non glass” avionics. Fine. No further sign off required for that.
Then there is the Cirrus with a Garmin 430 fit. Another sign off?
Then there is the Cirrus with Integra glass - yet another sign off?
Then there is the Cirrus with the twin Integra glass screens - another sign off?
Even more subtle - there is the Garmin 1000 fit on a DA42, subtly different from the G1000 on a DA40. Apparently the G1000 sign off on the 42 is not considered satisfactory difference training on the 40, so whilst some FIs can train on the 40 without a G1000 fit, they cannot train on a 40 with the 1000 fit, even if the training is for difference training on a FADEC aircraft, with differences training on the G1000 to follow with a different but qualified instructor to deal with that aspect!!!
Then there are MEPs in which there is really no longer any such thing as a MEP class rating because in theory difference training is appropriate to every type within the class if LASORS is believed.
So in short what difference training is really required? What part of my summary is wrong and which parts are correct. Are we moving to the point where every new SEP will be considered to be different because although they have glass cockpits one is by perhaps by Garmin and one by Integra and the Garmin setup in the Cessna is different form the Diamond?
Start with a SEP - a class of aircraft on which most pilots first qualify to fly. One engine and piston powered! I remember when broadly speaking if the aircraft had just the one engine any PPL could fly it!
Then of course the concept of differences training was introduced. If it had a wobbly prop. or bits that went up and down underneath, or a tail wheel, turbo charger or was pressurised these were considered differences. If you had flown one of this type before, you had grandfather rights, if not, it was a check out with an instructor.
Clear and reasonably sensible, although whether there is any evidence pilots were getting themselves into trouble through the absence of difference training I don’t know.
More recently more advanced avionics have appeared and some new systems.
That is were I am no longer sure I understand the position.
Consider a Cirrus. It comes with FADEC on all Cirrus. FADEC is considered a difference requiring a log book sign off, so to fly any Cirrus regardless of your class rating a log book sign off is required even though the aircraft may be little different from other high performance singles that don’t require a sign off.
Then there is the version of the Cirrus with “non glass” avionics. Fine. No further sign off required for that.
Then there is the Cirrus with a Garmin 430 fit. Another sign off?
Then there is the Cirrus with Integra glass - yet another sign off?
Then there is the Cirrus with the twin Integra glass screens - another sign off?
Even more subtle - there is the Garmin 1000 fit on a DA42, subtly different from the G1000 on a DA40. Apparently the G1000 sign off on the 42 is not considered satisfactory difference training on the 40, so whilst some FIs can train on the 40 without a G1000 fit, they cannot train on a 40 with the 1000 fit, even if the training is for difference training on a FADEC aircraft, with differences training on the G1000 to follow with a different but qualified instructor to deal with that aspect!!!
Then there are MEPs in which there is really no longer any such thing as a MEP class rating because in theory difference training is appropriate to every type within the class if LASORS is believed.
So in short what difference training is really required? What part of my summary is wrong and which parts are correct. Are we moving to the point where every new SEP will be considered to be different because although they have glass cockpits one is by perhaps by Garmin and one by Integra and the Garmin setup in the Cessna is different form the Diamond?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I remember correctly this "glass cockpit" difference training is a CAA recommondation rather than required difference training.
There was a thread here about it recently.
I'm sure schools will insist on following the recomondations to the letter, hence difference training on each glass type aircraft in their fleet.
There was a thread here about it recently.
I'm sure schools will insist on following the recomondations to the letter, hence difference training on each glass type aircraft in their fleet.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A while ago I read a review of the DA42 and the reviewer expressing the opinion that the thing was so easy to fly assymetric that an ME rating done it in "should not" be valid in more conventional types, but I am not aware this has ever become law.
(Some of LASORS is law, AIUI, for areas of regulation that have been delegated to the CAA).
Same with the avionics. A G1000 is no more complex than a GNS530 integrated with the engine instruments. It isn't an FMS. It will have plenty of gotchas (I have no experience with it myself) but every IFR GPS has plenty of gotchas, and then a whole lot more when it comes to integration (or lack of) with the autopilot, the HSI, etc etc. But there is no law requiring diff training for any of this.
I would ask for references.
Club rules are something else, of course. Anything goes in club rules. They can require you to wear two pairs of underpants if they want to.
(Some of LASORS is law, AIUI, for areas of regulation that have been delegated to the CAA).
Same with the avionics. A G1000 is no more complex than a GNS530 integrated with the engine instruments. It isn't an FMS. It will have plenty of gotchas (I have no experience with it myself) but every IFR GPS has plenty of gotchas, and then a whole lot more when it comes to integration (or lack of) with the autopilot, the HSI, etc etc. But there is no law requiring diff training for any of this.
I would ask for references.
Club rules are something else, of course. Anything goes in club rules. They can require you to wear two pairs of underpants if they want to.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/srg_fcl_Notex_A1_2005.pdf
I would also be interested in references or comments from other instructors.
The above is clearly a guidance note but perhaps is indicative of things to come and is also more of a guidance note in that it implies unless a FI meets the requirements then he is not entitled to give difference training on these types - difference because of FADEC, or glass cockpits, and as I commented earlier are the differences requirements or recommendations of the CAA, the insureres or just the clubs.
I would also be interested in references or comments from other instructors.
The above is clearly a guidance note but perhaps is indicative of things to come and is also more of a guidance note in that it implies unless a FI meets the requirements then he is not entitled to give difference training on these types - difference because of FADEC, or glass cockpits, and as I commented earlier are the differences requirements or recommendations of the CAA, the insureres or just the clubs.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Massachusetts Bay Colony
Age: 57
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cirrus with FADEC?
I don't think it is correct that the SR20/22's are fitted with FADEC. Some models may be, but the vast majority are still fully mechanical fuel injection, CS prop with 'single-lever' control. Actually it's not even 'single-lever', since you still have to manually adjust mixture, where necessary.
With regard to differences training, there are two levels of requirements. The first is what the CAA will allow. The second is what the owner/insurer of the aircraft requires before they'll let you loose.
A
With regard to differences training, there are two levels of requirements. The first is what the CAA will allow. The second is what the owner/insurer of the aircraft requires before they'll let you loose.
A
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Cirrus has FADEC or anything like it.
They removed the prop RPM lever, by putting in a crude mechanical linkage to the throttle lever position such that at below a certain throttle position the engine governor is set to 2500 (IIRC) and anything above that it goes to max (2700?).
It's done for U.S. marketing reasons. Nobody with a brain would want something like that, IMHO. Why fly around at 2500 rpm?
They removed the prop RPM lever, by putting in a crude mechanical linkage to the throttle lever position such that at below a certain throttle position the engine governor is set to 2500 (IIRC) and anything above that it goes to max (2700?).
It's done for U.S. marketing reasons. Nobody with a brain would want something like that, IMHO. Why fly around at 2500 rpm?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sth Bucks UK
Age: 60
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having just done the Cirrus training I shudder to think what would have happened if I, a low houred PPL, had been let loose in one without any training.
Sure, you can hand fly it like any other aircraft, and indeed it is remarkably good fun to do so, especially the 22. However, even after being signed off and having flown solo I think I'll still go back to get some more training because I think it will make me a safer pilot.
EG: I wasn't told during the training that it would be a good idea to switch off the audible "traffic" warning feature when approaching your destination airfield, so that it doesn't drown out the joining instructions!!
Sure, you can hand fly it like any other aircraft, and indeed it is remarkably good fun to do so, especially the 22. However, even after being signed off and having flown solo I think I'll still go back to get some more training because I think it will make me a safer pilot.
EG: I wasn't told during the training that it would be a good idea to switch off the audible "traffic" warning feature when approaching your destination airfield, so that it doesn't drown out the joining instructions!!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think by far the biggest problem with all this is the severe shortage of instructors in the UK; those that really know the type and the equipment.
These avionics - and I mean anything beyond a GNS430, autopilot, etc - are pretty complex if one is to understand them thoroughly. Sure, you can just get in and hand fly, but is that good enough?
And a lot of it simply cannot be understood unless the pilot is a practicing IR flyer.
These avionics - and I mean anything beyond a GNS430, autopilot, etc - are pretty complex if one is to understand them thoroughly. Sure, you can just get in and hand fly, but is that good enough?
And a lot of it simply cannot be understood unless the pilot is a practicing IR flyer.
Fuji abound - It seems that you understand the position perfectly. SEP differences training is mandated for all of the things that you list - VP prop, retractable undercarriage, etc. MEP differences training is mandated for any new MEP type. Everything else - FADEC, Garmin 1000, etc. is advised but is not (yet) mandatory.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The South
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a couple of AICs worth reading:
DIFFERENCES TRAINING IN SINGLE PILOT AIRCRAFT WITH ELECTRONIC ('GLASS') FLIGHT INSTRUMENTS
and
DIFFERENCES TRAINING IN SINGLE PILOT PISTON ENGINED AEROPLANES WITH SINGLE POWER LEVER CONTROLS
They're currently advisory.
Mark
DIFFERENCES TRAINING IN SINGLE PILOT AIRCRAFT WITH ELECTRONIC ('GLASS') FLIGHT INSTRUMENTS
and
DIFFERENCES TRAINING IN SINGLE PILOT PISTON ENGINED AEROPLANES WITH SINGLE POWER LEVER CONTROLS
They're currently advisory.
Mark
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With "difference training" I assume that any ICAO can provide the sign off? I fly most of the time a "simple" SEP, but have been known to fly complex high performance types in the UK. I don't have a JAR sign off for anything.
However I also fly / have flown Complex, high performance, glass aircraft along with MEP aeroplanes in the USA, for which I have the required sign offs / ratings.
I assume that these "sign offs" carry over in the same way as "ratings" carry over to G reg as well?
However I also fly / have flown Complex, high performance, glass aircraft along with MEP aeroplanes in the USA, for which I have the required sign offs / ratings.
I assume that these "sign offs" carry over in the same way as "ratings" carry over to G reg as well?
Differences Training is listed in the ANO and requires an Instructor sign-off; the CAA provide FIs with stickers to place in your log book when they do it. For SEP aircraft they do not expire.
Familiarisation Training, is the application of common sense before you fly something you are not familiar with. It does not require a sticker or a sign off or an Instructor. It is up to the pilot to seek advice on how much training would be appropriate.
Incidentaly, Differences Training was born at the same time at the SEP rating! July 99.
Familiarisation Training, is the application of common sense before you fly something you are not familiar with. It does not require a sticker or a sign off or an Instructor. It is up to the pilot to seek advice on how much training would be appropriate.
Incidentaly, Differences Training was born at the same time at the SEP rating! July 99.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are two kinds of things in life
1) mandatory
2) all others
If something is in category 2) then why try to get a logbook entry? One may as well get one's logbook signed for attenting a CAA "safety" seminar
(and yes people do actually do that; they all queue up at the end for that magic rubber stamp which - coming from the ultimate arbiter of airmanship - guarantees immortality)
Today, you can buy a plane with a big LCD which integrates a GNS530 and a load of engine instruments, and perhaps even an autopilot.
5 years ago, you could have bought the same plane without a big LCD, with (going off somewhere for a copy/paste...)
KLN94 BRNAV IFR certified GPS
KMD550 multifunction display (GPS moving map + stormscope)
WX500 stormscope displaying on KMD550
KCS55 slaved HSI
KI229 dual-needle slaved RMI (ADF+VOR)
2nd altimeter
2nd electric horizon
EDM700 6 cylinder CHT & EGT monitor with data logging
KN63 DME
KR87 ADF
GTX330 Mode S Transponder
2x KX155A COM/VOR/ILS (dual independent ILS)
PMA7000 intercom with markers & music input
Shadin fuel computer, calibrated, linked to KLN94B GPS
KFC225 autopilot with flight director, ALT and VS preselects, tracks VOR/GPS/LOC/ILS and is authorised for an ILS down to 200ft AGL
and what training do you legally need for that? Absolutely none. It would be up to the pilot to read the manuals and to dig out somebody (most likely an airline pilot; hopeless looking for instructors who know) who can work it out and explain it.
Paradoxically, one needs legal training for a CS prop, which hardly needs any. One doesn't need any legal training for that mysterious red knob, but that actually needs quite a lot of training to be used correctly.
One could argue that all significant avionics should need mandatory training, and I would agree, but where the hell would the instructors come from? They would have to be imported from the USA! To train this stuff, you need to be somebody who actually uses it, and nearly all UK instructors never fly anywhere.
1) mandatory
2) all others
If something is in category 2) then why try to get a logbook entry? One may as well get one's logbook signed for attenting a CAA "safety" seminar
(and yes people do actually do that; they all queue up at the end for that magic rubber stamp which - coming from the ultimate arbiter of airmanship - guarantees immortality)Today, you can buy a plane with a big LCD which integrates a GNS530 and a load of engine instruments, and perhaps even an autopilot.
5 years ago, you could have bought the same plane without a big LCD, with (going off somewhere for a copy/paste...)
KLN94 BRNAV IFR certified GPS
KMD550 multifunction display (GPS moving map + stormscope)
WX500 stormscope displaying on KMD550
KCS55 slaved HSI
KI229 dual-needle slaved RMI (ADF+VOR)
2nd altimeter
2nd electric horizon
EDM700 6 cylinder CHT & EGT monitor with data logging
KN63 DME
KR87 ADF
GTX330 Mode S Transponder
2x KX155A COM/VOR/ILS (dual independent ILS)
PMA7000 intercom with markers & music input
Shadin fuel computer, calibrated, linked to KLN94B GPS
KFC225 autopilot with flight director, ALT and VS preselects, tracks VOR/GPS/LOC/ILS and is authorised for an ILS down to 200ft AGL
and what training do you legally need for that? Absolutely none. It would be up to the pilot to read the manuals and to dig out somebody (most likely an airline pilot; hopeless looking for instructors who know) who can work it out and explain it.
Paradoxically, one needs legal training for a CS prop, which hardly needs any. One doesn't need any legal training for that mysterious red knob, but that actually needs quite a lot of training to be used correctly.
One could argue that all significant avionics should need mandatory training, and I would agree, but where the hell would the instructors come from? They would have to be imported from the USA! To train this stuff, you need to be somebody who actually uses it, and nearly all UK instructors never fly anywhere.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not sure this is the whole answer.
I am told that most instructors are not qualified to train on a G1000 aircraft.
That was the aspect I was querying. What is the legislative background if any, and what are the consequences.
In other words why cant a pilot with a SEP PPL fly a G1000 aircraft and why cant the usual FI convert or teach on them?
I0540
I think there is a conceptual differences between the type of avionics fit you outline and a “glass” cockpit. However “advanced” things like mode S transponders may appear to those not accustom to their use, they still look and feel like a transponder. Conceptually they work in the same way. Consider another example - whatever form an VOR/ILS takes, it looks like a VOR/ILS, whether it has the frequency on the unit or on a radio box. It also works in much the same way.
Glass screens on the other hand “transparently” integrated all of the stand alone avionics most pilots are use to. Then they change the way in which some work. Gone is the combined glide slope that most are use to, speed tapes and trend indicators replace analogue dials, and until you know which buttons to push there is nothing that remotely looks like a transponder.
Conceptually therefore most pilots will find the avionics take rather more learning whereas however sophisticated a more conventional fit the transition is usually very straight forward.
Personally I think anything with a glass cockpit should require a type rating - not a type rating necessarily specif to the aircraft but specif to the use of glass cockpits in so far as the G1000 system is sufficiently similar to an Integra cockpit for a pilot familiar with one to know what they should do to transition to the other.
I am told that most instructors are not qualified to train on a G1000 aircraft.
That was the aspect I was querying. What is the legislative background if any, and what are the consequences.
In other words why cant a pilot with a SEP PPL fly a G1000 aircraft and why cant the usual FI convert or teach on them?
I0540
I think there is a conceptual differences between the type of avionics fit you outline and a “glass” cockpit. However “advanced” things like mode S transponders may appear to those not accustom to their use, they still look and feel like a transponder. Conceptually they work in the same way. Consider another example - whatever form an VOR/ILS takes, it looks like a VOR/ILS, whether it has the frequency on the unit or on a radio box. It also works in much the same way.
Glass screens on the other hand “transparently” integrated all of the stand alone avionics most pilots are use to. Then they change the way in which some work. Gone is the combined glide slope that most are use to, speed tapes and trend indicators replace analogue dials, and until you know which buttons to push there is nothing that remotely looks like a transponder.
Conceptually therefore most pilots will find the avionics take rather more learning whereas however sophisticated a more conventional fit the transition is usually very straight forward.
Personally I think anything with a glass cockpit should require a type rating - not a type rating necessarily specif to the aircraft but specif to the use of glass cockpits in so far as the G1000 system is sufficiently similar to an Integra cockpit for a pilot familiar with one to know what they should do to transition to the other.
