Glass cockpit/FADEC training AIC
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glass cockpit/FADEC training AIC
Sorry if everyone else read this in September but I've only just, in a slack moment, caught up with the recent AICs.
The AIC on differences training for glass cockpit/FADEC aircraft seems to me to make a lot of sense - in parts. (See http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/cu...0_P_070_en.pdf). But there is one thing I don't understand: if you've trained ab initio on steam dials and/or separate engine controls, you are required to undertake difference training before being let loose on glass cockpit/FADEC modern machines. Fair enough - perhaps unnecessary to legislate on it, but it seem sensible.
But the AIC states that if you have been trained on glass cockpit/FADEC and move to the old steam dials/separate controls you are 'advised' to undertake difference training - not mandatory.
Is it me, or is that barmy? Surely it would be even worse that way round? Imagine an IMCR holder trying to fly an approach using old analogue instruments - surely that's the dangerous situation they should legislate to avoid?
Tim
The AIC on differences training for glass cockpit/FADEC aircraft seems to me to make a lot of sense - in parts. (See http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/cu...0_P_070_en.pdf). But there is one thing I don't understand: if you've trained ab initio on steam dials and/or separate engine controls, you are required to undertake difference training before being let loose on glass cockpit/FADEC modern machines. Fair enough - perhaps unnecessary to legislate on it, but it seem sensible.
But the AIC states that if you have been trained on glass cockpit/FADEC and move to the old steam dials/separate controls you are 'advised' to undertake difference training - not mandatory.
Is it me, or is that barmy? Surely it would be even worse that way round? Imagine an IMCR holder trying to fly an approach using old analogue instruments - surely that's the dangerous situation they should legislate to avoid?
Tim
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I went from traditional to glass - I wouldnt want to have gone the other way!
I am not sure there would be a huge issue transtitioning to the six pack but I do think there would be an issue dealing with situational awareness without some form of MFD.
Were we really flying around once upon a time without moving maps?
I am not sure there would be a huge issue transtitioning to the six pack but I do think there would be an issue dealing with situational awareness without some form of MFD.
Were we really flying around once upon a time without moving maps?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the text from LASORS 2919.
It does indeed seem odd that it is optional.
Pilots trained in using Integrated EFIS displays but not trained on mechanical flight instruments, are likely to have established a scan pattern quite different from the techniques required by a conventional, mechanical instrument layout. These pilots are strongly advised to obtain differences training on conventional instruments, including selective radial scan techniques, before flying an aircraft with conventional mechanical instrumentation. EFIS can provide very precise information, which requires little interpretation, as opposed to conventional instrument displays, which require considerable interpretation and different scan techniques. A key element in this type of training, on whatever system, is ensuring the pilot fully understands what information is available, what is being displayed and how to interpret the display correctly.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is advisory; it is not law.
Makes sense, sure. When you jump into a new plane, you need to find out which knobs and dials do what Nobody sensible disputes that.
The debate is wholly concerned with where the line is drawn to (a) suggest and (b) mandate specific training.
Under ICAO you have the old Type Ratings and Class Ratings which formalise training at specific levels. Some of this is rather contrived e.g. the "complex" category triggered by a CS prop or retractable gear, both of which are completely trivial compared to some modern avionics which, frankly, a lot of people would not get their head around unless they get a lot of training of which none is mandatory.
A TR for a plane above 5700kg is equally contrived. It's just a line in the sand. The plane itself might be really simple and easy to fly.
Makes sense, sure. When you jump into a new plane, you need to find out which knobs and dials do what
Nobody sensible disputes that. The debate is wholly concerned with where the line is drawn to (a) suggest and (b) mandate specific training.
Under ICAO you have the old Type Ratings and Class Ratings which formalise training at specific levels. Some of this is rather contrived e.g. the "complex" category triggered by a CS prop or retractable gear, both of which are completely trivial compared to some modern avionics which, frankly, a lot of people would not get their head around unless they get a lot of training of which none is mandatory.
A TR for a plane above 5700kg is equally contrived. It's just a line in the sand. The plane itself might be really simple and easy to fly.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So does this:
not have the force of law?
Tim
2 Pilots converting to a SLPC aeroplane for the first time, within the Single Engine Piston Class Ratings
2.1 With immediate effect, such pilots are required to complete differences training to the satisfaction of an appropriately qualified Class
Rating Instructor or Flight Instructor. Notwithstanding that these systems may be largely automatic, it remains important that the pilot
understands how the systems work and how to use them correctly in all normal, abnormal and emergency operations. Pilots with log book
evidence to show that they have been operating these aircraft as pilot in command, prior to the date of this Circular are exempt from this
requirement.
2.1 With immediate effect, such pilots are required to complete differences training to the satisfaction of an appropriately qualified Class
Rating Instructor or Flight Instructor. Notwithstanding that these systems may be largely automatic, it remains important that the pilot
understands how the systems work and how to use them correctly in all normal, abnormal and emergency operations. Pilots with log book
evidence to show that they have been operating these aircraft as pilot in command, prior to the date of this Circular are exempt from this
requirement.
Tim
