Wot 1.3 said. Plus, from when I part-owned a yak52 many years ago, retract, VP, supercharged.

I think that a sticker (or entry and signature) is always prudent, even if not strictly required, since it can avoid complications if somebody asks difficult questions in the future.

Subverting the conversation a bit, I wonder from the list:

What's the maximum number of those you can manage to require on a single aeroplane?

My personal record is I think only 4 on one aeroplane (VP prop, retract, turbo and EFIS) on a G1000 equipped Turbo-Arrow, but there must be aeroplanes that require more of them at once?

Any advance on my four?

G

If you were flying aircraft which would now require differences training before the advent of JAR, your have 'grandfather' rights so do not need the sticker.

The sticker thing is a pile of bollocks and there are huge numbers out there that don't have them for aircraft that they have flown for years.

There are a load out there that say you have grandfather rights that as long as you have some time in your log book from pre JAR you are able to fly them.

I got someone to sign off stickers for VP prop,pressurisation,retractable and EFIS. Just in case but then again I have never flown a SEP with any of the above.

I don't think it matters just now but come EASA things might change. I can just see some french inspector wanting to see your differences training and the sticker is at home in your first log book.

I've never flown anything pressurised as pilot, but am told by those who have flown both piston and jet aircraft with pressurisation that the pressurisation of a piston engined aeroplane is so different from turbine aircraft that you'd be wise to get that bit of training done from scratch anyhow if you do.

G

I did look into the grandfather rights recently, cant remember the exact date but you have to have logged the time on type prior to some point in 2001. Fortunately for me means I have grandfather rights for tailwheel.....

Didnt get a 'sticker' for VP or Retractable?!?!, just a sign off in my logbook during my CPL though it was several years ago....

Tailwheel is a hoot, you'll love it !! (though sometimes not so much in a hot ship with a gusty crosswind!) :\

It depends Genghis.

If you did your pressurisation on a fancy commercial where basically you stick in your landing altitude and it sorts the rest out I would say thats correct.

But if you learn't your trade on an old heap which has a manual differential setup with variable cabin climb rates and variable flows its slightly different. Every system is different and although learning what knobs do what takes a few mins. Its more the fact that you have it in your work cycle to constantly monitor the sod that has any effect on the safety of using it. You can laugh but even in my TP I work on a 10 min cycle and its.

Top panel for the electrics, down through the engine instruments, across to check the nav boxes and then down to the hydraulics and then the pressurisation. I have lost count how many times I have picked up stuff doing this, usually a good time before it will fire off the CAP panel.

Maybe you need to check Sch.7 of the ANO

Well there you go, something stupid in the ANO.
I'm pretty sure all of the Flying Examiners I've met didn't even know that was a requirement.

That said, what I mentioned already stands, it's sensible to take an instructional flight on a new aircraft type which would account for "appropriate differences training". Just make sure you get your logbook signed :)/stickered.

It's still completely wrong even if it is in the ANO.

I confess that I hadn't spotted the 140 kias differences requirement before either.

G

I guess that as was 'signed off' as OK by the checkout instructor on the Chippy (back in 1979) and the Yak (some years later) I'm covered.

I never had any stickers to put in log books.
As has been said, grandfather rights pertain for SEP differences (presumably SSEA too, but don't quote me on it). So any pre-JAR experience would remove the specific requirement for an instructor sign-off.

In the absence of specific guidelines, I usually put an entry of "type training for ..... and differences training for .... completed satisfactorily" with signature and number in the log book.

On occasion, I would send someone solo on grass with tailwheel, before completing the training on hard runways and wheel landings etc. To be solo, did they needed the sign-off or was it the same as instructor supervised solo for a student. Generally I signed off at that stage, but carried on with the tailwheel check-out afterwards.

I don't understand this obsession with stickers. This is just another piece of UK CAA bolleaux introduced by someone who doesn't understand the requirements (which includes just about anyone in L&TS these days). All that is required by JAR-FCL is that the instructor carrying out the differences training signs the logbook, not some scruffy piece of sticky paper.

I dont know why people are getting so worked up about the sticker thing. Its just a simple little thing that can be stuck on the relevant page(ratings or whatever) in someones logbook that shows what the nature of the differences training was and the date it was completed. A quick reference guide if you like. Saves having to trawl through pages of logbook entries to find the relevant training flights and Instructor endorsement. I always use them if I carry out differences training with someone.

I take trike pilots for a run in my 0-320 powered Auster and they soon learn that the rudder is more than a foot rest.

They also learn that they have to fly the aeroplane all the time when it's bumpy lest they also test their skills at recovery from unusual attitides.

And they come to realise that a good approach is essential when they lose sight of the runway in front of them while still travelling at 40+ knots some feet in the air above it.

kaz3g

Thanks to everyone for the great response beginning next year i will hope to do my tailwheel endorsement. just one more question anyone know of a good and well priced flight school in Florida that does training in a tail dragger??? and any specific aircraft that i should look for to do the training in or it doesn't really matter what type of aircraft it is, of course as long as it is a tailwheel.
Thanks again for all the great info, hope you all had a Merry Christmas and have a Happy New Year.
Safe flying

So if you don't have any stickers (nor grandfather rights), you can't fly anything that has either a nosewheel or a tailwheel. Me-263 anyone? I guess a tail SKID would be OK?

Conventional Undercarriage
 

Hi Clintonb,

These days there is a certain amount of very poor tailwheel training on the market, so be careful whom you go to. For preference, go to a high hours career instructor. All too commonly, club instructors don't teach the wheeler landing technique and some don't even teach crosswind landing at all, which is SCANDALOUS.

Remember also that some tail-draggers are easier than others to taxi or land. The Tiger Moth and the Cub are easy, however the Auster for example was a bugger.

In a tricycle, you more or less drive to the runway hold and only really start flying once you have lined up for takeoff. Once landed and off the runway, you more or less drive back to the apron.

In a tail dragger you are flying the aeroplane from the moment you release the brakes to commence taxiing to the runway to the moment you shut the engine down after parking on the apron. While taxiing, you have to weave from side to side to see round the nose and know which way to hold the control column to avoid one wing lifting.

I did my PPL on tailwheel aircraft, (or conventional undercarriage as we called it in those days) in 1960 on Austers, when we were nearly all taildragger pilots. I was taught by a guy who had flown heavy, multi-engine tail draggers through much of WWII, and he taught both three point and wheeler (aka roller) landings and both crabbing and wing-down approaches. I suggest you regard these as a bosic requirement. In particular, I was taught to use wheeler landings always whenever landing cross wind.

When I returned to taildraggers in 2005, after a break of many years, I was taught only the wing-down approach and to use a two point, one wing down method of cross wind landing (which, incidentally I had never seen before). I soon found that this was adequate only for light to moderate cross winds. Using this technique in a wind that had grown probably a bit too strong while I was airborne, I had my first and only ever ground-loop.

I also strongly recommend that before training you first read 'The Compleat Taildragger Pilot' by H. S. Plourde and then you will know what you need and whether you are getting your money's worth.

Above all, go ahead and do it; it will sharpen up your flying skills.

Good luck!

BroomstickPilot.

Ghengis, you should know better! A crappy approach should be followed by a GA instead of an arrival (there are those of course with the experience to convert a poor approach to a good landing - these are normally experienced instructors), but NO approach should end with the aircraft in anything other than a fly able aircraft.

As far as:-
I certainly agree with the first bit, never had a problem landing an Auster though (and I have flown a few in my time), never was a great fan of them though.:ok:

Foxmoth, I said eventually, not immediately. Of-course a crappy approach should be followed by a GA, but the aeroplane will still have to stop on the ground some time.

G