I think for many of these pilots many, many flights, and.... no death!

I have known many pilots who have been trained not just to fly a 'plane, but to understand flying planes more generally, so that self checkouts are safe and practical.

I have self checked out on many types, and the only one of those which caught my attention was the Tomahawk, I was too cavalier with it. It was okay, it was me not respecting it. Once I respected it, we were both fine!

I will never criticize a pilot who seeks a checkout, that's always a good idea. However, anyone presenting themselves as an instructor on that class of aircraft should be able to safely self checkout if they need to. Fair enough that they might take an hour, and a few circuits to get comfortable, but these 'planes are not difficult to fly if you've read the flight manual, and apply some of your experience to the task.

TMG = Touring Motor Glider

SEP Class = Single Engine Piston generic rating.

Type = Something which has a Type Rating, not a generic Class Rating.

Variant = different breed / model of SEP Class aeroplane. Thus a C152 and PA28 are different SEP Class variants - if the pilot has only flown a C152 and now wants to fly a PA28, it is a legal requirement to receive familiarisation on the PA28. If it's a PA28 with a VP prop, the pilot needs to receive 'differences training' if he/she hasn't flown a VP prop aeroplane before - and that has to be with an instructor.

After a fatal accident in the UK many years ago, the CAA came up with 'strong recommendation' that an instructor should not conduct instruction on a variant he/she hadn't flown before, until such time as he/she had received variant familiarisation - if I recall correctly this was an accident in a Cherokee and the pilot had only flown Warriors previously. One used KIAS, the other mph....

I had about 8000 hrs TT when I asked another FI to give me a quick 'familiarisation' trip in a Cherokee 180 as I'd only flown 140s and Warriors before then. I'm glad I did as there were several clear differences - as a student with whom I was flying one day also discovered when he pulled out the plunger type mixture control instead of the carb heat...with the predictable result (briefly!). All our other aircraft used quadrant-type mixture controls...:\

From a US perspective I've been following this thread with a mixture of amazement and amusement. It's certainly a miracle that pilots aren't dying by the thousand without the wisdom of the EASA/CAA.

In FAA land, once you have a PPL-ASEL you're good to go in any single-engine piston or turbo-prop airplane less than 12500 lbs. (Well, endorsements are needed for certain characteristics, like retractable and high power, but they are not type specific).

Any further regulation comes from insurers and (for rentals) the aircraft owners. Any FBO or club will want an instructor checkout before they'll let you take one of their planes out on your own, even if you claim to have 5000 hours in type. Though if you really do, it won't take long. I could go out and buy myself say a PC12, and the insurance would want a number of things including most likely an approved training course. But the FAA would be fine with me just jumping in and trying to fly it.

Thanks BEagle, that clears things up!

If any pilot, let alone an instructor, got themselves in trouble mixing up knots with MPH, or grabbing the wrong knob, they really should not be solo yet. If I'd crashed a plane for a speed units error, I'd be trying to think up a lie for a way better sounding reason than that!

In Canada, privileges are about the same as what N5296S describes, other than we do not have such a thing as a tailwheel endorsement either, just jump in and fly it if you like (insurance, notwithstanding).

My first flights in Tomahawk, Bellanca Viking, Twin Comanche, Found Amphibian, and Piper Navajo, Piper Dakota, Piper Turbo Arrow 4, Tiger Moth, Cessna 206, Ercoupe, Piper Super Cub, Piper Colt, C 172 taildragger, Cessna 305, and Cessna 182 amphibian were all solo flights, as in each case, there was no other pilot available to check me out.

In the case of the 182 Amphibian, I learned of the silliness of EASA differences training regulation. I was told in Norway by the CAA staff member there that in addition to it being a complex aircraft, and seaplane, it also required differences training as it is glass cockpit. Strangely, even though the Norwegian owner, whom I was training in it, did have the glass cockpit differences training in a G1000 172, that did not count toward the 182 as a seaplane. He would have to get seaplane glass cockpit differences training. As a look came over the face of the NCAA guy explaining this to us, I asked if he was serious. He actually paused, and re read the EASA requirement to confirm that it was indeed true. He seemed as stupefied to tell us, as I was to hear it! I replied by saying: "where do I sign for him, 'cause I'm the only other insured pilot of this plane, and it's probably the only glass cockpit amphibian in Norway!". I believe that the NCAA guy decided that this did not need to be an issue, and we heard nothing more about it....

That's incorrect. G1000 is G1000 regardless of the aircraft it's fitted to.

Just going back to the original question.

The aeroplane is syndicate owned - they have one or more trusted people who are co-owners (most likely) whose flying standards and judgement are known and accepted to be of an acceptable standard for that group.

A new member joins - who until proven otherwise is an unknown quantity. He wants to use an instructor who is also an unknown quantity.

Legalities here to me are pretty much secondary - the syndicate has every right and reason to make sure that anybody flying their aeroplane meets their acceptable standards. And also if this 17,000hr instructor is both good and has a good level of professional humility - he'll have absolutely no issue with being checked out by a PPL who knows the aeroplane well, and hopefully it won't take very long at-all.

So, myself, I think that there is no issue here - just do it. Fighting the requirement just indicates to the syndicate an unprofessional attitude towards flying the aeroplane, and that's no way to start off as a new member.

G

Perhaps, as long as it's a wheelplane. Once the G1000 (or other glass cockpit) is installed in a seaplane, according to the EASA guidance I was shown (at the Norwegian CAA office in Bodo), additional training is required. If a different reference is available, I'd be interested to see it.

I am a seaplane examiner and have never seen such regulation under Part FCL. Differences training is defined under Part FCL and does not discriminate between the class of aircraft.

Inclined to agree with you now...

I've just had an email with a list of instructors they are "happy" for me to use - something which before was very wishy washy (different people in the group were telling me different things regarding who I should and shouldn't approach etc.) and being a new member (as some have sussed out) I just went and asked advice from my old school.

So, upshot is - I will be arranging training through the group.