Logbook endorsements question.

[takeiteasypilot]

Hi people,
It's my first post on pprune.org, I'm very happy to join you finally.

I'm about to move abroad for a job. I live in Poland, and all of my training and flying till now took place here. Although I heve Jeppesen Pro logbook- all endorsements were made in Polish. I have enough space in my logbook (and time in my life ) to get all this endorsment in english, what seems to be better when applying for a job abroad. The problem is- there are no instructors or HT here who knows how to put in in english. The problem is not to translete it word by word, but to use standard phrases used for these purposes in english-speaking countries.

Could You give me an example of an endorsement... let's say for a new type of aircraft? The best would be some example from UK I think.

Respect and regards.

[Whopity]

Just get the school to Certify: Training Completed At: and give the Registration Number and ideally a school stamp.

[takeiteasypilot]

Thanks. Any other suggestions?

[Cobalt]

This is a list of typical "endorsements" you would find in a logbook.

All of the below are typically with instructor/examiner name, licence number, and signature.

• Differences Training Completed - Variable Pitch Propeller
• Differences Training Completed - Retractable Undercarriage
• Differences Training Completed - Turbocharged Engine
• Differences Training Completed - Cessna 421C

[or any other difference, just use the list in the rules. Note that under EASA, you do not need differences training for individual single engine aircraft, unless they have any of the special features listed in the regs]

For tests, it is straightforward:

• PPL Skill Test - Pass
• MEP Rating Skill Test - Pass
• SEP Proficiency Check - Pass

and so on for others

[Whopity]

I don't think you need worry about getting anything translated!

[mad_jock]

That's not what he means.

The poles still haven't completely transferred over in their minds from the old system onto JAR or for that matter EASA.

So for every type of aircraft they fly including ones in the SEP class they get a endorsement in there log book.

And even the same aircraft with something like a garmin 530 instead of a flipflop radio they want an endorsement.

So as Whopity says you don't need any translation because the rest of Europe doesn't require the endorsement's apart from the ones stipulated in EASA FCL for tailwheel, CS prop, retractable, turbocharger, pressurisation, EFIS, etc etc.

You most certainly don't need them for Cessna 150,Cessna 152,PA38,PA28 Garmin 430, Garmin 530 etc.

[S-Works]

Actually.... Poland is fully EASA compliant and issuing PartFCL licences. I spend half my life over there at the moment doing skill tests.

It is a requirement now that all EASA compliant endorsements are entered in English. If you have any that are in Polish there is no need to translate.

[mad_jock]

I agree bose but there are legacy practises which are still on going which aren't required under EASA.

The requiring a sign off and official training for every different SEP type is one of them

[S-Works]

The requiring a sign off and official training for every different SEP type is one of them

Nope. If there is anything like that going on then its not required and just a result of people not bothering to actually look at whats needed.

I have it in writing from the Polish CAA that none of those endorsements are required anymore. The only things that require endorsing are those from Part FCL and the endorsements are to be made in English. If you want to verify it I can give you the email address of Norbert Legowik who manages the licencing department and he will give you chapter and verse. If you look on the Polish CAA authorised Examiners list you will see me there so I have been through this chapter and verse with them.

[mad_jock]

You know that and I know that.

Unfortunately there are quite a few that don't.

And there also some flight schools who are making the pilots jump through the hoops and paying out cash thinking they are getting some sort of "qualification" which means something.

Which is why the poster presumably wants these endorsements translated because they believe it will mean something when they fly outside Poland.

We both know it means absolutely nothing hence no need to get them translated.

I have even had a phone call from a commercial pilot saying they aren't qualified to fly a particular airframe because it has a garmin 530 fitted instead of Collins flip flop radios. Which apparently is another favourite for raping people with. And this is an ATPL holder with a multicrew type rating.

[S-Works]

Maybe so MJ. The point I am making is they are not required and we should be saying so rather than resigning ourselves to 'it happens locally'.

So in answer to the original poster, Poland is fully part FCL compliant. The only entries you need in your log book are those required under part FCL. If anyone tells you otherwise, contact the individual I named above and they will confirm this.

[mad_jock]

The poles still haven't completely transferred over in their minds from the old system onto JAR or for that matter EASA

That's what we are saying, they aren't required and nobody is interested in them apart from fellow Pole pilots and schools.

There is zero debate that Poland is now fully EASA compliant, but in practise there are a lot of hangovers from before.

[Cobalt]

The same happened in Germany at the transition to JAR. They also had a requirement for differences training ("Einweisung") for each SEP type. The format was prescribed and included 3 solo touch an goes under supervision.

After JAR-FCL was adopted, they still insisted on doing this when you wanted to fly a new type. In practice, this was no different than the usual "club checkout" you will fly in any country when you have not flown a particular type before or never rented from that particular club/school before, except for the 3x solo landings. They still wrote something in your logbook that was not required.

No idea whether schools still insist on the 3 solo landings before allowing you to rent, but I would not be surprised, old habits die hard and it has been only 11 years since JAR-FCL was introduced in Germany...

[takeiteasypilot]

Thanks a lot to all of you guys, specially Cobalt.
I don't consider translating for fashion, but to make my future employer (in Africa) understood the path of my training. On the other side as far as I know EASA regs. require familiarisation training or difference training for any new AC within a class. Currently I fly Antonov An2, and for example, there's no way to fly it in Poland or anywhere without fam training although it's mtom is 5600kg and it's single engine poison. Maybe CAA would never check such endorsement, but the company must know you were trained. Beside... fam training for An2 costs about 3000€ so it's a precious endorsement . Thanks for your help once again.

[mad_jock]

Nope you have been lied to there is NO requirement for you to have differences training within the SEP class. MEP there is.

There maybe operator requirements to fly a particular flavour of SEP but nothing required.

Any company employing you would have to put you through an operators conversion course so the point is mute.

[Cobalt]

takeitieasypilot,

there is a difference between differences training, which requires actual flying training, and familiarisation training, which only requires "additional knowledge" so can be done by reading the manual. Only differences training needs to be entered into the logbook and signed.

But back to real life - an AN2, while technically only requiring taildragger, VP prop, and, depending on engine, turbocharged engine differences training, will always require specialist training - you would not jump into it straight from a tiger moth, would you?

So for your new operator, evidence of you having done the training and your past experience on type should be enough, a specific endorsement in the logbook is not required

[takeiteasypilot]

Ok, understood. The fact is that what Cobalt wrote about Germany is also true for Poland- it's a kind of tradition that pilot has right to fly a type after 3 solos. Most GA here is still based on flying clubs, which during communistic era were national property. Flying and training was literally FOR FREE, but strick rules were put on training so each type was a big thing. In fact before jars An2 TR was a license endorsement just like 737 ect.
Anyway I have all my types in my logbook as separate endorsements and, thanks to you, now I know how they should sound in English (in Polish each is just a stamp... ).

[Trim Stab]

but to make my future employer (in Africa)

If you are going to fly in Africa, you are very lucky if your licence still has individual types stamped on it. I recently did all the conversion exams and medical for one African authority, but they refused to issue me a licence because I had no "types" stamped in my EASA licence.