What do you do?

[EdFred]

You get your complex endorsement in the 1980s in a normally aspirated Arrow III, you notice that your instructor signs off your complex endorsement, as well as your high performance endorsement for said flight(s). You continue flying all sorts of makes and models such as the 182, Saratoga, Cherokee six, and years later when another CFI asks what you got your commercial rating in, you say Arrow. And when asked about your high performance you say the same thing, because the first CFI said it was 201HP.

Discuss.

 

[ja_user]

If it bothers you, just get another endorsement from a new instructor. If it is ever questioned, you can show that once you found the error that you went and had it corrected.

 

[rbridges]

just make sure to throw away all your log books that had HP hours included b/c they are void.

 

[Brad Z]

If it bothers you, just get another endorsement from a new instructor. If it is ever questioned, you can show that once you found the error that you went and had it corrected.

Exactly. Next time you do a BFR, ask the CFI for an endorsement, "out of an abundance of caution".

 

[DaleB]

I can't count the number of people I've talked to who think you have to have a HP endorsement for a PA-28-201R. Sigh... nope.

But wait -- you say 1980s? Would this then not apply?

(2) The training and endorsement required by paragraph (f)(1) of this section is not required if the person has logged flight time as pilot in command of a high-performance airplane, or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a high-performance airplane prior to August 4, 1997.

 

[jesse]

Just get a new endorsement. I run into crap like this all the time -- I always look at their stuff to make sure they're legal if they're not I make them legal.

 

[EdFred]

I can't count the number of people I've talked to who think you have to have a HP endorsement for a PA-28-201R. Sigh... nope.

But wait -- you say 1980s? Would this then not apply?

They never actually flew any HP until after 8/4/97. Had the endorsement, never used it. Kinda like my multi rating!

 

[DaleB]

They never actually flew any HP until after 8/4/97. Had the endorsement, never used it. Kinda like my multi rating!

OK, that changes the picture. If there was never any PIC time in a HP aircraft until after August '97, then I guess you've got a defective HP endorsement. If it were me and i discovered that, I'd get a CFI to sign a new HP endorsement to cover my future flights in HP aircraft.

I'd have noted at the time that the HP endorsement was bogus, but that's just me... I've even talked to a CFI or two who thought an Arrow was HP. That "201" seems to throw 'em off.

 

[frfly172]

Had an endorsement from the 70s ,so in the 90s just to be sure I got an endorsement in a Saratoga.

 

[Sac Arrow]

I got my HP endorsement in a Bonanza, but I logged (counted for insurance purposes that is) my Arrow III time for quite some time before realizing it didn't apply.

Funny how one horsepower makes a difference. The real separation between a "high performance" plane and not is more the associated systems rather than the increase in power, as most under 200 hp planes have a fixed prop and most over 200 hp have constant speed props.

 

[mondtster]

Funny how one horsepower makes a difference. The real separation between a "high performance" plane and not is more the associated systems rather than the increase in power, as most under 200 hp planes have a fixed prop and most over 200 hp have constant speed props.

I think you're confusing conplex systems with higher performance. While it is generally true that most high performance airplanes have more complex systems to deal with that is not always the case.

Go spend several hundred hours flying around a Bonanza, 182, or any other plane that has a higher power rating and then go back to a 172 or Cherokee. You'll put the throttle forward on takeoff and feel like the thing is way underpowered. The ground roll will feel like an eternity and the climb will suck. Once you do that you'll see why someone thought it might be a good idea to require a proficiency check and endorsement before turning someone loose with a higher powered plane.

I really didn't think that flying higher power airplanes was a big deal. Going back to the lower power (underpowered?) planes after flying the high performance stuff was more of an education for me.

 

[MAKG1]

I got my HP endorsement in a Bonanza, but I logged (counted for insurance purposes that is) my Arrow III time for quite some time before realizing it didn't apply.

Funny how one horsepower makes a difference. The real separation between a "high performance" plane and not is more the associated systems rather than the increase in power, as most under 200 hp planes have a fixed prop and most over 200 hp have constant speed props.

I thought the point of HP was to learn about engine management and staying ahead of the aircraft. Not that hard in a 182...

There are a fair number of non-HP aircraft with CS props. 172XP, 177B, 172RG, 177RG, even a Twin Comanche.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

You get your complex endorsement in the 1980s in a normally aspirated Arrow III, you notice that your instructor signs off your complex endorsement, as well as your high performance endorsement for said flight(s). You continue flying all sorts of makes and models such as the 182, Saratoga, Cherokee six, and years later when another CFI asks what you got your commercial rating in, you say Arrow. And when asked about your high performance you say the same thing, because the first CFI said it was 201HP.

Discuss.

I'd do nothing about it till I wanted to fly a HP again. But it is sorta like trying to get unpregnant....he has already flown HP aircraft. Little point in worrying about it now.

 

[Ted]

I knew someone who got a high performance in a 200 HP Arrow. I pointed out that it was invalid, and he said "I know." I said "You've flown a Cheyenne with the same instructor. That would be a legal HP endorsement."

Some people just aren't interested in fixing it. Sigh.

 

[tmyers]

I have heard a lot of people use High Perf and Complex interchangeably but they aren't the same.

Wish my Arrow was HP

 

[tmyers]

I thought the 1 at the end was simply for the Laminar flow wing. Piper did the same thing with the 180/181

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I thought the 1 at the end was simply for the Laminar flow wing. Piper did the same thing with the 180/181

Exactly.

 

[Ted]

I have heard a lot of people use High Perf and Complex interchangeably but they aren't the same.

Wish my Arrow was HP

I always thought that a Dakota RG (or 235 HP Arrow) would be a really nice plane. And since the 235 HP 540 is the same as the 260 HP 540 (just different redline speeds), it would be even nicer as a 260 HP.

 

[tmyers]

I agree whole heatedly, but alas I am not aware of any engine STCs for the power plant on an Arrow. I don't even think there is one for the io390

 

[Ted]

I agree whole heatedly, but alas I am not aware of any engine STCs for the power plant on an Arrow. I don't even think there is one for the io390

A few years, Lycoming was starting out with what they called their "Echelon Program". The idea was to put the 390 in various aircraft that would benefit from the STC and try to get some of the highly PMA'd 360 engines out of the fleet, taking business away from the standard overhaul shops.

The Arrow would certainly be a candidate for it, but it might be a small enough fleet (and mostly trainers) that they figured it didn't matter.

 

[tmyers]

I just don't know that 10HP would make it worthwhile. 260 would make it awesome.

 

[Henning]

I think you're confusing conplex systems with higher performance. While it is generally true that most high performance airplanes have more complex systems to deal with that is not always the case.

Go spend several hundred hours flying around a Bonanza, 182, or any other plane that has a higher power rating and then go back to a 172 or Cherokee. You'll put the throttle forward on takeoff and feel like the thing is way underpowered. The ground roll will feel like an eternity and the climb will suck. Once you do that you'll see why someone thought it might be a good idea to require a proficiency check and endorsement before turning someone loose with a higher powered plane.

I really didn't think that flying higher power airplanes was a big deal. Going back to the lower power (underpowered?) planes after flying the high performance stuff was more of an education for me.

When you get into a 1200hp single with no load for the first time, it's quite eye opening, especially when it's a tail dragger and you're checking yourself out in it because it only has one seat.

 

[hindsight2020]

I always thought that a Dakota RG (or 235 HP Arrow) would be a really nice plane. And since the 235 HP 540 is the same as the 260 HP 540 (just different redline speeds), it would be even nicer as a 260 HP.

If the part 23 re-write goes through, I intend on entertaining the idea of slapping an (I)O-540 variant setup on my Arrow II. Being an already existing setup on the PA-28 line (O-540), it seems the most likely engine upgrade to succeed. The questions are going to be the allowance to increase the MGW to that of the -235/236, which would all but be required in order to accept the added weight of the (I)O-540 engine and whatever ballast may be required to keep the CG in check.

The other question is if said re-write will allow me to make such modifications. From my cursory read of the re-write, the answer seems to be yes. Not having to apply for an STC (de facto experimental) nor having to stay within the original type certificate of the aircraft under its original certification would allow me to operate the aircraft with that kind of modification, much like ex-AB.

From an engineering perspective, the only question would be the fit of the engine considering the presence of the nose gear strut and retracting mechanism inside the cowling. This of course is not a problem for the fixed gear Dakota.

An IO-390 does not interest me in the least, even if it were legal today. A comanche equivalent setup is the baseline for me to upgrade, as essentially that's what I would be creating with the Dakota RG: a newer comanche with a modern panel. Honestly, under the same part 23 re-write I would be better off buying a Comanche and making a substantial re-paneling with experimental AHRS/avionics. But I hate buying/selling and don't wish to go through that again for decades. So I rather modify the Arrow and keep it forever. With an IO-540, I would keep it forever.

 

[gismo]

When you get into a 1200hp single with no load for the first time, it's quite eye opening, especially when it's a tail dragger and you're checking yourself out in it because it only has one seat.

I suppose you flew with a full hopper on that first flight, just to make it interesting

 

[Henning]

I suppose you flew with a full hopper on that first flight, just to make it interesting

No, first flight was with an empty hopper, that's what made it interesting when I fed it throttle a little too fast.

 

[SkyHog]

I think its a valid endorsement. It is not the pilot's responsibility to tell an instructor what is needed for an endorsement. The wording of the endorsement is probably:

I certify that John Doe, 123456, has received the required training of section 61.31(f) in a Piper Arrow. I have determined that He/She is proficient in the operation and systems of a high performance airplane. xx/xx/xxxx Johnny Instructor, 1234567CFI, Exp. 12/31/2010

Right? So, its a valid endorsement. The CFI is endorsing the pilot - the pilot is not endorsing himself.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

Good Point...

I think its a valid endorsement. It is not the pilot's responsibility to tell an instructor what is needed for an endorsement. The wording of the endorsement is probably:



Right? So, its a valid endorsement. The CFI is endorsing the pilot - the pilot is not endorsing himself.

 

[poadeleted21]

I think its a valid endorsement. It is not the pilot's responsibility to tell an instructor what is needed for an endorsement. The wording of the endorsement is probably:



Right? So, its a valid endorsement. The CFI is endorsing the pilot - the pilot is not endorsing himself.

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53060

 

[BillTIZ]

They never actually flew any HP until after 8/4/97. Had the endorsement, never used it. Kinda like my multi rating!

Did the "endorsement" even exist before 8/4/97? Hence the grandfather provision?

So why would one even have an endorsement in the logbook before 1997.

 

[poadeleted20]

You get your complex endorsement in the 1980s in a normally aspirated Arrow III

Not possible. No such thing as a "complex endorsement" before 1997.

However, what someone could have received before 1997 in an Arrow III (which has a 200HP engine even though its official designation is PA28R-201) is a "high performance" endorsement, since before 1997, both retractable and over-200HP airplanes were lumped together in one regulation as "high performance."

You continue flying all sorts of makes and models such as the 182, Saratoga, Cherokee six,

Completely legal as long as you got some PIC time in one of those over-200HP airplanes prior to 1997. Until 8/4/97, that pre-97 "high performance" endorsement earned in an Arrow allowed that pilot to act as PIC in any "high performance" airplane, including those with over 200HP as well as those with retractable gear. However, in the 1997 Part 61 rewrite, the FAA split this group into "complex" for those airplanes with retractable gear/flaps/CS prop and (with a great lack of thought or foresight) "high performance" for those with an engine of more than 200HP. This foolishness created just the confusion upon which this entire thread is based.

If someone earned a pre-97 "high performance" endorsement in an Arrow, that endorsement is no longer valid for complex airplanes under the current version of 61.31(e). However, the PIC time they logged as sole manipulator on that training flight grandfathers them for complex under 61.31(e)(2), so their lack of a complex endorsement and the fact that their old HP endorsement was obtained in what is not today considered an HP aircraft are moot.

OTOH, the person who got that pre-97 "high performance" endorsement in an Arrow cannot use that endorsement to meet the current 61.31(f) HP endorsement requirement, since that endorsement must have be earned in what is now considered a HP airplane, i.e., one with an engine over 200HP, and an Arrow isn't that. Of course, that person could have, before 1997, used that pre-97 HP endorsement earned in an Arrow to act as PIC in a 230HP C-182, and then after 1997 used that C-182 PIC time to meet the grandfathering rule in 61.31(f)(2).

The problem occurs when the pilot who got a pre-97 HP endorsement in an Arrow doesn't read the rules carefully and never logs PIC time anything with over 200HP before 1997. That pilot may think s/he is legal to hop in a C-182 today as PIC, but s/he is wrong -- s/he needs a new, post-97 61.31(f) HP endorsement earned in something with over 200HP in order to legally act as PIC in that C-182. Bumped into someone like that a few years ago -- earned a HP endorsement before 1997 in an Arrow, flew it a lot, and then traded up to a Saratoga in 2003. The instructor who checked him out in that 'Toga didn't check his log carefully, and did not give him a post-97 61.31(f) HP endorsement in the 'Toga. In 2007, the pilot came to me for instrument rating training, and I discovered the omission. He got one on Day 2 of training, but technically, all his flying in the 'Toga from when he started flying it as PIC in 2003 until I filled the empty square in 2007 was illegal.

and years later when another CFI asks what you got your commercial rating in, you say Arrow. And when asked about your high performance you say the same thing, because the first CFI said it was 201HP.

If the CFI said that, s/he didn't know much about Arrow III's, since PA28R-201's are only 200HP airplanes. If someone today signed off a "high performance" endorsement in a PA28R-201, that endorsement would be invalid, and the CFI involved would be subject to corrective action by the FSDO. However, before 1997, you could legally receive a HP endorsement in a PA28R-201, because it met the pre-97 definition of HP, even though it does not have over 200HP. It's just that the HP endorsement legally earned then in that plane does not count under today's version of 61.31(f), and someone with that pre-97 endorsement earned in an Arrow would, in order to act as PIC in an over-200HP today, need either a new HP endorsement earned in an over 200HP airplane, or logged PIC time from before 1997 in something that was over 200HP.

BTW, there's a ton of inaccurate information in the posts above, and I haven't the time to address each item individually, but it's all explained in this post.

 

[EdFred]

The problem occurs when the pilot who got a pre-97 HP endorsement in an Arrow doesn't read the rules carefully and never logs PIC time anything with over 200HP before 1997. That pilot may think s/he is legal to hop in a C-182 today as PIC, but s/he is wrong -- s/he needs a new, post-97 61.31(f) HP endorsement earned in something with over 200HP in order to legally act as PIC in that C-182. Bumped into someone like that a few years ago -- earned a HP endorsement before 1997 in an Arrow, flew it a lot, and then traded up to a Saratoga in 2003. The instructor who checked him out in that 'Toga didn't check his log carefully, and did not give him a post-97 61.31(f) HP endorsement in the 'Toga. In 2007, the pilot came to me for instrument rating training, and I discovered the omission. He got one on Day 2 of training, but technically, all his flying in the 'Toga from when he started flying it as PIC in 2003 until I filled the empty square in 2007 was illegal.

Which is exactly what the case was. They had the HP endorsement from prior to 1997, but never flew anything above 200HP until after the regulation change, so he wasn't able to be grand fathered in. I simply gave him a sign off since we did a flight review in my Comanche.

 

[hindsight2020]

Further proof that there's a canyon between illegal and wrong. The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions...and FAA inane hair splitting.

 

[CJones]

When you get into a 1200hp single with no load for the first time, it's quite eye opening, especially when it's a tail dragger and you're checking yourself out in it because it only has one seat.

AT-802?

 

[Sac Arrow]

I think you're confusing conplex systems with higher performance. While it is generally true that most high performance airplanes have more complex systems to deal with that is not always the case.

Go spend several hundred hours flying around a Bonanza, 182, or any other plane that has a higher power rating and then go back to a 172 or Cherokee. You'll put the throttle forward on takeoff and feel like the thing is way underpowered. The ground roll will feel like an eternity and the climb will suck. Once you do that you'll see why someone thought it might be a good idea to require a proficiency check and endorsement before turning someone loose with a higher powered plane.

I really didn't think that flying higher power airplanes was a big deal. Going back to the lower power (underpowered?) planes after flying the high performance stuff was more of an education for me.

I thought the point of HP was to learn about engine management and staying ahead of the aircraft. Not that hard in a 182...

There are a fair number of non-HP aircraft with CS props. 172XP, 177B, 172RG, 177RG, even a Twin Comanche.

Or that hard in a Bonanza either. The speeds really aren't that different in terms of "keeping up with the airplane" and engine management procedures are practically the same as with most under 200 HP engines equipped with a CS prop. At least that was my take home knowledge from my complex/high performance training anyway.

Increased engine torque effect and P factor from a 240 to 300 hp engine in a Deb or a Bo? No way, a three bladed Arrow II requires a much harder stomp on the right rudder than either of those.

 

[Henning]

AT-802?

Bull Thrush with an 1820.

 

[jesse]

Increased engine torque effect and P factor from a 240 to 300 hp engine in a Deb or a Bo? No way, a three bladed Arrow II requires a much harder stomp on the right rudder than either of those.

In the right parts of the envelope there is most certainly an increase -- one of which I set people up to experience during such a transition and it almost always catches them off guard.

 

[kgruber]

The Piper "hershey bar" wing was laminar flow.

 

[SkyHog]

Not possible. No such thing as a "complex endorsement" before 1997.

However, what someone could have received before 1997 in an Arrow III (which has a 200HP engine even though its official designation is PA28R-201) is a "high performance" endorsement, since before 1997, both retractable and over-200HP airplanes were lumped together in one regulation as "high performance."

Completely legal as long as you got some PIC time in one of those over-200HP airplanes prior to 1997. Until 8/4/97, that pre-97 "high performance" endorsement earned in an Arrow allowed that pilot to act as PIC in any "high performance" airplane, including those with over 200HP as well as those with retractable gear. However, in the 1997 Part 61 rewrite, the FAA split this group into "complex" for those airplanes with retractable gear/flaps/CS prop and (with a great lack of thought or foresight) "high performance" for those with an engine of more than 200HP. This foolishness created just the confusion upon which this entire thread is based.

If someone earned a pre-97 "high performance" endorsement in an Arrow, that endorsement is no longer valid for complex airplanes under the current version of 61.31(e). However, the PIC time they logged as sole manipulator on that training flight grandfathers them for complex under 61.31(e)(2), so their lack of a complex endorsement and the fact that their old HP endorsement was obtained in what is not today considered an HP aircraft are moot.

OTOH, the person who got that pre-97 "high performance" endorsement in an Arrow cannot use that endorsement to meet the current 61.31(f) HP endorsement requirement, since that endorsement must have be earned in what is now considered a HP airplane, i.e., one with an engine over 200HP, and an Arrow isn't that. Of course, that person could have, before 1997, used that pre-97 HP endorsement earned in an Arrow to act as PIC in a 230HP C-182, and then after 1997 used that C-182 PIC time to meet the grandfathering rule in 61.31(f)(2).

The problem occurs when the pilot who got a pre-97 HP endorsement in an Arrow doesn't read the rules carefully and never logs PIC time anything with over 200HP before 1997. That pilot may think s/he is legal to hop in a C-182 today as PIC, but s/he is wrong -- s/he needs a new, post-97 61.31(f) HP endorsement earned in something with over 200HP in order to legally act as PIC in that C-182. Bumped into someone like that a few years ago -- earned a HP endorsement before 1997 in an Arrow, flew it a lot, and then traded up to a Saratoga in 2003. The instructor who checked him out in that 'Toga didn't check his log carefully, and did not give him a post-97 61.31(f) HP endorsement in the 'Toga. In 2007, the pilot came to me for instrument rating training, and I discovered the omission. He got one on Day 2 of training, but technically, all his flying in the 'Toga from when he started flying it as PIC in 2003 until I filled the empty square in 2007 was illegal.

If the CFI said that, s/he didn't know much about Arrow III's, since PA28R-201's are only 200HP airplanes. If someone today signed off a "high performance" endorsement in a PA28R-201, that endorsement would be invalid, and the CFI involved would be subject to corrective action by the FSDO. However, before 1997, you could legally receive a HP endorsement in a PA28R-201, because it met the pre-97 definition of HP, even though it does not have over 200HP. It's just that the HP endorsement legally earned then in that plane does not count under today's version of 61.31(f), and someone with that pre-97 endorsement earned in an Arrow would, in order to act as PIC in an over-200HP today, need either a new HP endorsement earned in an over 200HP airplane, or logged PIC time from before 1997 in something that was over 200HP.

BTW, there's a ton of inaccurate information in the posts above, and I haven't the time to address each item individually, but it's all explained in this post.

Ron - is it really the pilot's responsibility to ensure that the endorsements he receives are valid? I would think that's between the CFI and the FAA. By the wording of the endorsement, the pilot is allowed to fly high performance aircraft, and by the wording of the regulation:

(i) Received and logged ground and flight training from an authorized instructor in a high-performance airplane, or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a high-performance airplane, and has been found proficient in the operation and systems of the airplane; and
(ii) Received a one-time endorsement in the pilot's logbook from an authorized instructor who certifies the person is proficient to operate a high-performance airplane.

I would think that if a CFI gives you an endorsement, as a pilot, you satisfied the requirements he set forth to determine that you've shown proficiency. Because the CFI is wrong doesn't make the pilot wrong, right?

 

[jesse]

Ron - is it really the pilot's responsibility to ensure that the endorsements he receives are valid? I would think that's between the CFI and the FAA. By the wording of the endorsement, the pilot is allowed to fly high performance aircraft, and by the wording of the regulation:



I would think that if a CFI gives you an endorsement, as a pilot, you satisfied the requirements he set forth to determine that you've shown proficiency. Because the CFI is wrong doesn't make the pilot wrong, right?

It doesn't make it valid though Nick. You still must correct it. The FAA has been pretty clear about that -- like that DPE deal where they invalidated a bunch of certificates because they didn't like the guy.

 

[Henning]

Ron - is it really the pilot's responsibility to ensure that the endorsements he receives are valid? I would think that's between the CFI and the FAA. By the wording of the endorsement, the pilot is allowed to fly high performance aircraft, and by the wording of the regulation:



I would think that if a CFI gives you an endorsement, as a pilot, you satisfied the requirements he set forth to determine that you've shown proficiency. Because the CFI is wrong doesn't make the pilot wrong, right?

It doesn't really matter because there is no punishment involved in something like this, you'll just be told to get the endorsement. Someone will of course come along and say "If you have an accident the insurance will deny" which is also false. Unless you knowingly lied to commit fraud on your insurance application, the insurance will still be valid, the former endorsement being accepted in 'good faith'.