Complex Endorsement

455 Bravo Uniform

455 Bravo Uniform

Final Approach
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
6,956
Location
KLAF
Display Name
455 Bravo Uniform
Home Airfield
KLAF
I have asked 2 different CFIs and got 2 different answers. So why am I even asking POA and assuming I'll get consensus, lol.

I went to 14 CFR 61.1(b)(3), definition of "complex". I'm interpreting the "and" statement to mean if a plane only has all three - flaps, retract, CS prop - that an endorsement is needed.

So my interpretation is that a 182 pilot (non-RG) does not need a log book endorsement to be legal.

Am I right or wrong?
 
I agree with your understanding. The plane needs all three to be considered complex.
 
High performance endorsement, Yes.
Complex endorsement, No.

So, yes. An endorsement is needed. High Performance, not Complex.
 
You are correct, no complex endorsement for a non-RG 182. By the same measure, many Globe Swifts do not require a complex endorsement since they do not have a constant-speed prop.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
I have asked 2 different CFIs and got 2 different answers. So why am I even asking POA and assuming I'll get consensus, lol.

I went to 14 CFR 61.1(b)(3), definition of "complex". I'm interpreting the "and" statement to mean if a plane only has all three - flaps, retract, CS prop - that an endorsement is needed.

So my interpretation is that a 182 pilot (non-RG) does not need a log book endorsement to be legal.

Am I right or wrong?
Click to expand...
If it's on floats, it only needs flaps and CS prop.
 
Don't want to confuse the issue, but that's soooo different from the old days.
 
A jet doesn't need a complex endorsement either. Just a type rating.
 
As stated needs all 3 unless its a seaplane.

the 182 DOES require an endorsement but not the complex endorsement. It requires the the high performance endorsement for having greater than 200 horsepower per engine
 
I was chime it but looks like y'all covered it, so back to....well, ima trying to be good, so nevah mind.
 
Holy crap, I think you did get consensus. Can someone please chime in with a passive aggressive disagreement or an outright insult so I can feel at home?
 
PilotRPI said:
Holy crap, I think you did get consensus. Can someone please chime in with a passive aggressive disagreement or an outright insult so I can feel at home?
Click to expand...

Well, it didn't used to be that way! That work for ya? o_O
 
PilotRPI said:
Holy crap, I think you did get consensus. Can someone please chime in with a passive aggressive disagreement or an outright insult so I can feel at home?
Click to expand...

How about thread creep into another topic instead?

Your avatar has nice colors and I love the composition. Did you take the picture with an iphone or a regular ole camera?
 
PilotRPI said:
Holy crap, I think you did get consensus. Can someone please chime in with a passive aggressive disagreement or an outright insult so I can feel at home?
Click to expand...
How about, ;)

"Since none of you yahoos are smart enough to simply look it up, here's the excerpt from 61.31."

(e) Additional training required for operating complex airplanes. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a complex airplane, unless the person has—

(i) Received and logged ground and flight training from an authorized instructor in a complex airplane, or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a complex 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 complex airplane.

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

(f) Additional training required for operating high-performance airplanes. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a high-performance airplane (an airplane with an engine of more than 200 horsepower), unless the person has—

(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.

(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.
Click to expand...

And from 61.1
Complex airplane means an airplane that has a retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller, including airplanes equipped with an engine control system consisting of a digital computer and associated accessories for controlling the engine and propeller, such as a full authority digital engine control; or, in the case of a seaplane, flaps and a controllable pitch propeller, including seaplanes equipped with an engine control system consisting of a digital computer and associated accessories for controlling the engine and propeller, such as a full authority digital engine control.
Click to expand...
 
Lindberg said:
If it's on floats, it only needs flaps and CS prop.
Click to expand...

Yep, so a 182 on wheels only requires a high performance endorsement.

On floats a 182 requires a complex and high performance endorsement.

:)
 
Everyone forgot to ask an important question:

Have you got any complex/high performance time logged before August 4, 1997?
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
I have asked 2 different CFIs and got 2 different answers. So why am I even asking POA and assuming I'll get consensus, lol
Click to expand...
Well, you got your consensus. Wonder of wonders, it was even correct! :happydance:

What I still want to know is, what was the different answer you got from a CFI? :dunno::confused2:
 
midlifeflyer said:
What I still want to know is, what was the different answer you got from a CFI? :dunno::confused2:
Click to expand...

I'm curious about that too, Mark, since this is, at least in my experience, one of the least mis-understood parts of the FARs (meaning, it's pretty clear). At least since the 1997 rewrite, before which it was definitely more confusing. But that is 20 years ago now.
 
PilotRPI said:
Holy crap, I think you did get consensus. Can someone please chime in with a passive aggressive disagreement or an outright insult so I can feel at home?
Click to expand...

OK. I think it's my turn, anyway.
You people are all idiot! You have no idea what you are talking about. You are risking the lives of innocent women and children.
Maybe even dogs and bunnies and unicorns.
Have you all lost your minds??!!!!!?????

I think I might have missed something. Don't hesitate to chime in to fill in any missing blanks.
 
Ahhh. I feel much better now. Thanks everyone.

And don't forget to make sure the Arrow has an AOA indicator or it won't get off the runway.
 
Shepherd said:
OK. I think it's my turn, anyway.
You people are all idiot! You have no idea what you are talking about. You are risking the lives of innocent women and children.
Maybe even dogs and bunnies and unicorns.
Have you all lost your minds??!!!!!?????

I think I might have missed something. Don't hesitate to chime in to fill in any missing blanks.
Click to expand...

Boobies
@mscard88
Thread lock
Ban hammer
 
MauleSkinner said:
How about, ;)

"Since none of you yahoos are smart enough to simply look it up, here's the excerpt from 61.31."



And from 61.1
Click to expand...

Interesting...if Cirrus made a retract version of the SR22, this seems to imply it would not require a complex endorsement. The prop is not controllable, depending on your definition of controllable. It is a purely mechanical system, so no electronics or FADEC involved.
 
Shepherd said:
OK. I think it's my turn, anyway.
You people are all idiot! You have no idea what you are talking about. You are risking the lives of innocent women and children.
Maybe even dogs and bunnies and unicorns.
Have you all lost your minds??!!!!!?????

I think I might have missed something. Don't hesitate to chime in to fill in any missing blanks.
Click to expand...

Go land on a road!
 
arnoha said:
Interesting...if Cirrus made a retract version of the SR22, this seems to imply it would not require a complex endorsement. The prop is not controllable, depending on your definition of controllable. It is a purely mechanical system, so no electronics or FADEC involved.
Click to expand...

No. Cirrus has a constant speed prop with a prop governor. The control is tied to the throttle. It is part of the defintion of complex but does not require the endorsement since the gear is fixed.
 
arnoha said:
Interesting...if Cirrus made a retract version of the SR22, this seems to imply it would not require a complex endorsement. The prop is not controllable, depending on your definition of controllable. It is a purely mechanical system, so no electronics or FADEC involved.
Click to expand...
IIRC, the FAA went through that with the Diamond Twin Star...it had to be complex in order to use it to get a commercial certificate, and it was deemed usable.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
That I need a complex to fly a CS prop.
Click to expand...

I've been doing online aviation discussions since 2400 baud modems were still the height of communications technology and this is the first time I've heard that one.

Did you ask the all important question: "Show me where the FAA says that."
 
Shepherd said:
OK. I think it's my turn, anyway.
You people are all idiot! You have no idea what you are talking about. You are risking the lives of innocent women and children.
Maybe even dogs and bunnies and unicorns.
Have you all lost your minds??!!!!!?????

I think I might have missed something. Don't hesitate to chime in to fill in any missing blanks.
Click to expand...
Get off my lawn.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I've been doing online aviation discussions since 2400 baud modems were still the height of communications technology and this is the first time I've heard that one.

Did you ask the all important question: "Show me where the FAA says that."
Click to expand...

No, asked for a 2nd opinion, then looked in FARs, then came here for concensus.
 
MauleSkinner said:
IIRC, the FAA went through that with the Diamond Twin Star...it had to be complex in order to use it to get a commercial certificate, and it was deemed usable.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I'll buy that. Controllable doesn't have to mean separately controllable.
 
mtuomi said:
Everyone forgot to ask an important question:

Have you got any complex/high performance time logged before August 4, 1997?
Click to expand...
Yeah. And I lost the logbook. Complex didn't cause me a problem because I have a Commercial Certificate and complex is a requirement to get one. But I had no way to "prove" high performance which I had gotten in a C210.
 
Velocity RG's are not Complex because they don't have flaps. I can't think of any other plane like that. Gear, prop, but no flaps
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
I have asked 2 different CFIs and got 2 different answers. So why am I even asking POA and assuming I'll get consensus, lol.

I went to 14 CFR 61.1(b)(3), definition of "complex". I'm interpreting the "and" statement to mean if a plane only has all three - flaps, retract, CS prop - that an endorsement is needed.

So my interpretation is that a 182 pilot (non-RG) does not need a log book endorsement to be legal.

Am I right or wrong?
Click to expand...

Correct! If it has 201 horsepower or more, it will require a high performance endorsement, but not a complex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top