Does Herman get a bye with a CPL?

Jaybird180

Jaybird180

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
9,034
Location
Near DC
Display Name
Display name:
Jaybird180
I’m not sure what your question is.
 
I can't see how the letter is relevant to your question nor is it specific to commercial pilots.
 
Even if you can get your commercial without HP or complex endorsements, it wouldn’t be of much good. It takes about 3 hours to get them both, what’s the big deal?
 
Jaybird180 said:
Does a Commercially rated pilot need a HP or Complex endorsement?

(related, but not really- Herman interpretation from FAA Chief Council)

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/data/interps/2009/herman - (2009) legal interpretation.pdf?fbclid=IwAR26NjCA47gxebDQbWVZwLnTsqwSzHN5SMyZ8cJ9OSFjM0IGXkFpf_xQ584

Once upon a time, Comm candidates did their check ride in complex airplanes but now they can do so in a TAA. Did the regulations lose something in that transition?
Click to expand...

You need 10 hours in a complex or TAA, so if you go the TAA route, you won't need complex.
High performance was never required, but that is kindof hard to avoid since there aren't many complex or TAA under 200 HP.
 
sarangan said:
.
High performance was never required, but that is kindof hard to avoid since there aren't many complex or TAA under 200 HP.
Click to expand...
Really? Arrows and Cutlases are traditional complex trainers. 172s and Diamonds with G1000 are pretty common in flight schools these days (not to mention Cirrus SR20s). And so many places are adding Aspens, G5's and GI275s to older Cherokees and 172s (with 2-axis APs), converting them to TAA. OTOH, how many 182RGs, Saratogas , and Bonanzas are you seeing at flight training places in comparison?

Might be geographic, but I see exactly the opposite of what you are apparently seeing.
 
Last edited:
Jaybird180 said:
Did the regulations lose something in that transition?
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean by "lose." One of the impetus for the change in requirements was the reality of the reduction of the aging complex single training fleet and the increase in availability of TAAs.
 
kgruber said:
Unless he's an old fart!!
Click to expand...
When did the original “high performance” endorsement come into play? 1976 or so?

Of course, if somebody like Herman logged PIC time in an airplane for which he wasn’t acting as PIC prior to the current grandfathering date, he wouldn’t need an endorsement. I’ve worked with one of those.
 
MauleSkinner said:
When did the original “high performance” endorsement come into play? 1976 or so?

Of course, if somebody like Herman logged PIC time in an airplane for which he wasn’t acting as PIC prior to the current grandfathering date, he wouldn’t need an endorsement. I’ve worked with one of those.
Click to expand...

Jason isn't old enough to have done that.
 
MauleSkinner said:
When did the original “high performance” endorsement come into play? 1976 or so?

Of course, if somebody like Herman logged PIC time in an airplane for which he wasn’t acting as PIC prior to the current grandfathering date, he wouldn’t need an endorsement. I’ve worked with one of those.
Click to expand...
Something like that. If I remember correctly (I looked it up a year or so ago) it was 1973. So we are in the same decade.

But grandfathering can work later. Until 1997, the endorsement was for "high performance" but it meant over 200 HP or what is now defined as complex. You might have received the endorsement in either. 1997 separated them. So, for example, my only endorsement was in a 182. I have no written endorsement for complex but the grandfather clause applies because I flew complex airplanes before the cutoff date,
 
midlifeflyer said:
Something like that. If I remember correctly (I looked it up a year or so ago) it was 1973. So we are in the same decade.

But grandfathering can work later. Until 1997, the endorsement was for "high performance" but it meant over 200 HP or what is now defined as complex. You might have received the endorsement in either. 1997 separated them. So, for example, my only endorsement was in a 182. I have no written endorsement for complex but the grandfather clause applies because I flew complex airplanes before the cutoff date,
Click to expand...
Same here. I got my HP endorsement in a Cherokee Six in the mid-‘80s, so I was grandfathered into the current complex airplane requirements.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Really? Arrows and Cutlases are traditional complex trainers. 172s and Diamonds with G1000 are pretty common in flight schools these days (not to mention Cirrus SR20s). And so many places are adding Aspens, G5's and GI275s to older Cherokees and 172s (with 2-axis APs), converting them to TAA. OTOH, how many 182RGs, Saratogas , and Bonanzas are you seeing at flight training places in comparison?

Might be geographic, but I see exactly the opposite of what you are apparently seeing.
Click to expand...

True, I wasn't thinking of TAA as much as complex. Arrow and 172RG are the two nonHP complex I know of. Nearly all of the complexes I have flown are also HP.
 
sarangan said:
True, I wasn't thinking of TAA as much as complex. Arrow and 172RG are the two nonHP complex I know of. Nearly all of the complexes I have flown are also HP.
Click to expand...
There are others. Cardinals and Mooneys through the J series, the 180 HP Comanche, the Beech Sierra, and the Rockwell Commander come to mind. There are probably others.

Offhand, I'd say my complex is a bit more evenly divided between HP and not, both in terms of make/model spread and total hours, although definitely favoring the HP end too.
 
midlifeflyer said:
There are others. Cardinals and Mooneys through the J series, the 180 HP Comanche, the Beech Sierra, and the Rockwell Commander come to mind. There are probably others.

Offhand, I'd say my complex is a bit more evenly divided between HP and not, both in terms of make/model spread and total hours, although definitely favoring the HP end too.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, I forgot about the Mooneys as well. I guess I misspoke about HP & complex.
 
sarangan said:
You need 10 hours in a complex or TAA, so if you go the TAA route, you won't need complex.
High performance was never required, but that is kindof hard to avoid since there aren't many complex or TAA under 200 HP.
Click to expand...

High performance is anything over 200 horsepower. Anything sith 200 HP doesn’t need an endorsement. That means every Arrow can be flown without an HP endorsement, as well as many Mooneys, pretty much anything with a Lycoming O-360.
 
ateamer said:
High performance is anything over 200 horsepower. Anything sith 200 HP doesn’t need an endorsement. That means every Arrow can be flown without an HP endorsement, as well as many Mooneys, pretty much anything with a Lycoming O-360.
Click to expand...

One of the complaints the examiner I use has, is he doing CFI Checkrides with candidates that have only flown two airplanes, something like a Cherokee and an Arrow. Perfectly Legal, but not a very wide experience base.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
Well it does not matter what the FAA say's, it all about what the insurance company say's. My instructor with over 5K hours of 210 time could not instruct me in my Cardinal 177RG because he did not have 25 hours in Make and Model. Kind of like saying you can drive a Suburban, but not a Tahoe.
 
brcase said:
One of the complaints the examiner I use has, is he doing CFI Checkrides with candidates that have only flown two airplanes, something like a Cherokee and an Arrow. Perfectly Legal, but not a very wide experience base.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
Click to expand...
I wholeheartedly agree with that complaint. Unfortunately we’ve got basically type-specific instruction at a non-type-specific level. Other than a regulatory basis, basically no different from countries that require a type rating for ANY airplane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top