Endorsement to fly steam gauges (maybe?)

guest user said:
So, I'm looking at all of the posts here and elsewhere about people moving away from steam and to glass cockpits. The reasons are obvious and I have no issues with that.

My musing has me wondering though, if like tailwheel endorsements, we will one day have to have a steam gauge endorsement to fly a non glass cockpit? If not from the FAA, maybe insurance will require you to have 25hrs in type before they'll insure you on a steam gauge aircraft?

Just an idle train of thought, but seems plausible.

Then those of us old, rugged pilots who flew before glass was even a realistic thing in GA, could really tell the new guys a story or two.
Click to expand...

Tailwheel, retracts, high-performance etc.. all have significant impact on how an airplane handles. Whether you have round gauges or digital display does not have any impact. The regulations specify which instruments are required, but they do not care how it is presented to the pilot. TAA is an outlier, and I wish they had not introduced that concept.
 
kayoh190 said:
Sheesh - and I thought I was old for not having a complex endorsement! :D
Click to expand...

I am trying to remember when the original complex endorsement started?

Tailwheel and Pressurized as 1991.

Current HP and complex are 1997.

But back a lot earlier there was a single endorsement for HP or complex, IIRC.
 
Pinecone said:
I am trying to remember when the original complex endorsement started?

Tailwheel and Pressurized as 1991.

Current HP and complex are 1997.

But back a lot earlier there was a single endorsement for HP or complex, IIRC.
Click to expand...
Mid-1970s…’76 maybe.
 
it wasn't HP OR complex..... it was just High performance.
".....in order to act as pilot in command of an aircraft with more than 200 horsepower or that had retractable gear, flaps, and a controllable propeller. "​
180 HP with RG, flaps, and controllable prop was considered to be high performance.
 
Brad W said:
it wasn't HP OR complex..... it was just High performance.
".....in order to act as pilot in command of an aircraft with more than 200 horsepower or that had retractable gear, flaps, and a controllable propeller. "​
180 HP with RG, flaps, and controllable prop was considered to be high performance.
Click to expand...
MauleSkinner said:
Mid-1970s…’76 maybe.
Click to expand...

OK, that sounds familiar.

Thanks.
 
IMHO - Requiring an endorsement seems overkill - maybe in bigger iron, between lighter GA and the aircraft that require a type rating?

I moved between glass and steam regularly for several years, and I'm doing it again now between a Cirrus and a Cherokee. . . glass is, essentially, just pictures of steam gauges. Glass tends to have better integration (but not always), and I hear it's cheaper for the manufactures to build and install.

In most of our GA airplanes, glass doesn't "do" anything beyond the autopilot, which isn't unique to glass. For us glass isn't a FMS, doesn't control auto-throttles, doesn't auto-deplay any surfaces, etc. It's a (slightly) more organized way to present data that we act on.

If you have something like an Aspen EFD, a modern GPS, and an autopilot that tracks GPS and NAV, you're kinda "glass" already. Would we want an endorsement for that situation?
 
Aspen and modern moving map GPS meets the TAA definition and rates as Complex by the FAA. So you sort of need an endorsement for it.

I suspect that we will see a specific TAA endorsement at some point.
 
Pinecone said:
Aspen and modern moving map GPS meets the TAA definition and rates as Complex by the FAA. So you sort of need an endorsement for it.

I suspect that we will see a specific TAA endorsement at some point.
Click to expand...

Per 61.129(a) (ii), it is either Complex or TAA, not TAA = Complex so no ‘sort of’ endorsement needed.

(ii) 10 hours of training in a complex airplane, a turbine-powered airplane, or a technically advanced airplane (TAA) that meets the requirements of paragraph (j) of this section, or any combination thereof. The airplane must be appropriate to land or sea for the rating sought;


And 61.129(j), 2 axis autopilot also required for TAA.

(j) Technically advanced airplane. Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, a technically advanced airplane must be equipped with an electronically advanced avionics system that includes the following installed components:

(1) An electronic Primary Flight Display (PFD) that includes, at a minimum, an airspeed indicator, turn coordinator, attitude indicator, heading indicator, altimeter, and vertical speed indicator;

(2) An electronic Multifunction Display (MFD) that includes, at a minimum, a moving map using Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation with the aircraft position displayed;

(3) A two axis autopilot integrated with the navigation and heading guidance system; and

(4) The display elements described in paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section must be continuously visible.
 
Aah, I was remembering that the TAA meet the requirements for the Commercial instead of complex.

Sorry, battling a bout of pneumonia. Brain is clogged. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top