High HP Complex?

[mn_voyageur]

I was recently told by a local CFI that I needed a High HP Complex check ride to fly an RG with over 200 HP.

I already have over 100 hours in a 182. I thought that the Complex and the High-HP were two different endorsements. Is this a third "combination" endorsement?

MarkN

 

[Greg Bockelman]

No. High performance is over 200 HP. Complex is prop flaps and retractable gear. If you have those two, you do not need a separate one for complex over 200 HP.

You obviously have the HP endorsement if you have been flying the 182. You can get a complex in something 200 HP and under and be covered for one that is over 200 HP.

 

[dmccormack]

I was recently told by a local CFI that I needed a High HP Complex check ride to fly an RG with over 200 HP.

I already have over 100 hours in a 182. I thought that the Complex and the High-HP were two different endorsements. Is this a third "combination" endorsement?

MarkN

See CFR 61.31

High Performance = "more than 200 HP"
Complex = "retractable landing gear, flaps, and controllable propeller."

 

[mn_voyageur]

That's what I was taught several years ago.

The follow-up question:
Since a BFR requires ground and flight instruction, does my complex endorsement extend the date I am required to have a BFR? (Since I have received both flight and ground instruction.)

My last BFR was in October '07. If I complete my complex checkout, does this push my BFR to Oct '11?

MarkN

 

[Greg Bockelman]

That's what I was taught several years ago.

The follow-up question:
Since a BFR requires ground and flight instruction, does my complex endorsement extend the date I am required to have a BFR? (Since I have received both flight and ground instruction.)

My last BFR was in October '07. If I complete my complex checkout, does this push my BFR to Oct '11?

MarkN

Not unless it was signed off as a Flight Review. The only thing that automatically extends the flight review is some sort of certificate change, I.E. adding an Instrument or Commercial. Endorsements do not automatically cover a FR.

 

[gismo]

No. High performance is over 200 HP. Complex is prop flaps and retractable gear. If you have those two, you do not need a separate one for complex over 200 HP. You obviously have the HP endorsement if you have been flying the 182.

True except for the "obviously" part. The OP only said he had 100 hrs in a 182 he didn't say he had a HP endorsement. If some of those hours were logged before the HP requirement was added to the regs then he doesn't need a HP endorsement, otherwise he does regardless of how many hours he has in a 182. But if he has an actual HP endorsement then as you say he's legal to fly a complex AC over 200 HP (assuming he has the complex endorsement).

 

[Greg Bockelman]

True except for the "obviously" part. The OP only said he had 100 hrs in a 182 he didn't say he had a HP endorsement.

Yeah Yeah Yeah. Details. I made the not illogical assumption that since he DID have that much time then he had the endorsement. Kind of pointless to have that much time WITHOUT the endorsement.

 

[gismo]

Yeah Yeah Yeah. Details. I made the not illogical assumption that since he DID have that much time then he had the endorsement. Kind of pointless to have that much time WITHOUT the endorsement.

I knew you knew but didn't want your post to convince someone else that as long as you had logged time in a 182 at any time, you didn't need a HP endorsement.

 

[poadeleted20]

Not unless it was signed off as a Flight Review. The only thing that automatically extends the flight review is some sort of certificate change, I.E. adding an Instrument or Commercial.

There are a few other things that meet the FR requirement, but they are mostly associated with Parts 121/125/135, the military, or flying 2-pilots-required aircraft.

Endorsements do not automatically cover a FR.

Right -- the 61.56(a)(1) ground training must be logged and signed by the instructor, at least one hour of flight training must be logged and signed, and a 61.56(a) flight review endorsement must be logged and signed. The hour of flight training can be from the flight training done for the additional training endorsement, but the hour of ground training covers areas beyond those included in a 61.31 ATE. Likewise, the 61.56(a) and 61.31 endorsements can be combined into one endorsement, but the language must include the instructor's certification of completion of a flight review IAW 61.56(a) as well as the pilot's competence to act as PIC of a complex/HP/TW/high altitude (as appropriate) airplane IAW 61.31.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

There are a few other things that meet the FR requirement, but they are mostly associated with Parts 121/125/135, the military, or flying 2-pilots-required aircraft.

I can count on you to dot the I's and cross the T's on something that does not apply to the Original Poster.

 

[gismo]

Kind of pointless to have that much time WITHOUT the endorsement.

Probably true WRT HP airplanes but logging complex time can have insurance ramifications so one could conceivably log lots of complex (i.e. retract) time long before getting the endorsement. Unusual yes but not all that unlikely.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I was recently told by a local CFI that I needed a High HP Complex check ride to fly an RG with over 200 HP.

I already have over 100 hours in a 182. I thought that the Complex and the High-HP were two different endorsements. Is this a third "combination" endorsement?

Negative. I got my complex in an Arrow (Complex due to retracts/CS prop/flaps, but not HP due to 200hp engine), I got my HP in a Dakota (235hp>200hp, so it's HP). I did not need any further endorsements to fly the 182RG (235hp = HP, RG/CS/flaps = complex).

An often-confused airplane is the Arrow III (PA28R-201) or Arrow IV (PA28RT-201) because of the "201." They do not have 201hp engines, the 1 on PA28's indicates that it has the tapered wing instead of the hershey bar (or in the case of the C235/Pathfinder/Dakota, 236 vs. 235). Another is the Seneca II (PA34-200T), which requires HP even though it's got 200hp engines (at sea level), since it puts out up to 215hp at higher altitudes.

 

[TMetzinger]

To fly an RG with more than 200 HP, you need to meet the requirements to be PIC in a high performance aircraft (more than 200 HP) and a complex aircraft (RG).

This could be met with two endorsements, or grandfathered experience, or a combination of experience and endorsement.

But if you don't own the airplane, and don't have time in type, somebody is likely to require you to get dual in it regardless of your endorsements. That somebody may be the owner, the operator, or their insurer.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Another is the Seneca II (PA34-200T), which requires HP even though it's got 200hp engines (at sea level), since it
puts out up to 215hp at higher altitudes.

You got a reference for that one? I've never heard that about the Seneca II. I know the III, IV, and V require the high performance, but I'd never heard that about the II.

 

[poadeleted20]

You got a reference for that one? I've never heard that about the Seneca II. I know the III, IV, and V require the high performance, but I'd never heard that about the II.

Same engines II through V. The original Seneca I has the nonturbo'd 200HP engines, and is not HP.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You got a reference for that one? I've never heard that about the Seneca II. I know the III, IV, and V require the high performance, but I'd never heard that about the II.

I'll have to dig out my Seneca II POH when I get home.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Same engines II through V. The original Seneca I has the nonturbo'd 200HP engines, and is not HP.

Everything I've ever seen lists the Seneca II as TSIO-360-E/EB's, which were limited to 200 horsepower. But then in the Seneca III they changed the engines to TSIO-360-KB's, which pushed them to 220 horsepower for 5 minutes, 200 continuous. But, thats only what I can find on the internet, not in a POH. Only POH I've got is for a Seneca I.

 

[gismo]

Everything I've ever seen lists the Seneca II as TSIO-360-E/EB's, which were limited to 200 horsepower. But then in the Seneca III they changed the engines to TSIO-360-KB's, which pushed them to 220 horsepower for 5 minutes, 200 continuous. But, thats only what I can find on the internet, not in a POH. Only POH I've got is for a Seneca I.

That matches my recollection. I suppose some IIs may have been "upgraded" though.

 

[nyoung]

Interesting. I had to get my Seneca II manual out on this one...

Sure enough, the manual says that a stock Seneca II has 200hp engines ((L)TSIO-360-E or -EB), that are rated at 200hp on the ground, and 215hp at 12,000 feet. Maximum manifold pressure is 40", although when I was doing flight training in a Seneca II, I believe we used 38" for the takeoff power settings. There is a pop-off valve, I think at 40"... so one needs to be pretty careful when operating close to 40".

I do not see any other reference in the manual to operation at 215hp. In fact, the Speed/Power curves only show power settings up to 100% (215hp would be 107%), and 100% is only shown as possible at 12,000 feet or below (at ISA).

Quite strange. Regardless, in my experience the Seneca II CHTs would be smoking if one tried to operate near 100% at 12k.

As another poster pointed out, the Seneca III-V use 220hp (L)TSIO-360-KB engines, and there is an STC to install those on the Seneca II, which would certainly make it a HP plane.

DakotaDriver... I believe your Turbo Dakota would have the same engine as the Seneca II. Would you mind checking the manual to see how the engine is rated?

Another is the Seneca II (PA34-200T), which requires HP even though it's got 200hp engines (at sea level), since it puts out up to 215hp at higher altitudes.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Sure enough, the manual says that a stock Seneca II has 200hp engines ((L)TSIO-360-E or -EB), that are rated at 200hp on the ground, and 215hp at 12,000 feet.

Bingo, you got it.

Maximum manifold pressure is 40", although when I was doing flight training in a Seneca II, I believe we used 38" for the takeoff power settings.

Takeoff power is 40" but since the turbo system on that bird is somewhat of a positive feedback loop, you set it to 38" (manual takeoff procedure is throttles to 30", brake release, throttles to 38".) It'll work itself up to 40 on the roll.

 

[Clark1961]

DakotaDriver... I believe your Turbo Dakota would have the same engine as the Seneca II. Would you mind checking the manual to see how the engine is rated?

My Turbo Dakota has the -FB engine. I've never seen anything in the POH that admits to more than 200 hp. The POH does suggest that max continuous is 75%. Continental claims that it can run at 100% all day long but I think they like selling engine parts.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Bingo, you got it.



Takeoff power is 40" but since the turbo system on that bird is somewhat of a positive feedback loop, you set it to 38" (manual takeoff procedure is throttles to 30", brake release, throttles to 38".) It'll work itself up to 40 on the roll.

Yup, I pulled up the TCDS, and it said the same thing. Guess you learn something everyday.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Yup, I pulled up the TCDS, and it said the same thing. Guess you learn something everyday.

Yup, if you're paying attention!

Yesterday, I learned that if my truck doesn't air up, I need to whack on the air governor with a hammer.

 

[John Collins]

I am so old I don't have high performance or complex endorsements. I also have a MEI based on being grandfathered.

 

[poadeleted20]

I am so old I don't have high performance or complex endorsements.

You don't have to be particularly old for that -- I'm only 58 and I'm in there for HP, complex, and TW.

I also have a MEI based on being grandfathered.

Now that did happen a very long time ago!

 

[hindsight2020]

Super bumpity bump!

Going through my search for my next aircraft I've realized I never got a civilian endorsement for high performance! I do have a complex endorsement on my civilian logbook.

I am a military IP and a civilian CFII. Now that we live in the world of military equivalency I wonder how will my insurance treat my lack of a high performance endorsement for the purposes of insuring me to fly a 182. Am I grandfathered? It's kind of weird having to pose this question while having thousands of hours of multi-engine heavy turbine time and PIC qualifications, and currently serve as an instructor pilot in turbo-prop aircraft (which is both complex and high performance). But I can't act as PIC in a 182?¿ That doesn't sound right....

In essence, are complex and high performance endorsements implicitly granted on the basis of military flight qualifications and flight time?

Found this source http://www.twodogsaviation.com/MilitaryFAAEndorsements.aspx

These guys interpretation is that the high altitude is grandfathered by PIC qualification checkride (via a Form 8 in the AF), and that complex and high performance endorsements are authorized to be given by military IPs by virtue of the aircraft they are qualified on in the military. They do not cite the source where these privileges of instruction are bestowed upon them as military-qualified, civilian CFI certificate holders. They merely quote the requirements for a civilian to attain the endorsements.

What say you? Can I endorse a civilian pilot for his high performance endorsement on the basis I instruct in high performance aircraft in the military without having a civilian HP endorsement of my own? Can I on that basis also operate a C-182 as PIC (as in owner/sole operator).

 

[Henning]

You're a CFII and you can't find someone to sign you off a HP endorsement?

 

[hindsight2020]

You're a CFII and you can't find someone to sign you off a HP endorsement?

It was mostly an academic exercise. I'm sure I can find another fellow CFI to bro-check my logbook. The one interesting thing is that most of my peers would likely have attained their CFIs via mil equivalency and thus are unlikely to have a high performance endorsement of their own either, which if I read the reg straight, disqualifies them from providing the signature.

 

[Henning]

It was mostly an academic exercise. I'm sure I can find another fellow CFI to bro-check my logbook. The one interesting thing is that most of my peers would likely have attained their CFIs via mil equivalency and thus are unlikely to have a high performance endorsement of their own either, which if I read the reg straight, disqualifies them from providing the signature.

Most people pick up an HP endorsement somewhere along the way to CFI, you need it to fly a 182 ferchristsake...

 

[poadeleted20]

Super bumpity bump!

Going through my search for my next aircraft I've realized I never got a civilian endorsement for high performance! I do have a complex endorsement on my civilian logbook.

I am a military IP and a civilian CFII. Now that we live in the world of military equivalency I wonder how will my insurance treat my lack of a high performance endorsement for the purposes of insuring me to fly a 182. Am I grandfathered? It's kind of weird having to pose this question while having thousands of hours of multi-engine heavy turbine time and PIC qualifications, and currently serve as an instructor pilot in turbo-prop aircraft (which is both complex and high performance). But I can't act as PIC in a 182?¿ That doesn't sound right....

In essence, are complex and high performance endorsements implicitly granted on the basis of military flight qualifications and flight time?

Found this source http://www.twodogsaviation.com/MilitaryFAAEndorsements.aspx

These guys interpretation is that the high altitude is grandfathered by PIC qualification checkride (via a Form 8 in the AF), and that complex and high performance endorsements are authorized to be given by military IPs by virtue of the aircraft they are qualified on in the military. They do not cite the source where these privileges of instruction are bestowed upon them as military-qualified, civilian CFI certificate holders. They merely quote the requirements for a civilian to attain the endorsements.

What say you? Can I endorse a civilian pilot for his high performance endorsement on the basis I instruct in high performance aircraft in the military without having a civilian HP endorsement of my own? Can I on that basis also operate a C-182 as PIC (as in owner/sole operator).

There is nothing in the regulations or any Chief Counsel interpretation I can find to support "these guys" statements. Of course, if you got some PIC time in an a military aircraft with an engine of more than 200HP before August 4, 1997, then you are grandfathered per 61.31(f)(2). However, if you started your military flying after August 4, 1997, then you fall in a hole in the regulations, and if you want to be by-the-book legal, you'll need an official 61.31(f) HP endorsement from a CFI in your logbook before you act as PIC of, or give training in, a civilian aircraft with an engine with more than 200HP.