High performance endorsement... worth it?

[Pugs]

It doesn’t...more than 200 does, and as far as I know it’s an arbitrary number.

I suppose it's kind of the line above which you're dealing with a CS prop and that does require a little extra knowledge but I flew the Hawk XP at 200 Hp with a CS prop quite a lot so suppose it's just another thing the FAA has that I'm sure made sense to someone sometime for some reason.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I suppose it's kind of the line above which you're dealing with a CS prop and that does require a little extra knowledge but I flew the Hawk XP at 200 Hp with a CS prop quite a but so suppose it's just another thing the FAA has that I'm sure made sense to someone sometime for some reason.

There’s are significant differences between operating a 65-hp airplane and a 600-hp airplane. Those differences don’t necessarily occur between 200 and 201 hp, but they had to draw the line somewhere.

 

[denverpilot]

The guy’s operation of his high performance airplane.

Ahhh ok. LOL. I was grandfathered like that but had the brainpower and insurance company requirements to do an aircraft checkout.

And ended up with a nervous instructor about the grandfathering even though we looked it up... who added two more endorsements. LOL.

So I have three. LOL.

 

[denverpilot]

What is so magic about a 200hp engine that it requires an endorsement?

More right rudder. LOL.

 

[Bill]

More right rudder. LOL.

I kinda find it funny that I had to get the high perf to fly the 182 yet the Mooney doesn't require the endorsement. Other than needing a little more right rudder and being careful of the nose gear on landing, there's not a lot to worry about when flying a 182. Fly a Mooney sloppy in the pattern (IE high and hot) will bite you quickly.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

I kinda find it funny that I had to get the high perf to fly the 182 yet the Mooney doesn't require the endorsement. Other than needing a little more right rudder and being careful of the nose gear on landing, there's not a lot to worry about when flying a 182. Fly a Mooney sloppy in the pattern (IE high and hot) will bite you quickly.

But the Mooney requires a Complex Airplane endorsement, which, to me, is the more important.

 

[denverpilot]

But the Mooney requires a Complex Airplane endorsement, which, to me, is the more important.

Yeah. We should be really clear for folks wondering what we are talking about ...

This used to be one endorsement before 1997. Which led to some entertainment.

 

[Bill]

But the Mooney requires a Complex Airplane endorsement, which, to me, is the more important.

Understood, I have both endorsements, it's just that I consider the 200hp Mooney 201 to be more of a high perf plane than a 182.

 

[Brad W]

More right rudder

funny thing.... that "mantra" became a running joke with my instructor way back in the day....but not when doing high performance.... it was when I was trying to get my conventional gear sign-off in a 7AC Aeronca Champ! I was so lazy on the pedals coming from many hours in cessna tricycle types, that he used the voice record feature in the old portable intercom and just kept replaying it over and over...."more right rudder"

 

[Pugs]

Understood, I have both endorsements, it's just that I consider the 200hp Mooney 201 to be more of a high perf plane than a 182.

Certainly true IMO. I was surprised at the differences between the 182 and the 182RG just in planning to slow down on approach. Helps that the gear speed is 140!

 

[denverpilot]

funny thing.... that "mantra" became a running joke with my instructor way back in the day....but not when doing high performance.... it was when I was trying to get my conventional gear sign-off in a 7AC Aeronca Champ! I was so lazy on the pedals coming from many hours in cessna tricycle types, that he used the voice record feature in the old portable intercom and just kept replaying it over and over...."more right rudder"

Pretty much the mantra of all flight instructors. LOL. Except in some Russian stuff and Multis. Ha

 

[Brad W]

I was given an endorsement for "high performance"
...but it was in a 200HP RG, and December 1991

Some years later getting checked out for rental ...and I can't remember if it was for the 182 or 172RG (don't remember which, maybe it was both times). When they signed me off ok to rent I asked for the proper endorsement (HP for the 182, or complex for the RG) but the instructor argued I didn't need it. Even got the chief instructor involved. I was surprised they wouldn't do it. Even if it was a duplicate, so what? At that point in time I'd logged a fair little bit of complex time, multi dual, even signed off to solo the complex muti engine...but don't think I had any real >200HP high performance at that point....and probably logged dual/PIC but no solo PIC complex time.

I did ultimately go on to log time in the 230HP 182, "solo PIC"....
& I have complex time in several types
....but this still bugs me

I think it was complicated for a few reasons
early on my log book listed "complex" time but didn't have a column for High performance
& in hind site looking back either me or the instructor might not necessarily know how many HP was in some airplane years ago at some other flight school....

now with the internet we can look these things up with so much more certainty, and we can also dissect these nuanced regulations so much more easily now.... such as 200HP or greater than 200HP

my 2 cents.... get the endorsement if you have the opportunity. It's fun to collect ratings, types, endorsements, etc...

 

[MauleSkinner]

I was given an endorsement for "high performance"
...but it was in a 200HP RG, and December 1991

Some years later getting checked out for rental ...and I can't remember if it was for the 182 or 172RG (don't remember which, maybe it was both times). When they signed me off ok to rent I asked for the proper endorsement (HP for the 182, or complex for the RG) but the instructor argued I didn't need it. Even got the chief instructor involved. I was surprised they wouldn't do it. Even if it was a duplicate, so what? At that point in time I'd logged a fair little bit of complex time, multi dual, even signed off to solo the complex muti engine...but don't think I had any real >200HP high performance at that point....and probably logged dual/PIC but no solo PIC complex time.

I did ultimately go on to log time in the 230HP 182, "solo PIC"....
& I have complex time in several types
....but this still bugs me

I think it was complicated for a few reasons
early on my log book listed "complex" time but didn't have a column for High performance
& in hind site looking back either me or the instructor might not necessarily know how many HP was in some airplane years ago at some other flight school....

now with the internet we can look these things up with so much more certainty, and we can also dissect these nuanced regulations so much more easily now.... such as 200HP or greater than 200HP

my 2 cents.... get the endorsement if you have the opportunity. It's fun to collect ratings, types, endorsements, etc...

In 1991 it was just a “high performance” endorsement that could be gotten in either of what would now be high performance or complex airplanes, and that endorsement allowed you to fly both. As long as you logged time in an airplane over 200 hp prior to the date the reg change in 1997, you’re 100% legal.

As far as not giving the endorsement, an aircraft checkout is not the same in my mind as a high performance endorsement course. If you want a checkout to count as a high performance endorsement, you need to request that ahead of time.

 

[David Megginson]

Hey folks,
Is this endorsement 61.31(f) worth getting even if I (or flight school) don't have a high-performance plane?

Just a trivia note: the day you pass your PPL in Canada, you're legal to step into a high-performance complex single and fly as PIC. No sane insurance company would let you, of course, but there's no endorsement required by the regs.

OTOH, the day you pass your PPL in the US, you're legal to depart on a 4-hour cross-country on a moonless night over unlit terrain, while Canada requires a separate "Night rating" with a fair bit of instrument time tossed in.

It's interesting how each country's regs have evolved to worry about different things, and let others slip through.

 

[denverpilot]

In 1991 it was just a “high performance” endorsement that could be gotten in either of what would now be high performance or complex airplanes, and that endorsement allowed you to fly both. As long as you logged time in an airplane over 200 hp prior to the date the reg change in 1997, you’re 100% legal.

I don’t remember there being any requirement to have logged time above 200 HP in the grandfather clause, but could be wrong.

 

[Brad W]

prior to the date the reg change in 1997, you’re 100% legal.

good to know.... I thought the change was earlier. Thanks!
but....
looking back now with that knowledge, looks like I logged time in several different aircraft with 200 HP, but it wasn't till 1999 that I logged time in anything with an engine over 200HP...and that was dual time also logged as PIC in a R182 RG

...yeah, so now I thing that incident with the instructors is coming back to me...and the 1997 change would have been why I was asking for the endorsement. I'm thinking it was when I was getting checked out in the 182P (230HP) a couple years later. So now I've got 7.9 hours pic logged in that one, of which 2.2 was dual....so, hmmmm.....

 

[MauleSkinner]

I don’t remember there being any requirement to have logged time above 200 HP in the grandfather clause, but could be wrong.

The old endorsement allowed you to fly both, but if you didn’t log PIC in the HP prior to the new reg, you’re not grandfathered into the new reg for HP.