High performance endoursement question

sdflyer

sdflyer

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
434
Location
SoCal
Display Name
Display name:
sdflyer
According 61.31(f) in order to operate high performance airplane of an airplane with engine 200 hp or more one must receive a training and one time endorsement from qualified CFI. Let assume that a commercial licensed pilot rated both in single and multi engine airplanes comes to rent an high performance airplane, but his log book with high performance endorsement has been lost. Is he qualified to fly high performance airplane if he presents his pilot license or still needs to get/retrieve high performance endorsement for single engine ?

Thank you
 
First, it's more than 200HP, not 200HP or more -- Piper Arrows and Beech Sierras don't require it, and won't do to get it. Second, as the FAA sees it, for things that are required, if it isn't written down, it didn't happen. If the old logbook is gone, and no copy of the endorsement exists, and the pilot doesn't qualify under the "grandfather" clause in subparagraph (f)(2), the endorsement training will have to be recompleted and a new endorsement entered in the pilot's logbook before that pilot can legally act as PIC of a HP airplane.
 
Thanks Ron

I should have written more than 200 - my bad
 
It's an important difference. I've seen more than a few folks who got their HP endorsement in an Arrow during the period after the HP endorsement began as "either complex or more than 200HP," but before they were split into separate HP and complex endorsements (in 1997, IIRC). Those folks haven't been legal to fly an over-200HP plane since 8/4/97. I've bumped into some folks who have only that endorsement obtained in that Arrow and are now flying a 182 or the like on the basis of that obsolete endorsement despite not having in their logbook either a HP endorsement in an over-200HP plane or PIC time in an over-200HP plane before 8/4/97 -- and I have to fly with them and give them a current HP endorsement in that 182 for them to be legal to fly home. The FAA didn't help when they kept the paragraph number the same (61.31(f)) but changed what it meant in 1997.
 
Ron Levy said:
It's an important difference.
Click to expand...


Thanks Ron I'm aware it. My brain was not functioning properly when I was writing the original post, I mean to write above 200. :loco:
 
Ron Levy said:
First, it's more than 200HP, not 200HP or more -- Piper Arrows and Beech Sierras don't require it, and won't do to get it. Second, as the FAA sees it, for things that are required, if it isn't written down, it didn't happen. If the old logbook is gone, and no copy of the endorsement exists, and the pilot doesn't qualify under the "grandfather" clause in subparagraph (f)(2), the endorsement training will have to be recompleted and a new endorsement entered in the pilot's logbook before that pilot can legally act as PIC of a HP airplane.
Click to expand...

I remember a lot of arguments that Piper changed the Arrow to a PA-28R-201, so it had more than 200HP and could count for the HP endorsement.

Wrong answer dude.. go get the POH.. it's still 200HP.. Piper changed it to "201" when they changed the wing!!! :nono:
 
BillTIZ said:
I remember a lot of arguments that Piper changed the Arrow to a PA-28R-201, so it had more than 200HP and could count for the HP endorsement.

Wrong answer dude.. go get the POH.. it's still 200HP.. Piper changed it to "201" when they changed the wing!!! :nono:
Click to expand...
...and the Warrior isn't 161HP nor is the Archer 181HP nor the Saratoga 301HP.
 
If you gotta get the endorsement again, might as well have some fun. It'll give you an excuse to get some time in a Stearman (220hp). :D It's about as high performance as a loaded C-150, but will get you the endorsement. The whole thing is a massive joke...
 
whifferdill said:
If you gotta get the endorsement again, might as well have some fun. It'll give you an excuse to get some time in a Stearman (220hp). :D It's about as high performance as a loaded C-150, but will get you the endorsement. The whole thing is a massive joke...
Click to expand...
It is interesting to note that the HP definition in 61.31 is not what it was intended to be. When this was originally envisioned, it was meant to cover aircraft which have much greater performance, not just greater power, than the typical light trainers. IOW, the difference between a C-172 and a 220HP STC'd Swift (or even something like a Glasair III), not a 172 and a 182 (barely perceptible by comparison). Things such as power loading, wing loading, takeoff and climb performance, etc, were to have driven the issue. In that sense, they intended planes like the Twin Comanche (which isn't HP under the current rule) to be "high performance," but not a 182 (which is).

Unfortunately, the whole thing got balled up in the regulatory development process, and what came out was a horse built by committee (i.e., a camel instead of a horse). While many inside FAA HQ would like to change it from the current definition to something more like was originally intended, at this time, this thing has too much inertia to change course.
 
myFlightCoach said:
I'm with Ron's first response....if there's no logbook, it didn't happen. Must get the endorsement again.

Chris
Click to expand...

Agree - unless he's got or can obtain some other record (say he took his commercial checkride in a high performance airplane and he can get the form from that ride from the FAA) showing he was endorsed or grandfathered, he should get the endorsement again.

To the OP, since there's no minimum time requirement, and you're going to want to give him a checkout anyway before letting him rent your airplane, give him the checkout and the endorsement.
 
I received my hp endosement in an odd way. The flight instructor had not flown a tailwheel aircraft. At the time there was no tailwheel endorsement requirement. I had only a couple hours of tailwheel time and no experience in this new aircraft. The owner sat in right seat, instructor in rear and me in left seat. We went up for about 20 minutes, he observed asked couple of questions, then signed me off. Man have things changed.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Is this true of all training and endorsements? If I lose my logbook am I not a PPL?
Click to expand...

I'd think you would still have your plastic certificate to provide some proof of it, but if you needed record to apply for something, then you'd have some trouble proving it. I try to keep a regular scan of my logbook as a PDF backup so I have those signatures for my training and tailwheel endorsement.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Is this true of all training and endorsements? If I lose my logbook am I not a PPL?
Click to expand...
First, your logbook doesn't show you are a Private Pilot -- your certificate does, and even if you lose that, the FAA will send you a replacement. However, you asked about training and endorsements, and the FAA guidance on lost logbooks is as follows:
5-321LOST LOGBOOKS OR FLIGHT RECORDS. Aeronautical experience requirements must be shown for a person to be eligible for the issuance or to exercise the privileges of a pilot certificate. A pilot who has lost logbooks or flight time records should be reminded that any fraudulent or intentional false statements concerning aeronautical experience are a basis for suspension or revocation of any certificate or rating held. The pilot who has this problem may, at the discretion of the ASI accepting the application for a pilot certificate or rating, use a signed and notarized statement of previous flight time as the basis for starting a new flight time record. Such a statement should be substantiated by all available evidence, such as aircraft logbooks, receipts for aircraft rentals, and statements of flight operators.
Click to expand...
In addition, previous 8710-1's are considered acceptable for proving the flight time entered on that form, since the examiner should have validated that information against your logbook at the time of the practical test. Notice, however, that this only covers flight and training time, not endorsements.

As I see it, unless the flight time you can document covers the endorsement in question (e.g., documented tailwheel PIC time prior to 4/15/91 grandfathering you for 61.31(i)), you will need to get any endorsements you need re-entered and signed by the instructor who gave them. Obviously, if the instructor involved is available and has the records necessary to put a new endorsement in your logbook based on the training previously given, that's easy. Otherwise, you'll need to find another instructor who can give you the necessary training and endorsement.

My guess is that this will be a problem primarily for 61.31 additional training endorsements, flight review, and IPC's. Endorsements for certificate and rating training should be much easier to reproduce since it's more likely the instructor who gave you the original endorsement will still be available and have the records.

And, as stated above, having a photocopy of your logbook pretty much makes all this go away (including the endorsements of which you have copies) once you attach a signed and notarized statement that it's a "true copy" of the lost original.
 
Last edited:
AuntPeggy said:
Is this true of all training and endorsements? If I lose my logbook am I not a PPL?
Click to expand...

You were never a PPL.. but you may have held a "certificate" that said you have a Private Pilot privlidges in Single Engine Land.

There is a copy of the records at FAA OKC for back up and any hours reported on the 8710 application can be used to "reconstruct" some of your flight hours up to that point.

How Evah... any additional CFI provided endorsements such as a Flight Review, Complex, High Performance, or Tail Wheel qualifications that only exist in your logbook will need to be reaccomplished. If the same CFI is available, he may be able to reference his personal logbook and repeat the entries for you from his records.

If not, and with a new CFI.. it may require that the training be reaccomplished to his satisfaction.
 
Rob Schaffer said:
I'd think you would still have your plastic certificate to provide some proof of it, but if you needed record to apply for something, then you'd have some trouble proving it. I try to keep a regular scan of my logbook as a PDF backup so I have those signatures for my training and tailwheel endorsement.
Click to expand...

Print the pdfs and file them with your life insurance policies. :thumbsup:
 
Ron Levy said:
If the old logbook is gone, and no copy of the endorsement exists, and the pilot doesn't qualify under the "grandfather" clause in subparagraph (f)(2), the endorsement training will have to be recompleted and a new endorsement entered in the pilot's logbook before that pilot can legally act as PIC of a HP airplane.
Click to expand...
I think that's a bit extreme - a lost logbook requiring a do-over of endorsements that were earned, paid for and received?

I don't buy that answer. Let's try correlating the general handling of the lost logbook issue with the specifics of lost endorsements instead of assuming a draconian answer.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I think that's a bit extreme - a lost logbook requiring a do-over of endorsements that were earned, paid for and received?

I don't buy that answer. Let's try correlating the general handling of the lost logbook issue with the specifics of lost endorsements instead of assuming a draconian answer.
Click to expand...
I'm just going with the reg as written and the FAA Order to Inspectors, which covers only experience and says nothing about allowing credit for endorsements for which no record exists.

Also, please note the "as I see it" and "my guess is" in the expanded answer, and remember that I'm saying this because I know you can't go wrong by doing it as I said, while it's possible you could get fried doing it othewise. So, unless the FAA Chief Counsel otherwise, I'll stick with recommending a repeat of any endorsements that cannot be recovered or duplicated. The good news is that there are no minimum hours required for a 61.31 additional training endorsement, so if you already know your stuff, once around the pattern in a Beech Staggerwing should get you HP, complex, and TW in about 10 minutes of flight time.
 
Ron Levy said:
I'm just going with the reg as written and the FAA Order to Inspectors, which covers only experience and says nothing about allowing credit for endorsements for which no record exists.

Also, please note the "as I see it" and "my guess is" in the expanded answer, and remember that I'm saying this because I know you can't go wrong by doing it as I said, while it's possible you could get fried doing it othewise.
Click to expand...
I recall some comment about what is "possible" by Michael Meyers that is possibly applicable.

Sorry Ron, but that is really one of the more ridiculous "I'm just being conservative about this" statements. You're not "going with the reg as written." You're reinterpreting it to say that not only do you need the endorsement but that it needs to continue to exist in physical form after the fire wipes out all the rest of your important papers.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
Sorry Ron, but that is really one of the more ridiculous "I'm just being conservative about this" statements. You're not "going with the reg as written." You're reinterpreting it to say that not only do you need the endorsement but that it needs to continue to exist in physical form after the fire wipes out all the rest of your important papers.
Click to expand...
The reg says unequivocally that you need the endorsement in your logbook. There's no exception or exemption to that written in any FAA Order or AC if you don't have alternative records. You do what you want, and maybe it's belt-and-suspenders, but I will continue to recommend that the endorsement be reaccomplished unless/until the FAA says it isn't necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top