HP/Complex training, can I log it as PIC?

poadeleted21

poadeleted21

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
12,332
Tallying up the log book, it seems I can log my HP/Complex training w/CFI as PIC even though I didn't have a HP/Complex endorsement. Am I reading it right?
 
bartmc said:
Tallying up the log book, it seems I can log my HP/Complex training w/CFI as PIC even though I didn't have a HP/Complex endorsement. Am I reading it right?
Click to expand...

Yes you are, if you had your private at the time.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk 2
 
Wish they would have just done away with HP endorsement.
I fly a 340hp plane but because it's 170hp per side it's not HP. Ever time I get into a HP plane I can't log it because I for have the freaken endorsement.
 
MachFly said:
Wish they would have just done away with HP endorsement.
I fly a 340hp plane but because it's 170hp per side it's not HP. Ever time I get into a HP plane I can't log it because I for have the freaken endorsement.
Click to expand...

Why not spend 30 minutes with a CFI and get it?
 
MachFly said:
Wish they would have just done away with HP endorsement.
I fly a 340hp plane but because it's 170hp per side it's not HP. Ever time I get into a HP plane I can't log it because I for have the freaken endorsement.
Click to expand...
More to the point, every time you get into a HP plane you can't be acting PIC!
 
bartmc said:
Why not spend 30 minutes with a CFI and get it?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't they need to give me the whole checkout in order to give me a HP endorsement? Since that would take a few hours I don't really want to pay.
 
MachFly said:
Wouldn't they need to give me the whole checkout in order to give me a HP endorsement? Since that would take a few hours I don't really want to pay.
Click to expand...

I thought the endorsement was more or less a judgement call on the part of the CFI (I'm sure there's some FAA guidelines or what not), I figured if you showed competence (which I also guesstimated that you would having your ME, which I also assumed given your post) that it wouldn't be more than 30 minute formality. I'm a 275ish hour PPL with a 1 week old HP & Complex endorsement, so consider your source :D

My understanding is the HP endorsement was more about the engine/fuel management than dealing with excess horsepower. Other than an impressive VSI reading compared to my cherokee and an appreciation for the right rudder on take off. The HP isn't much of a deal.
 
Last edited:
bartmc said:
I thought the endorsement was more or less a judgement call on the part of the CFI (I'm sure there's some FAA guidelines or what not), I figured if you showed competence (which I also guesstimated that you would having your ME, which I also assumed given your post) that it wouldn't be more than 30 minute formality. I'm a 275ish hour PPL with a 1 week old HP & Complex endorsement, so consider your source :D

My understanding is the HP endorsement was more about the engine/fuel management than dealing with excess horsepower. Other than an impressive VSI reading compared to my cherokee and an appreciation for the right rudder on take off. The HP isn't much of a deal.
Click to expand...

You know what, I think your right, at least it logically makes sense. They wouldn't need to test me on navigation or any of that crap so it should be much faster than a normal checkout.

I think there is a flight school on the field with a C182RG, going to give them a call tomorrow see if they can give it to me in 30min.
 
MachFly said:
You know what, I think your right, at least it logically makes sense. They wouldn't need to test me on navigation or any of that crap so it should be much faster than a normal checkout.

I think there is a flight school on the field with a C182RG, going to give them a call tomorrow see if they can give it to me in 30min.
Click to expand...
With an RG, are you planning to go for the complex at the same time as the HP? They'll probably want to take you out of the pattern for that, and maybe to a power off 180, too. Remember, you don't have feathering on most single engine aircraft, but it still helps immensely to pull the prop back!
 
gprellwitz said:
With an RG, are you planning to go for the complex at the same time as the HP? They'll probably want to take you out of the pattern for that, and maybe to a power off 180, too. Remember, you don't have feathering on most single engine aircraft, but it still helps immensely to pull the prop back!
Click to expand...

I fly the TwinStar, it's complex. I expect it to feel like an underpowered single, should be pretty easy.
 
Last edited:
denverpilot said:
Until our Dear Leader, the Chief Counsel says no. Hahah.
Click to expand...
Except the Chief Counsel already said yes...years ago. Only stipulation is you must be rated, i.e., have all appropriate category/class/type ratings on your pilot certificate. So, if you're getting your HP/complex training in a twin but only have an ASEL on your pilot certificate, you cannot log it as PIC time. Other than that, yes, it's legal, by both the plain reading and the Chief Counsel's interpretation of the relevant regulations.
 
MachFly said:
Wouldn't they need to give me the whole checkout in order to give me a HP endorsement? Since that would take a few hours I don't really want to pay.
Click to expand...
The endorsing instructor need only give enough ground and flight training (some of each must, by regulation, be logged) is necessary for that instructor to be satisfied that the trainee is competent to act as PIC of an airplane with at least one engine of more than 200HP. A five minute discussion and once around the pattern might be sufficient in some cases, but several hours of ground and flight training might be necessary in others.

BTW, the "flight" portion may be given in a simulator or FTD, not just an airplane, which might help MachFly.
 
MachFly said:
I fly the TwinStar, it's complex. I expect it to feel like an underpowered single, should be pretty easy.
Click to expand...
Actually, it's not really complex by the regulatory definition, as you cannot directly control the props, but the FAA granted an exemption for the DA42 to allow it to be used to meet the requirements for complex training in 61.31, 61.129, and Commercial/CFI Airplane practical tests.
 
Ron Levy said:
Because he'd also have to pay for 30 minutes (or more) of rental on an airplane with at least one over-200 HP engine?
Click to expand...

Ron Levy said:
The endorsing instructor need only give enough ground and flight training (some of each must, by regulation, be logged) is necessary for that instructor to be satisfied that the trainee is competent to act as PIC of an airplane with at least one engine of more than 200HP. A five minute discussion and once around the pattern might be sufficient in some cases, but several hours of ground and flight training might be necessary in others.

BTW, the "flight" portion may be given in a simulator or FTD, not just an airplane, which might help MachFly.
Click to expand...

As long as it's only 30min I'm okay with it, don't want to do a 3 hour checkout on a airplane that I will not be flying in the near future. Before agreeing for the flight I'll get them to tell me exactly what they expect and if it's a few trips around the pattern I think I'm okay with it.

Didn't know that I could use a sim, but regardless there isn't one in the area. There is an SR20 sim but that's only 200hp.
 
Ron Levy said:
Actually, it's not really complex by the regulatory definition, as you cannot directly control the props, but the FAA granted an exemption for the DA42 to allow it to be used to meet the requirements for complex training in 61.31, 61.129, and Commercial/CFI Airplane practical tests.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see what you mean. I fly a Super Decathlon every month or so to stay proficient in aerobatics and I used to do a lot of flying in the DA40 about two years ago, also occasionally a fly a couple of bonanzas. So I am familiar with the manual prop controls.
 
MachFly said:
Ah, I see what you mean. I fly a Super Decathlon every month or so to stay proficient in aerobatics and I used to do a lot of flying in the DA40 about two years ago, also occasionally a fly a couple of bonanzas. So I am familiar with the manual prop controls.
Click to expand...
That's all well and good, but by the regs (the DA42 exemption and seaplane exception in the reg notwithstanding), for the complex endorsement, you need to get training in a complex airplane, i.e., one plane with all the goodies installed, not training in one retractable plane and one c/s prop plane. :wink2:

That said, it's kind of a square-filler event, as you can get the complex endorsement in a seaplane and then go fly a retractable gear landplane without ever getting 10 seconds instruction on retractable gear, or get it in the exempted DA42 without ever learning how to manage an independent prop control. Further, you can legally fly a fixed-pitch or Aeromatic prop retractable gear plane (I think there are some Swifts with the Aeromatic prop) without ever getting any instruction on retractable gear. Finally, I've yet to see any statistics comparing the rates of gear-up landings before and after the complex endorsement was invented in 1997. :dunno:
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
That's all well and good, but by the regs (the DA42 exemption and seaplane exception in the reg notwithstanding), for the complex endorsement, you need to get training in a complex airplane, i.e., one plane with all the goodies installed, not training in one retractable plane and one c/s prop plane. :wink2:

That said, it's kind of a square-filler event, as you can get the complex endorsement in a seaplane and then go fly a retractable gear landplane without ever getting 10 seconds instruction on retractable gear, or get it in the exempted DA42 without ever learning how to manage an independent prop control. Further, you can legally fly a fixed-pitch or Aeromatic prop retractable gear plane (I think there are some Swifts with the Aeromatic prop) without ever getting any instruction on retractable gear. Finally, I've yet to see any statistics comparing the rates of gear-up landings before and after the complex endorsement was invented in 1997. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Yeah you shouldn't be allowed to go flying an airplane with manual prop controls after only flying the TwinStar. They should get rid of all those endorsements, or at least change the limits.

For example high performance really should be aircraft with 500hp, not 200hp.
 
Yeah. Extra training and endorsements should only be required for stuff I don't want to fly anyway. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top