Two Questions

[M.E.]

1. Getting the log book up to date. PA34-200T, Piper Seneca. 200 horse engine twin. Complex - YES, Hi Performance - ???? I know a single 200 horse (e.g. Arrow) is complex, but not high performance. Does that change for a twin?

2. 2001 Piper Archer III has two static vents on each side of the fuselage. Buddy of mine going for his CFII had a perfect oral, EXCEPT for him indicating the static ports were on the fuselage. The DE told him that the Static port was on the back side of the pitot tube, and the fuselage is for the static vent (WHAT IS THERE TO VENT????). All of the CFI's at the FBO feel Piper changed this some time over the last few yeears. The POH agrees with the DE, but the POH page is listed as 1995. The 2002 Arrow POH shows the Static Port on the fuselage. So, the question is... who is right? Thanks.

M.E.

 

[EdFred]

1. Getting the log book up to date. PA34-200T, Piper Seneca. 200 horse engine twin. Complex - YES, Hi Performance - ???? I know a single 200 horse (e.g. Arrow) is complex, but not high performance. Does that change for a twin?

NO. Must be more than 200HP per engine. Not 200 or more. More than 200.

As far as number #2 goes, what's a "static vent" ?

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

If there is a static port on the pitot, the fuselage orifices *could be* alternate air sources, someone fam with type will need to answer.

 

[M.E.]

There is a static port on the pitot, but that's even there on the Arrow and other Pipers, even though those specific Piper's use the static source on the fuselage. So I figure it's just a manufacturing thing. Only Pitot tube for all Pipers. As was asked in the first reply. I don't even know what a static vent is? By the way, the alternate static source is inside the cockpit.


M.E.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

2. 2001 Piper Archer III has two static vents on each side of the fuselage. Buddy of mine going for his CFII had a perfect oral, EXCEPT for him indicating the static ports were on the fuselage. The DE told him that the Static port was on the back side of the pitot tube, and the fuselage is for the static vent (WHAT IS THERE TO VENT????). All of the CFI's at the FBO feel Piper changed this some time over the last few yeears. The POH agrees with the DE, but the POH page is listed as 1995. The 2002 Arrow POH shows the Static Port on the fuselage. So, the question is... who is right? Thanks.

I've got about 20-30 hrs in a '98 Archer III. IIRC, the static ports on the rear fuselage were for the autopilot (KAP-140). I have an Information Manual (not POH) for the Archer III, but it doesn't show those ports. I'd check the POH supplement for the KAP-140 (or whatever A/P it has).

Jeff

 

[Henning]

1. Getting the log book up to date. PA34-200T, Piper Seneca. 200 horse engine twin. Complex - YES, Hi Performance - ???? I know a single 200 horse (e.g. Arrow) is complex, but not high performance. Does that change for a twin?

2. 2001 Piper Archer III has two static vents on each side of the fuselage. Buddy of mine going for his CFII had a perfect oral, EXCEPT for him indicating the static ports were on the fuselage. The DE told him that the Static port was on the back side of the pitot tube, and the fuselage is for the static vent (WHAT IS THERE TO VENT????). All of the CFI's at the FBO feel Piper changed this some time over the last few yeears. The POH agrees with the DE, but the POH page is listed as 1995. The 2002 Arrow POH shows the Static Port on the fuselage. So, the question is... who is right? Thanks.

M.E.

1.) Twin is MEL, who cares if it's high performance?

2.) What does the POH-A/FM for that aircraft say about it? I'm not sure what there is to vent either. In my minds eye, the static port is the vent for the case of the instrument. Note: These coments refer to analog/anneroid instruments.
BTW, it doesn't matter who is right, your buddy passed. There's nothing he as a pilot is ever going to do about the static port except switch sources anyway. If he does have to clear it sometime, it's easy enough to track down the system in that plane.

 

[poadeleted20]

1. Getting the log book up to date. PA34-200T, Piper Seneca. 200 horse engine twin. Complex - YES, Hi Performance - ????

Yes, because the Turbo Seneca engines are each rated at 215 HP above something like 12,000 feet. If it's rated at over 200 HP anywhere in its operating envelope, it's HP. The original nonturbo Seneca is rated only at 200 HP period, and so is not HP.

I know a single 200 horse (e.g. Arrow) is complex, but not high performance. Does that change for a twin?

No. It's written in 61.31(f) as "an airplane with an engine of more than 200 horsepower," not "a total of more than 200 HP." IIRC, the plane that Rutan and Yeager flew around the world was HP because one of the two engines was rated at more than 200 HP even though the other one was not.

 

[bbchien]

1. Getting the log book up to date. PA34-200T, Piper Seneca. 200 horse engine twin. Complex - YES, Hi Performance - ????

This is from John Lynch's Q&A. Mr. Lynch has retired, and notwithstanding the occasional contradictions pointed out by Ed, this is the FSDO position:


QUESTION: Is a Piper Senaca II a high performance airplane. The Piper Senaca II AFM says its engines are rated at 200 horsepower at sea level and increase in altitude up to 215 horsepower at 12,000.


ANSWER: Ref. § 61.31(f); It is a high performance airplane. The rule states, in pertinent part, “ . . . (an airplane with an engine of more than 200 horsepower) . . .” And as you stated, the Piper Senaca II is “an airplane with an engine of more than 200 horsepower.” The rule does not differentiate where the engine has to be more than 200 horsepower, it just says “an engine of more than 200 horsepower.”

{Q&A-59}


The link is below:

http://www.faa.gov/AVR/AFS/AFS800/DOCS/pt61FAQ.doc

The POH for the Seneca II rates the engines at 215 hp each at 10,000 feet. The Seneca Is are 200 hp at 0 MSL and less with every vertical foot. Same for the PA28R-200, but the PA28R201T I believe makes the same 210 hp at 10,000 feet- you'd have to consult a Turbo Arrow manual. Same engine and turbo setup.

 

[poadeleted20]

This is from John Lynch's Q&A. Mr. Lynch has retired,

Maybe on paper, but as of today, he's still answering email on Part 61 FAQ files from his faa.gov email address. His latest statement has me shaking my head:

"I consulted with AGC-240 and the attorney told me that legally the way I have answered Q&A-604 would be difficult to defend if the matter were to ever go before a judge...your reading of § 61.195(f) is legally correct. However, there has not been a legal interpretation made on § 61.195(f). And in the Q&A documents, I have clearly made a disclaimer statement where I stated 'The answers in this website address Frequently Asked Questions on 14 CFR Part 61 and represents FAA Flight Standards Service policy as it relates to this regulation.' Therefore, my answers are not legal interpretations. When a legal interpretation is made, I will need to change the answer but for now Q&A-604 is FAA Flight Standards policy."

IOW, "Yes, the Chief Counsel's Office has told me I'm wrong, but they did it unofficially, so I'm not bound by what they told me, and I'll go on saying it means what I want it to say rather than what the lawyers told me it says."

I have officially asked the FAA Counsel for that interpretation.

 

[bbchien]

"I consulted with AGC-240 and the attorney told me that legally the way I have answered Q&A-604 would be difficult to defend if the matter were to ever go before a judge...your reading of § 61.195(f) is legally correct. However, there has not been a legal interpretation made on § 61.195(f). And in the Q&A documents, I have clearly made a disclaimer statement where I stated 'The answers in this website address Frequently Asked Questions on 14 CFR Part 61 and represents FAA Flight Standards Service policy as it relates to this regulation.' Therefore, my answers are not legal interpretations. When a legal interpretation is made, I will need to change the answer but for now Q&A-604 is FAA Flight Standards policy."
[

IOW they don't get a lot of help from their own folks What else is new....

I heard somewhere that the date was June 30.

 

[Stache]

The following information can be found in the Pilot Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge.



In this system, the impact air pressure (air striking the airplane because of its forward motion) is taken from a pitot tube, which is mounted either on the leading edge of the wing or on the nose, and aligned to the relative wind. On certain aircraft, the pitot tube is located on the vertical stabilizer. These locations provide minimum disturbance or turbulence caused by the motion of the airplane through the air. The static pressure (pressure of the still air) is usually taken from the static line attached to a vent or vents mounted flush with the side of the fuselage. Airplanes using a flush-type static source, with two vents, have one vent on each side of the fuselage. this compensates for any possible variation in static pressure due to erratic changes in airplane attitude.



Both VFR and IFR airplanes should meet the requirements of § 23.1325 in paragraph (b)(3) of this regulation because static vent icing can occur during both VFR and IFR conditions with hazardous consequences. The rule provides for either an anti-icing means or an alternate static source.



a. If installed, the alternate static source is not restricted to emergency conditions but may be used to monitor the primary static system.

b. We suggest marking the secondary static source with the word "Alternate.

Stache