Type ride/HP endorsement.
- Thread starter Blackhawk
- Start date
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
Somebody's been reading the absolutely ridiculous circular logic based discussions that take place at the Red Board. I'll be interested to see how it turns out here.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
Well considering that weird argument has made it into two threads here...
What may have set it off in part is that recent FAA Chief Counsel opinion that a student pilot needs a HP/complex/tailwheel endorsement even though the solo endorsement is make/model specific. If an endorsement to fly solo in a Cessna 210 doesn't imply HP and complex, why should a type rating?
(btw, I'm not taking sides in that one - I have an opinion, but it's not worth much)
Blackhawk
Well-Known Member
My interpretation is that a 210 does not require a type rating. A type rating specifically gives a person authority to be PIC in an aircraft that requires a type rating and is stamped on the certificate along with any limitations to that type rating. There is nothing in 61.31 (a) stating that in order to be PIC in an aircraft requiring a type rating a person must also hold an HP endorsement.
Now arguing the other way 61.31(f) does not state that it does not apply to aircraft covered by 61.31(a).
An example is one mentioned earlier- the DC-3. You need a type rating to operate. I think most would agree that you most definitely also need the 61.31(i) endorsement (tail wheel)... so why would you not need the 61.31(f) HP endorsement?
JoelT
Well-Known Member
A type trumps an endorsement. For example, I have four type ratings for various jet airliners. I do not have a high altitude endorsement.
So I've been illegal for the last 4 years flying as PIC (acting and logging) of a 1900D without a HP endorsement?
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
I do know that when if an applicant did NOT have a high altitude endorsement, then the "high dive" had to be tested on their first checkride in an airplane capable of going over 250.
So, the training and checking of the high performance endorsement is included, if it is not verified, with the type training.
It was even completed for SICs prior to the SIC type requirement, it was done on their first turbojet PC.
I will look up a reference later.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
So then, along with the High Performance endorsement, one could possibly not have a Complex endorsement, and still be PIC on say a 1900, provided they passed the type rating checkride? Or a tailwheel endorsement wouldn't be required if you passed a type rating for a DC-3?
EIR
It's 5 o'clock somewhere
That's right along the lines I was going on. I wasn't 100% sure, but this made the most sense in my head.
ackeight
Well-Known Member
So just because ya'll are typed in an RVSM approved aircraft you don't need the RVSM training? I guess the easiest way to solve this issue is to call up the FSDO. I don't beleive the Hp endorsement is relating to Jet aircraft, but I do believe that you need to have the high altitude endorsment. Why wouldn't the facility you got the type in give you the high alt endorsement/high preformance anyways? You went through training in the simulator anyways?
Edit: I just cracked the blue book out and cleared out the moss. The only way that you can get around not having the high alt endorsement would be if you took a pilot proficiency check under part 121/125/135 conducted by the Administrator or by an approved pilot check airman. So it looks like if you're doing this part 91 you're screwed.
Edit: I just cracked the blue book out and cleared out the moss. The only way that you can get around not having the high alt endorsement would be if you took a pilot proficiency check under part 121/125/135 conducted by the Administrator or by an approved pilot check airman. So it looks like if you're doing this part 91 you're screwed.
TFaudree_ERAU
Mashin' dem buttons
No, the PIC must have RVSM training to operate an RVSM equipped aircraft in RVSM airpace. The aircraft must also have an RVSM LOA and is subject to numerous recurring inspections.
Furthermore, the RVSM LOA does NOT transfer with the sale of an aircraft. The new operator must submit a new RVSM application.
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
:rotfl:. I wouldn't waste your time with the FSDO's. Ask 3 different FSDO's, and you'll get 3 different answers. Go straight to FAA legal. They have the opinion that is going to matter, when your certificate is on the line.
ackeight
Well-Known Member
I realized that, it was just to make a point as to why just because you have a type doesn't mean you need the high altitude endorsement. I'm sure 99.9% of the inspectors out there are going to wonder if you have the type on the aircraft and not the high alt.
R
Roger, Roger
Guest
Unless you can find an FAA rule or interpretation that says something along the lines of "the holder of a type rating in a high performance airplane need not have a high-performance endorsement to act as PIC of said airplane", then yes.
SpiceWeasel
Tre Kronor
We've circled right back around....
Ok, currently I do not possess a HP endorsement (have a HA due to misinterpretation)....
So, when and if I get a go at becoming PIC on a CRJ, do I require that HP endorsement? Or is a CRJ not considered "High Performance" due to the "200 HP" stipulation...
R
Roger, Roger
Guest
That, I do not know.
The case of a turboprop is pretty cut and dry, unless the FAA has an interpretation that says otherwise.
Note: you wouldn't need a complex endorsement for a jet either, due to the lack of a controllable pitch propeller.