Type ride/HP endorsement.

[RRPower]

I had something similar to this. I did my initial multi in a baron. I already had a PPL so I was adding this rating. I asked my instructor about the HP/Complex endorsement and he said I didn't need it because my checkride by default would make me have that endorsement. I let it go until a few years later when I went for my single engine commercial, after having both an instrument and multi instrument/commercial rides, and this instructor (a new one as well as different examiner) said I needed it. He made the point that when I took my multi checkride I was acting PIC and I can't do that without the endorsement. We called the FSDO because I was freaking out that all my multi and turbin time would be void because of this. The FSDO said it wouldn't be worth the leg work to get anyone on this anyway and for me to go with an instruictor and go once around the patch in a baron and get a sign off for it.

So now, in my log book I have "On recommendation from FAA, I received a new endorsemt stating:" and then the endorsement. I don't think anyone cares. Just get someone to sign you off and let it be that.

 

[Roger, Roger]

I'm still looking...but here is something interesting from an FAA AC on teaching aircraft transitions...

11. GENERAL LIMITATIONS - HIGH
PERFORMANCE AIRCRAFT. Under FAR
6 61.3 l(e), a private or commercial pilot may not
act as PiC of a high performance airplane [one that
has more than 200 horsepower (or the equivalent
thrust from a turbine engine), or that has a
retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable
pitch propeller] unless he or she has received flight
instruction in such an airplane from an authorized
flight instructor, and that flight instructor has
certified in the pilot’s logbook that he or she is
competent to pilot a high performance airplane.
However, this instruction is not required if the pilot
has logged flight time as PIC in high performance
airplanes before November 1, 1973.

Note that this dates from BEFORE the splitting of the high performance/complex endorsements. I'm looking for something more modern.

 

[Roger, Roger]

Aaaaaand here from an AC regarding training programs for type ratings.

b. Additional training requirements:
A pilot who has an AMEL certificate limited to center thrust or an ASEL certificate to receive
a type rating in a multiengine aircraft must complete multiengine land training as part of
the type rating course. Most airplanes that require type ratings have more than 200
horsepower (or the equivalent thrust), pressurization, and service ceilings and/or
maximum operating altitudes above 25,000 feet mean sea level. Pilots would therefore be required to receive both a high-performance endorsement and a high-altitude endorsement in their logbook or training record before acting as pilot in command of those airplanes. If they do not have the endorsements when they begin training for the type rating, the training for those endorsements may be included in the type rating curriculum if the airplane for which the type rating is required fits the appropriate description. However, separate logbook or training record endorsements must be issued for the type rating, high-performance, and/or high-altitude training, as appropriate. If highperformance and high-altitude training is conducted in conjunction with type rating training, the high-performance and highaltitude training should include specific operational aspects of the airplane. For example, the high-altitude training recommended in AC 61-107, High-Altitude Operations, should include the airplane’s particular systems and procedures for operating at high altitudes (such as the pressurization system and the specific decompression and emergency descent procedures described in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) or Pilot's Operating Handbook (POH)).

This dates from 2000. Unless someone can find something newer that contradicts it, it looks like the endorsements ARE needed.

 

[tgrayson]

(or the equivalent
thrust from a turbine engine)

That part is really unnecessary; even though we generally speak of jet engines producing thrust, they produce power, too, and a lot more than 200 HP.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

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.

So then what about a FADEC controlled engine on a complex plane? Or a Piper Meridian. You don't have a pilot controlled propeller in that case, do you?

 

[Roger, Roger]

So then what about a FADEC controlled engine on a complex plane? Or a Piper Meridian. You don't have a pilot controlled propeller in that case, do you?

The FAA has either an LOI or an actual change to the regulation (perhaps both, I forget) stating that an aircraft with a FADEC controlled variable pitch propeller, retractable landing gear, and flaps is a complex aircraft.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

The FAA has either an LOI or an actual change to the regulation (perhaps both, I forget) stating that an aircraft with a FADEC controlled variable pitch propeller, retractable landing gear, and flaps is a complex aircraft.

Doh! I knew that. I spent a while looking earlier and couldn't find a darn thing. I finally found it, and as far as I know, its still in the proposed stage.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...862576230066D26E?OpenDocument&Highlight=fadec