AMEL pilot, do I need a complex endorsement to log multi

[henryqs1]

Since I got my commercial amel in PA-24 Comanche, which is complex airplane then I can take commercial single on non complex airplane. A lot of flight schools do this.

I guess I will have to ask my instructor to give me HD endorsement.

Thanks for everyone's help!!!!

-Henry

 

[elmetal]

Show me the exception in the FARs for this. There isn't one. The FAA has some exceptions for military pilots- but this is not one of them. Unless there is a specific FAR then the military pilot will need the HP/complex endorsement in order to fly GA airplanes. It was the same for me. I had type ratings, but no HP endorsement until I flew a 182. In order to be legal I had to get the HP endorsement. The FARs are very specific and I know of no exception in them or in the FAA Orders that say otherwise.

now as far as that goes:

Say someone on here falls through those cracks and logs 100 PIC in a HP without the endorsement.

Do you lose the logged PIC hours retroactively if you do bring up the issue and get a HP endorsement?

 

[drunkenbeagle]

now as far as that goes:

Say someone on here falls through those cracks and logs 100 PIC in a HP without the endorsement.

Do you lose the logged PIC hours retroactively if you do bring up the issue and get a HP endorsement?

Depends what date gets signed on the endorsement...

 

[Blackhawk]

now as far as that goes:

Say someone on here falls through those cracks and logs 100 PIC in a HP without the endorsement.

Do you lose the logged PIC hours retroactively if you do bring up the issue and get a HP endorsement?

The only time it would probably be an issue is if a pilot where to have an accident without the proper endorsements. Even then it would probably come back to the CFI involved, although there have been cases where the NTSB found the pilot involved to be liable for not having the proper endorsements.
While not directly dealing with this subject, here is a case that deals with endorsements:

http://ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4634.PDF

"Although respondent’s failure to properly certify that the presolo
requirements were met is certainly less significant than a
failure to meet those requirements, we cannot ignore the violation
of section 61.87(m). It is clear from the dismissal of the
alleged violations of sections 61.195(c) and (d) that respondent
ensured that the pre-solo instruction requirements were met, but
to therefore ignore respondent’s failure to certify that fact, as​

section 61.87(m) requires, would render 61.87(m) meaningless."
In other words the endorsement must be present even if there is proof of the training being completed.
I can't find the case but there was another one that involved a military comp pilot and a cross country. I'll try to find it.

 

[elmetal]

Thanks, these technicalities always find a way into my head somehow.

 

[Blackhawk]

Depends what date gets signed on the endorsement...

Exactly. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Nudge is good as a wink. Say no more, say no more.

 

[Hacker15e]

Show me the exception in the FARs for this.

I'm asking you...I have never heard or imagined that such a thing would be required, especially if you'd been qualified to fly other aircraft which are quite obviously high performance.

I've taken FAA checkrides in a Seminole and King Air, and at no time was I ever asked to provide a logbook HP endorsement. In fact, I never even had to provide civil logbooks for either examiner - they referenced my USAF flight records printout to show experience requirements and my FAA certificate to show rating req's, and that's it. If this was truly such an issue, I have to imagine one of them would have brought it up at least in discussion.

FWIW, I've had an HP endorsement since '95, before I started flying for the AF, but that's not the point. The point IS, nobody has EVER brought that up to me, and I've done plenty of flying in HP and complex pistons over the last 15 years with a commercial and multi earned through the mil-comp process.

 

[CoffeeIcePapers]

I already have commercial single and multi engine rating. I did my multi commercial first then my commercial single. I assume that I don't need a complex endorsement because multi is a complex airplane.

Also I just received my high altitude endorsement on cessna 340 from my instructor, but realized that I don't have high performance endorsement. Is this legal? Thanks.

-Henry

Like people said, you need the appropriate endorsements to ACT as PIC, but you don't need them to LOG PIC. If you have been acting as PIC (Including the checkride), then you and your instructor both screwed up.

 

[Blackhawk]

I'm asking you...I have never heard or imagined that such a thing would be required, especially if you'd been qualified to fly other aircraft which are quite obviously high performance.

I've taken FAA checkrides in a Seminole and King Air, and at no time was I ever asked to provide a logbook HP endorsement. In fact, I never even had to provide civil logbooks for either examiner - they referenced my USAF flight records printout to show experience requirements and my FAA certificate to show rating req's, and that's it. If this was truly such an issue, I have to imagine one of them would have brought it up at least in discussion.

FWIW, I've had an HP endorsement since '95, before I started flying for the AF, but that's not the point. The point IS, nobody has EVER brought that up to me, and I've done plenty of flying in HP and complex pistons over the last 15 years with a commercial and multi earned through the mil-comp process.

I'm not the one asking for an exception to the FARs- you are. So it is incumbant upon you to find out why the FARs don't apply to you. They are pretty clear and there is no exception for someone who already holds a commercial pilot certificate, nor an exception for military pilots. The FAA has made exceptions for military pilots in the past and if they wanted one for this it would have been included. It was not for a reason.
As for the HP endorsement, you need to look at the FARs. Anyone with HP/complex time prior to 1997 is grandfathered.
No one probably broght it up because they assumed (and you know what assuming does), that you had the required endorsements. After all- how could you take a commercial check ride without the endorsements? Again, you are saying there should be the exception to the law. Show me in writing where it says there is an exception except for those with HP/complex time prior to 1997. As I pointed out the FAA takes a very dim view of CFIs who do not make the required endorsements and pilots who fly without the required endorsements. Really it probably would not be a issue... unless you had an accident. Then the FAA would ask to see the approriate endorsements or experience prior to 1997.

 

[CFI A&P]

Since I got my commercial amel in PA-24 Comanche, which is complex airplane then I can take commercial single on non complex airplane. A lot of flight schools do this.

I guess I will have to ask my instructor to give me HD endorsement.

Thanks for everyone's help!!!!

-Henry

In case you didn't know already, the PA24 is the single engine Comanche, comes in 180, 250, 260 or 400hp flavors. The multi engine Comanch is known as the PA30 or Twin Comanche.

Either aircraft is a complex, under 61.31 and would require an endorsement for either.

 

[Blackhawk]

Just to go a little further in the topic for those with military, 121, 125 or 135 experience. When it comes to operating pressurized aircraft 61.31 permits the documentation of this type of training to satisfy the requirement of 61.31(g) Additional Training Required for Operation of Pressurized Aircraft Capable of Operating at High Altitude.
...
(3) The training and endorsement required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this section are not required if that person can document satisfactory accomplishment of any of the following in a pressurized aircraft, or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a pressurized aircraft:
(i) Serving as pilot in command before April 15, 1991;
(ii) Completing a pilot proficiency check for a pilot certificate or rating before April 15, 1991;
(iii) Completing an official pilot-in-command check conducted by the military services of the United States; or
(iv) Completing a pilot-in-command proficiency check under part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter conducted by the Administrator or by an approved pilot check airman.

Yet the FAA did NOT include any kind of provision for the HP or complex endorsement for military or pilots who fall under 119. If they did not include this provision then they obviously want these pilots to get the required endorsement. "I'm so good I don't require the training" probably won't wash.

 

[Hacker15e]

I'm not the one asking for an exception to the FARs- you are.

I'm not asking for jack -- as I said, I have an endorsement signed in '95.

Nor was I "asking for an exception to the FARs". I was inquiring for informational purposes, as it didn't -- and still doesn't -- make sense that a HP logbook endorsement would be required when the entry level for a mil-comp pilot is at the commercial level, and only after qualification in aircraft that are more powerful and complex than the requirement for either the high performance or complex endorsement. Does not compute, nor match the spirit and intent of the mil comp process. Does it check that someone could be qualified to fly the T-6, yet somehow not be qualified to fly something with a constant speed prop or a 200 hp engine? Is that not implied when they're given the qualification on something with a 1,000 shp engine turning a prop?

I don't have a "high altitude" endorsement, either...but I have plenty of documentation for the military altitude chamber initial and recurrent trainings that I've had over the years. So, am I equally not qualified to fly up in the bozosphere on oxygen?

I'm just asking the question for clarification.

 

[Blackhawk]

I'm not asking for jack -- as I said, I have an endorsement signed in '95.

Nor was I "asking for an exception to the FARs". I was inquiring for informational purposes, as it didn't -- and still doesn't -- make sense that a HP logbook endorsement would be required when the entry level for a mil-comp pilot is at the commercial level, and only after qualification in aircraft that are more powerful and complex than the requirement for either the high performance or complex endorsement. Does not compute, nor match the spirit and intent of the mil comp process.

I don't have a "high altitude" endorsement, either...but I have plenty of documentation for the military altitude chamber initial and recurrent trainings that I've had over the years. So, am I equally not qualified to fly up in the bozosphere on oxygen?

I'm just asking the question for clarification.

Read the portion of the FAR that I quoted above. The FAA does specifically give credit for the high altitide endorsement to military and 119 pilots. Yet when it comes the the HP and complex endorsement... they are silent. Silence in this case does not mean you can do what you want. It means you have to follow the regulation or risk a violation.

 

[ryan1234]

I'm not the one asking for an exception to the FARs- you are. So it is incumbant upon you to find out why the FARs don't apply to you. They are pretty clear and there is no exception for someone who already holds a commercial pilot certificate, nor an exception for military pilots. The FAA has made exceptions for military pilots in the past and if they wanted one for this it would have been included. It was not for a reason.
As for the HP endorsement, you need to look at the FARs. Anyone with HP/complex time prior to 1997 is grandfathered.
No one probably broght it up because they assumed (and you know what assuming does), that you had the required endorsements. After all- how could you take a commercial check ride without the endorsements? Again, you are saying there should be the exception to the law. Show me in writing where it says there is an exception except for those with HP/complex time prior to 1997. As I pointed out the FAA takes a very dim view of CFIs who do not make the required endorsements and pilots who fly without the required endorsements. Really it probably would not be a issue... unless you had an accident. Then the FAA would ask to see the approriate endorsements or experience prior to 1997.

There are many new Guard/mil pilots flying for airlines that somehow missed this jewel of wisdom, and continue to fly for an airline, part 135, etc

An FAA inspector told me this.... Those who hold a Commercial are assumed to have a complex endorsement upon completion of the checkride, and high altitude/high performance/whatever are assumed if required for specific type ratings. Mil guys fly high performance/high altitude/complex... and complete a checkride with those aircraft, they are assumed to have those endorsements since their mil comp test was predicated on those aircraft they have flown. That's just how it is. 3

 

[Hacker15e]

they are assumed to have those endorsements since their mil comp test was predicated on those aircraft they have flown.

This is my point.

With the military competency program, the FAA is awarding a certificate based on the mil pilot's demonstrated competency in an aircraft that exceeds the high performance aircraft threshold.

If it meets the requirements for issuance of a certificate, how can it not meet the intent of 61.31 f) (1)(i)? To cut nuts, you could even argue that the military IP's signature on the gradesheet that has a student pass his checkride is tantamount to the "logbook endorsement", even though it does not use the wording specified in the Advisory Circular.

 

[Blackhawk]

There are many new Guard/mil pilots flying for airlines that somehow missed this jewel of wisdom, and continue to fly for an airline, part 135, etc

An FAA inspector told me this.... Those who hold a Commercial are assumed to have a complex endorsement upon completion of the checkride, and high altitude/high performance/whatever are assumed if required for specific type ratings. Mil guys fly high performance/high altitude/complex... and complete a checkride with those aircraft, they are assumed to have those endorsements since their mil comp test was predicated on those aircraft they have flown. That's just how it is. 3

What was the FAA inspector's reference? There is no FAA order that states this that I am aware of and I was told the opposite by my FSDO. Even though I had multiple type ratings the FAR is very specific and they actually asked me where there was an exception- there is not one. Yet there is one for the high altitude endorsement. So your telling me the FAA put in the exemption for the high altitude endorsement, yet when it came to the HP/complex endorsement they said "assume"?? Without a reference or a letter from FAA legal you are up the creek if you have an accident.
With the airlines and most 135 operations pilots get type ratings which permit them to be PIC in a specific type of airplane. Operating an aircraft with a type rating does not require the HP/complex endorsement. The type rating does not count as a HP/complex endorsement. Also, just because you flew an airplane in the military does not mean you do not need a type rating to fly it on the civilian side. Now you can automatically get the type rating, but if you attempt to be PIC in a civilian aircraft without the type rating on your certificate you are up the creek.

 

[Blackhawk]

This is my point.

With the military competency program, the FAA is awarding a certificate based on the mil pilot's demonstrated competency in an aircraft that exceeds the high performance aircraft threshold.

If it meets the requirements for issuance of a certificate, how can it not meet the intent of 61.31 f) (1)(i)? To cut nuts, you could even argue that the military IP's signature on the gradesheet that has a student pass his checkride is tantamount to the "logbook endorsement", even though it does not use the wording specified in the Advisory Circular.

It is not an endorsement, although you can get an endorsment if the instructor is authorized to do so. The NTSB legal decisions are very clear on this matter- no endorsement in the logbook and you are not legal no matter what training took place. I've shown you where the FAA grants exceptions and they are very specific in those cases. Yet in other cases they do not grant those exceptions. All I have read is "someone told me" or "that makes no sense". No one has provided anything in writing that says you can do this- and the FAA is very specific when they permit this.

 

[ryan1234]

What was the FAA inspector's reference?

Common Sense


The mil guy demonstrated competency to the FAA to act as PIC of that particular aircraft (as per "requirements" of the FAA), thus the unneeded endorsement.

 

[Boris Badenov]

Interesting discussion. I'm of the school that believes that A) It's sort of absurd to require an HP endorsement for someone who's obviously somehow slipped through the cracks but also B) It's always wise to have your butt covered. I still have my HP endorsement (and my tailwheel endorsement...in case I land that dream job flying a Beech 18 for 200k/year) from 199whatever taped in the binder I keep my Logbook Pro printouts in...just cause. With that said, I've yet to see any interviewer (or DE) even pause on the page where I keep my various training endorsements...YMMV.

 

[Hacker15e]

The NTSB legal decisions are very clear on this matter- no endorsement in the logbook and you are not legal no matter what training took place.

Do you have a specific case reference for this, especially one involving a pilot who was awarded certificates based on military competency?