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

H

henryqs1

Well-Known Member
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
 
Yeah it's fine - but it would have been cool of him to just give you the high performance endorsement also.
 
henryqs1 said:
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
Click to expand...

So you took a checkride in a complex airplane without having a complex endorsement at all?
 
As someone alluded, you should have had a complex endorsement in your logbook prior to your checkride. Not sure how the DE let this slip. 61.31 is very explicit. Unless you have an endorsement in your logbook you can't act as PIC in a complex airplane. Same with the high performance endorsement. It does not matter that you flew in a C-340. If you don't have a high performance endorsement you can not act as PIC in a HP aircraft. Type ratings do not even fulfill this requirement. You can have a page full of type ratings, but if you don't have the HP/complex endorsements no acting as PIC in aircraft that require them.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...v8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.1.2.1.1.21&idno=14
 
Actually if you take commercial AMEL first, you don't need to take the checkride on a complex for your commercial single. This is legal, I am positive about that. A number of people have gone through this route.

Can anybody provide more input on logging PIC in 340 without HD endorsement.
 
henryqs1 said:
Actually if you take commercial AMEL first, you don't need to take the checkride on a complex for your commercial single. This is legal, I am positive about that. A number of people have gone through this route.

Can anybody provide more input on logging PIC in 340 without HD endorsement.
Click to expand...

You still need the complex endorsement for the cmel so... you have to have gotten it one way or another if you are commercial rated. I can't think of a multi off the top of my head that's not complex anyways.

As far as logging pic w/o the HP endorsement, remember acting and logging are two entirely different things.
 
What does the complex endorsement have to do with the multi rating?

A Twin Otter is a non-complex multi. There's also another multi that looks like a twin otter, but piston powered.
 
Chief Captain said:
What does the complex endorsement have to do with the multi rating?

A Twin Otter is a non-complex multi. There's also another multi that looks like a twin otter, but piston powered.
Click to expand...

Commercial rating requires the checkride to be done in a complex airplane (or at least part of the checkride). So if he has Commercial MEL, he should already have a complex endorsement.
 
It does not matter that the commercial rating is required to take place in a complex airplane. If the endorsement is not present in your logbook you can not act as PIC in a complex airplane. Period. There is no exception present in part 61 that I am aware of and the wording is very explicit. You should not even have been permitted to take the check ride.
 
Blackhawk said:
Period. End of discussion. I don't care if you are type rated in the space shuttle.
Click to expand...

Can 'o worms there! If the space shuttle were to get a civil airworthiness certificate, it would be as a glider. A glider does not require an endorsement for complex. (most gliders are retractable gear with flaps, especially the ones with engines.) If it is a turbojet, it does not require a type rating either...

I think you would just need a self-launch endorsement to fly it ;)
 
drunkenbeagle said:
Can 'o worms there! If the space shuttle were to get a civil airworthiness certificate, it would be as a glider. A glider does not require an endorsement for complex. (most gliders are retractable gear with flaps, especially the ones with engines.) If it is a turbojet, it does not require a type rating either...

I think you would just need a self-launch endorsement to fly it ;)
Click to expand...
Yeah, a bit of an exageration. But it brings up a common scenario that CFIs may face. If you get a pilot with a commercial certificate based upon military experience that pilot must meet the requirements of part 61 unless there is specific relief for military pilots (such as the flight review). For example, you get a military pilot who wants to get his/her ATP in a MEL. Unless this pilot is grandfathered there must be a complex endorsement (and HP endorsement if applicable), in the logbook to act as PIC in a complex airplane. If the endorsements are missing and the pilot is involved in an accident or incident the CFI in question will probably face enforcement action.
 
Blackhawk said:
If the endorsement is not present in your logbook you can not act as PIC in a complex airplane. Period. There is no exception present in part 61 that I am aware of and the wording is very explicit. You should not even have been permitted to take the check ride.
Click to expand...

What about military competency-rated pilots? I don't have a complex endorsement, but I have lots of time in HP/complex aircraft. Am I breaking some kind of CFR? Were the examiners who did my mil-comp, multi CLT restriction removal, and ATP in error.

Many mil comp pilots have CSEL ratings based on having flown T-6s or T-34s.

Your position on this issue just does not make sense to me.
 
Hacker15e said:
What about military competency-rated pilots? I don't have a complex endorsement, but I have lots of time in HP/complex aircraft. Am I breaking some kind of CFR? Were the examiners who did my mil-comp, multi CLT restriction removal, and ATP in error.

Many mil comp pilots have CSEL ratings based on having flown T-6s or T-34s.

Your position on this issue just does not make sense to me.
Click to expand...

whenever I think of any laws whether it's FAR or any other type of law I never really put military in my thoughts because there's always a military exception, so this is probably one of them
 
Hacker15e said:
What about military competency-rated pilots? I don't have a complex endorsement, but I have lots of time in HP/complex aircraft. Am I breaking some kind of CFR? Were the examiners who did my mil-comp, multi CLT restriction removal, and ATP in error.

Many mil comp pilots have CSEL ratings based on having flown T-6s or T-34s.

Your position on this issue just does not make sense to me.
Click to expand...
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.
On the surface it does not make sense. But if you think about the complexity of military flying it could. What if the military came up with a program where pilots only flew jets begining in primary? The FAA would then have to go through the complex procedure of changing the regulations to cover these pilots as they would have no experience with constant speed props. It is just safer for them to put in the regulation with no exceptions, save the grandfather clause for those who flew complex/HP aircraft prior to 1997.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top