Is a turbofan considered high preformance?

Snow

Snow

'Not a new member'
Is a turbofan aircraft considered a high preformance aircraft in reguards to 61.31(f) ? Power is measured in pounds of thrust not hp, but I'm sure the conversion would be well over 200hp per engine.
 
I don't know for sure, but I think the high performance thing is kind of void when it comes to jet aircraft because they all require type ratings. So I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that even if you don't have a high performance rating, if you get a type rating in that specific turbofan, you don't necessarily need a high performance, but as to whether it qualifies as high performance training like to go back and fly a high performance piston plane I don't know.
 
I'm pretty sure a turbofan would not be considered high performance for the purpose of the endorsement. To fly as PIC or SIC in a jet, you would have type specific training in that plane anyhow, so you would not need a HP endorsment to fly a jet. If you get a PIC or SIC checkout in a jet, you would still need a HP endorsment if you wanted to go fly a C182.

The HP endorsment is to address issues such as fuel injection, shock cooling, more right rudder required for p-factor, torque, etc. Those things do not apply on jets.
 
Yes, I think you would need a high performance endorsment to fly the jet as PIC if you had not flown a high performance airplane prior to August 1997 as PIC. AC61-98 specifically states 200HP or the turbine power equivalent would require the endorsement. The AC further states that only private and commerical pilots require the endorsement. Part 61.31 is not that specific, and I would question the FAA to see if an ATP would require this endorsement.

It is conceivable that you could receive a commercial pilot certificate and never have flown an aircraft greater than 200HP...since the flight test only requires a complex aircraft. The type rating program should suffice for this endorsement...nonetheless...it should be made in the pilot's logbook.


If you later wanted to go back and fly the Cessna 182, I think you would have to receive a complex aircraft endorsement. The high performance endorsement and complex endorsement are separate.
 
complex endoresment is not required to fly a 182. It has to be retractable gear, CS prop AND flaps to require the complex end.
 
Delete reference to C182 above and substitute a BE58.

My intepretation is that a jet would require not only a type rating, but also a high performance endorsement if the pilot had not acted as PIC in such an aircraft prior to August '97. The type rating program should suffice for the endorsement...but the pilot's logbook should show the endorsement.
 
[ QUOTE ]
My intepretation is that a jet would require not only a type rating, but also a high performance endorsement if the pilot had not acted as PIC in such an aircraft prior to August '97. The type rating program should suffice for the endorsement...but the pilot's logbook should show the endorsement.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that is in fact true, I would have to get one backdated several years.
 
Again, AC 61-98A makes mention that only private and commerical pilots require the endorsement. So if you received your jet type rating in conjuction with an ATP....the endorsement likely would not be required.
 
[ QUOTE ]
All jets require a type rating. That makes up for the high perfomance endrsement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not all jets. Since not all have type ratings available. Those require an LOA.
 
I had someone recently tell me that a type rating is all you need to fly a particualar aircraft, high altitude, high preformance endorements not required. However you couldn't then go hop in a king air which requires both but not a type rating, as I understand it.
 
King Air 90, 100, 200 - no type rating required.
King Air 300 & 350 - type rating required.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top