Is the Seneca II high performance?

swisspilot

swisspilot

Well-Known Member
well guys this seems to be an easy question but it has been a problem with both my MEI and the Insurance.

The POH says 200HP at sea level and 215HP at 12000 feet, the engine model is TSIO-360E which according to Continetal is 215HP.

The problem I`m having is that the other company pilot has enough hours to get insurance, I don`t, to meet them I would have to fly with the MEI unless the airplane is not high performance, in this case I could just fly with the other pilot and get the hours on type (5) I need for the insurance on the way back home. At the end is a matter of time and $$$ for US, the plane has to be out of here as soon as possible, everyday here in KCRE is costing us money.

thanks

Alex
 
swisspilot said:
The POH says 200HP at sea level and 215HP at 12000 feet, the engine model is TSIO-360E which according to Continetal is 215HP.
Click to expand...

The old Part 61 FAQs said 'yes', but these FAQs no longer have any official standing. For what it's worth:
QUESTION: Is a Piper Senaca II a high performance airplane. The Piper Senaca II AFM says its engines are rated at 200 horsepower at sea level and increase in altitude up to 215 horsepower at 12,000.

ANSWER: Ref. § 61.31(f); It is a high performance airplane. The rule states, in pertinent part, “ . . . (an airplane with an engine of more than 200 horsepower) . . .” And as you stated, the Piper Senaca II is “an airplane with an engine of more than 200 horsepower.” The rule does not differentiate where the engine has to be more than 200 horsepower, it just says “an engine of more than 200 horsepower.”
​
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
I'd probably write a letter to FAA legal to get the final word, as many people will get different answers from different FSDO's.
Click to expand...

Yes, asking FSDO is about the worst thing you can do, because it provides a false sense of security. All you will get is the opinion of the particular inspector you talk to and wouldn't be a reflection of what other inspectors thought, nor would it be any defense should the FAA pursue a violation.
 
tgrayson said:
Yes, asking FSDO is about the worst thing you can do, because it provides a false sense of security. All you will get is the opinion of the particular inspector you talk to and wouldn't be a reflection of what other inspectors thought, nor would it be any defense should the FAA pursue a violation.
Click to expand...

If he has a response in writing from the FSDO, isn't the onus on the FSDO to be right?

How could a pilot be held accountable for an error committed by the FSDO when said pilot has done due diligence in the matter?
 
killbilly said:
If he has a response in writing from the FSDO, isn't the onus on the FSDO to be right?
Click to expand...

You mean a legal interpretation provided by someone not authorized or competent to provide one? If the FAA chose to pursue the case, I suspect they could make mincemeat out of that.
 
I'm a little confused. The "other pilot" has the hours to satisfy insurance, but he can't fly the thing back to Brazil? Does he not have a high performance endorsement?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top