Type rating question

statusseeker1

Well-Known Member
If I never got a high performance endorsement but hold type ratings on transport category aircraft, would I technically need that sign off before acting as PIC? Reference? Thanks.
 
I agree. Part (3)(iv) has the answer.

Part (3)(iv) only references high altitude sign offs are not needed- says nothing about the high performance endorsement. I'm sure lots of people fall under this category- go from flying 172s, arrow's, seminole's, to regional aircraft.
 
So if you're flying 91 then you would still need the endorsement right?
No, a 135 or 121 check counts as your high altitude endorsement.

Part (3)(iv) only references high altitude sign offs are not needed- says nothing about the high performance endorsement. I'm sure lots of people fall under this category- go from flying 172s, arrow's, seminole's, to regional aircraft.
This. There's nothing about high performance in Part 3.
 
They measure different things so it's kind of tough to make the conversion. However the general rule is that 105 pounds of thrust is equal to 1 hp.
Really? That'd make things like the Eclipse and Citation Mustang not high performance.
 
I know. Someday the FAA may rewrite reg to include a thrust number as well as a HP number, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
I'm not really sure how a conversion is even possible. Thrust is pressure while HP is power, or a measurement of work. It'd be like asking how many bushels of corn it takes to send a rocket to the moon. It doesn't work like that. The pressure number needs time to go with it to be work. X lbs of force exerted over Y time. Which is what HP is. Essentially, pounds/N are not a valid label for work. They are not work, they are force.
 
I'm not really sure how a conversion is even possible. Thrust is pressure while HP is power, or a measurement of work. It'd be like asking how many bushels of corn it takes to send a rocket to the moon. It doesn't work like that. The pressure number needs time to go with it to be work. X lbs of force exerted over Y time. Which is what HP is. Essentially, pounds/N are not a valid label for work. They are not work, they are force.

That's why I said that they may have to entirely rewrite the reg to address the fact that people are jumping into VLJs and what not right from low end Cessnas. Same deal with a centerline thrust restricted multi engine rating.
 
That's why I said that they may have to entirely rewrite the reg to address the fact that people are jumping into VLJs and what not right from low end Cessnas. Same deal with a centerline thrust restricted multi engine rating.
So I guess you can go fly a C500 with a type and no HP endorsement, and if the feds try to violate you, you can just call a high school physics teacher as a witness as to how retarded the FAA is?
 
I'm not really sure how a conversion is even possible. Thrust is pressure while HP is power, or a measurement of work. It'd be like asking how many bushels of corn it takes to send a rocket to the moon. It doesn't work like that. The pressure number needs time to go with it to be work. X lbs of force exerted over Y time. Which is what HP is. Essentially, pounds/N are not a valid label for work. They are not work, they are force.
Maybe calories.
 
I know. Someday the FAA may rewrite reg to include a thrust number as well as a HP number, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Like you, I would not hold my breath either. I've heard it cost $2M to make any regulatory change. So there a lot of "that doesn't fit" or "that doesn't make sense" regulations that go unchanged. Unless there is an accident or group of problems that brings the need for a change to the forefront, it just doesn't get changed.
 
Back
Top