Am I the only one...

EdFred

EdFred

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
30,651
Location
Michigan
Display Name
Display name:
White Chocolate
...who doesn't have an add on endorsement in their logbook?
(tailwheel, HP, complex, etc...)
 
I have no endorsements yet. Unless AYA's PFP counts.
 
Nope, I ain't got none of them neither.

However, I do have the "Chuck Yeager" (autograph) endorsement! :yes:

N2212R said:
...who doesn't have an add on endorsement in their logbook?
(tailwheel, HP, complex, etc...)
Click to expand...
 
N2212R said:
...who doesn't have an add on endorsement in their logbook?
(tailwheel, HP, complex, etc...)
Click to expand...

Me neither... but that should change in the next few weeks.

Missa
-Tailwheel bound.
 
N2212R said:
...who doesn't have an add on endorsement in their logbook?
(tailwheel, HP, complex, etc...)
Click to expand...

Nope. I don't have a single one, either--but then again, despite not having a single endorsement I'm legal in all three (complex, high performance, and tailwheel).
 
Ed Guthrie said:
Nope. I don't have a single one, either--but then again, despite not having a single endorsement I'm legal in all three (complex, high performance, and tailwheel).
Click to expand...

OK, I'll play.

Have you been flying for a loooooong time?

Len
 
Ed Guthrie said:
Nope. I don't have a single one, either--but then again, despite not having a single endorsement I'm legal in all three (complex, high performance, and tailwheel).
Click to expand...
Me, too. Logged TW PIC time in 1970 (CAP L-4 at ARB), and complex/HP PIC time in 1973 (Beech D45 aka civilianized T-34 at NAS Glynco). However, while I'm legal in all three, I'd be happy to fly only an HP or complex plane today; I would need a lot of training in a TW to be safe again.
 
Len Lanetti said:
OK, I'll play.

Have you been flying for a loooooong time?

Len
Click to expand...

...he's been flying long enough for his experience in tailwheel, HP and complex to be "grandfathered" in and thus, not to require such endorsements.

Used to be, a PP-SEL was just as good for a P-51 Mustang as it was for a C150 (to the FAA, that is; insurance carriers would have felt differently, one assumes).

I can't tell you when the grandfather daye is, because I am too lazy to look it up.
 
You own your own airplane, Ed. Hence, you only need what you need to fly that plane. Us renters are in a different situation. Before I had complex, I had three hawks I could rent. They added a Cutlass and I added complex. They added the Champ and I added tailwheel. If they had high performance, I would add that.

Jim G
 
grattonja said:
You own your own airplane, Ed. Hence, you only need what you need to fly that plane.
Click to expand...

My Mooney is complex. I fly C182s on occassion for the local skydivers (high performance). I fly a Champ or a Cub (tailwheel) from time to time, too, when someone is foolish enough to let me.

Answering someone else's question about how long? I don't know exactly, but I know I flew at least one example of each prior to August 4, 1997 (high performance and/or complex) or April 15, 1991 (tailwheel).
 
No tailwheel endorsement, but I have the HP and complex endorsements. As our club has 4 planes and two of them require one of the endorsements (HP for the C-182, complex for the Arrow), the endorsements double the number of planes available to me.
 
No additional endorsements but I always thought a HP and complex would be nice to have. All things considered, whatever else I can find.

The next rating is IR, then commercial for no particular reason. Yet.
 
I hate it when I get a smartalec idea and forget the details. Turns out I do indeed have an endorsement of sorts for complex aircraft, and I bet Ron does, too (or high performance--but he has one or the other). Back in '87 when I first flew a Mooney the regulations required an endorsement stating that you had been checked out "in a complex or high performance aircraft". When the FAA first added the split (two separate) endorsement requirement they grandfathered those of us holding the dual purpose endorsement in which ever category aircraft we received the endorsement (a complex for me) and further grandfathered us in the other category if we had logged time in the other (a high performance for me) prior to the first regulation change. I don't remember when that regulation change occurred but it was well after 3/1/87. The change we now see is at least the second iteration and I just noticed that all of the fine details are gone, as is obviously my memory.
 
N2212R said:
...who doesn't have an add on endorsement in their logbook?
(tailwheel, HP, complex, etc...)
Click to expand...

I had HP/Complex pre PPL and since have TW & FAR 137 endorsements as well as a CM-170 LOA.
 
Well i dont have any yet ,but if i fly with Ed long enough i'll get my Complex,and even might get my Tailwheel in Tdraggers Champ(if i ever get to MI.) Dave G
 
Shipoke said:
Well i dont have any yet ,but if i fly with Ed long enough i'll get my Complex,and even might get my Tailwheel in Tdraggers Champ(if i ever get to MI.) Dave G
Click to expand...
So you're saying that flying with Ed is giving you a complex??? :D
 
I don't have any endorsements for anything except various signoffs for checkrides. The log entries for the first two complex airplanes I flew just say "checkout satisfactory", and there's not even that for the first couple taildraggers I flew, just some dual received in them prior to flights on my own.
 
lancefisher said:
I don't have any endorsements for anything except various signoffs for checkrides. The log entries for the first two complex airplanes I flew just say "checkout satisfactory", and there's not even that for the first couple taildraggers I flew, just some dual received in them prior to flights on my own.
Click to expand...

Lance, do you know the dates on those complex/hp signatures? Mine reads the same, but when my memory kicked in I remembered that the old FARs required that signature as an endorsement prior to acting as PIC. I know the complex&hp endorsement was required in ~'85, but I don't know when it first appeared.
 
I do not have any endorsements either. Started flying with tail wheels, rag wings and no radios. Everything was a checkout signoff. Some one asked me onced about 10 years ago if I had a "tail wheel endorsement". I just told him that is all I flew for my first 2 years.

John
 
Ed Guthrie said:
I hate it when I get a smartalec idea and forget the details. Turns out I do indeed have an endorsement of sorts for complex aircraft, and I bet Ron does, too (or high performance--but he has one or the other). Back in '87 when I first flew a Mooney the regulations required an endorsement stating that you had been checked out "in a complex or high performance aircraft". When the FAA first added the split (two separate) endorsement requirement they grandfathered those of us holding the dual purpose endorsement in which ever category aircraft we received the endorsement (a complex for me) and further grandfathered us in the other category if we had logged time in the other (a high performance for me) prior to the first regulation change. I don't remember when that regulation change occurred but it was well after 3/1/87. The change we now see is at least the second iteration and I just noticed that all of the fine details are gone, as is obviously my memory.
Click to expand...

Dual purpose endorsement: That's what I have. I got it the day I bought my R182 :)
 
Ed Guthrie said:
Lance, do you know the dates on those complex/hp signatures? Mine reads the same, but when my memory kicked in I remembered that the old FARs required that signature as an endorsement prior to acting as PIC. I know the complex&hp endorsement was required in ~'85, but I don't know when it first appeared.
Click to expand...

I'd have to look again, but I believe the first complex PIC was in 79 and the first tailwheel was in 1980. I was thinking that I actually had a complex endorsement from before they spilt complex/High Performance, but I have neither.
 
John J said:
I do not have any endorsements either. Started flying with tail wheels, rag wings and no radios. Everything was a checkout signoff. Some one asked me onced about 10 years ago if I had a "tail wheel endorsement". I just told him that is all I flew for my first 2 years.

John
Click to expand...

Heck, if you started in a flyer like your avatar, you didn't have a nosewheel or tailwheel.
 
Ed Guthrie said:
I hate it when I get a smartalec idea and forget the details. Turns out I do indeed have an endorsement of sorts for complex aircraft, and I bet Ron does, too (or high performance--but he has one or the other). Back in '87 when I first flew a Mooney the regulations required an endorsement stating that you had been checked out "in a complex or high performance aircraft".
Click to expand...
Ron does not. That "complex or high performance aircraft" endorsement rule came after I already had PIC time in both HP and complex (D45/T-34 -- complex and 225 HP) dating back to 1973, so I was grandfathered for that rule as well as its separate successors.
 
lancefisher said:
Heck, if you started in a flyer like your avatar, you didn't have a nosewheel or tailwheel.
Click to expand...

Lance;
I appreciate your note.

I am so glad I had the mentors that I grew up with.

Today I looked at my logs and found a note that I checked myself out in a Champ 7AC. It happened just after I soloed in the T-Craft and the Cub at 8 hours(I hit 16 years old) The instructor I had said "The airplane will teach you and you have to listen" He then said "we all have to learn how to listen and feel the plane". What did I do, Well I took off in the Champ and flew for an hour doing stalls, slow flight, landings in the sky and just getting to know the plane. What my instructor did was make me learn the plane and all of it's peculiarities. He trusted me to make decisions and I have never forgotten that day when I did a "self checkout". I guess that is why I have an Avatar that I have for I just have to say "Thanks to those that have gone before us"

Thanks for reading

John
 
Ron Levy said:
Ron does not. That "complex or high performance aircraft" endorsement rule came after I already had PIC time in both HP and complex (D45/T-34 -- complex and 225 HP) dating back to 1973, so I was grandfathered for that rule as well as its separate successors.
Click to expand...

My first complex time was in 1979 followed by a complete checkout in a C177RG in 1980 and lots of time in that model during that year. I also picked up some time in a C-182 in 1981 which should satisfy the high performance requirement. I also logged some tailwheel time that year although the first time I flew a taildragger without a CFI along was in 1982. I believe this experience eliminates the need for any HP, complex, or tailwheel endorsements as the current FAR's include grandfather date of August 4, 1997 for HP/complex and April 15, 1991 for tailwheel airplanes.

This has raised a question in my mind. Since the current regulation states that logged PIC in a HP/complex/tailwheel time prior to the dates mentioned above eliminate the need for an endosement, would "sole manipulator" PIC time logged in such an aircraft prior to the appropriate dates be sufficient even if there was a CFI along giving instruction? Assume the pilot in question already possesed a PPL ASEL and the airplanes were in the same category and class.
 
lancefisher said:
This has raised a question in my mind. Since the current regulation states that logged PIC in a HP/complex/tailwheel time prior to the dates mentioned above eliminate the need for an endosement, would "sole manipulator" PIC time logged in such an aircraft prior to the appropriate dates be sufficient even if there was a CFI along giving instruction? Assume the pilot in question already possesed a PPL ASEL and the airplanes were in the same category and class.
Click to expand...

Yes. 5
 
Ed Guthrie said:
Yes. 5
Click to expand...

That's the way I'd read it too, but is seems pretty silly that a pilot who got ten minutes of stick time in a Citabria in 1990, would be deemed qualified to fly a tailwheel today, never having even accomplished one landing. OTOH, I guess that was pretty much the situation prior the the current requirement of an endorsement.

5????
 
lancefisher said:
That's the way I'd read it too, but is seems pretty silly that a pilot who got ten minutes of stick time in a Citabria in 1990, would be deemed qualified to fly a tailwheel today, never having even accomplished one landing. OTOH, I guess that was pretty much the situation prior the the current requirement of an endorsement.

5????
Click to expand...

The shortest reply the software will accept is 5 characters (spaces don't count). My brief answers have become "No. &5" and "Yes. 5".
 
lancefisher said:
That's the way I'd read it too, but is seems pretty silly that a pilot who got ten minutes of stick time in a Citabria in 1990, would be deemed qualified to fly a tailwheel today, never having even accomplished one landing.
Click to expand...
I agree, and I'm a shining example of that, but as you note...
...that was pretty much the situation prior the the current requirement of an endorsement.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top