Complex & high performance endorsement, can they be done together?

James331 said:
Says all the planes landed gear up....


Takes more than a hour or two to trip up a student, and for the RG aspect that's what you need, get him on short finial, call out go-around, then point to the gear selector.

Plus being able to really use the CS and cowl flaps vs just operate it, that a couple hours.

So yeah, Id quote 5hrs, if the dude picks it up in 3 cool, but Id wager it would be closer to 5. Many insurance companies have that 5-10hr dual requirement based on years after years of constant stats.


Here is a good one

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5McECUtM8fw

Here is a better one

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ObLQnY5fDU8


I run my flows, confirm with my checklist, then I have my short final sight picture where I run a final GUMPS check. Run all checks aloud, and touch everything you're checking.
Click to expand...

That first one is hilarious.

One in the green is sufficent for French pilots...they are also taught to ignore all warning signs blaring in their ear on final.:rofl:
 
TMetzinger said:
To get a complex endorsement from me the student has to show appropriate knowledge of the constant speed prop, and that takes a bit of time. Same for the various types of retractable gear. Im not teaching him his airplane, I'm teaching him systems knowledge first, then we apply it to the airplane we'te flying

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Just playing devil's advocate here:

But what does understanding of how the doohickeys valve setup works in a CS prop going to teach someone good airmanship when it's only useful in a hangar discussion and impressing non-pilots? Its ancient thinking that requires good mechanical background just to get into a flight training program, and possibly the reason that aviation is a dying hobby.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Just playing devil's advocate here:

But what does understanding of how the doohickeys valve setup works in a CS prop going to teach someone good airmanship when it's only useful in a hangar discussion and impressing non-pilots? Its ancient thinking that requires good mechanical background just to get into a flight training program, and possibly the reason that aviation is a dying hobby.
Click to expand...
A good pilot knows his aircraft's systems not just how to fly it. That's why the airlines have dedicated systems training and ground school.
 
jordane93 said:
A good pilot knows his aircraft's systems not just how to fly it. That's why the airlines have dedicated systems training and ground school.
Click to expand...

sure. thats when you grab the respective manual and read about systems. i dont think ground time with a cfi is strictly necessary to learn basic airplane systems such as the prop and gear.
 
Got my ASEL/Comm/Inst through the FAA MIL COMP test...do I need to get a complex/high performance endorsement in my civilian logbook? I am under the impression that a commercial cert implies a complex endorsement.

If so, what would be the best way to do that? I don't really want to fork over the cash for an endorsement I probably wouldn't even use in the rental market.
 
Last edited:
cirrusmx said:
sure. thats when you grab the respective manual and read about systems. i dont think ground time with a cfi is strictly necessary to learn basic airplane systems such as the prop and gear.
Click to expand...
Of course. I was responding to what Jaybird said about what's the point of learning how the system works
 
No, you don't need to know your systems, as long as everything works as advertised you're good.

It's when stuff hits the fan where a understanding of what is happening behind that lever or switch comes into play.
 
My high performance endorsement in a C182 took exactly one ride, maybe 1.5 hours.

My complex endorsement happened at some point while I was getting my commercial ticket, I don't recall when. The whole rating was only about ten hours flying though.

For an otherwise experienced private pilot I should think that ten hours would be a lot just to get those two endorsements.

In any case, you might as well do them together.
 
Last edited:
jordane93 said:
A good pilot knows his aircraft's systems not just how to fly it. That's why the airlines have dedicated systems training and ground school.
Click to expand...

Why?


Because that's the way it's always been done? Not a sufficient reason.

James331 said:
No, you don't need to know your systems, as long as everything works as advertised you're good.

It's when stuff hits the fan where a understanding of what is happening behind that lever or switch comes into play.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:
 
Reminds me of a joke

The chief of staff of the US Air Force decided that he would personally intervene in the recuiting crisis affecting all of our armed services. So, he directed that a nearby Air Force base be opened and that all elgible young men and women be invited. As he and his staff were standing near an brand new F-15 Fighter, a pair of twin brothers who looked like they had just stepped off a Marine Corps recruiting poster walked up to them. The chief of staff walked up to them, stuck out his hand and introduced himself. He looked at the first young man and asked, "Son, what skills can you bring to the Air Force?" The young man looks at him and says, "I pilot!" The general gets all excited, turns to his aide and says, "Get him in today, all the paper work done, everything, do it!" The aide hustles the young man off. The general looks at the second young man and asks, "What skills to you bring to the Air Force?" The young man says, "I chop wood!" "Son," the general replies, "we don't need wood choppers in the Air Force, what do you know how to do?" "I chop wood!" "Young man," huffs the general, "you are not listening to me, we don't need wood choppers, this is the 20th century!" "Well," the young man says, "you hired my brother!" "Of course we did," says the general, "he's a pilot!" The young man rolls his eyes and says, "Dang it, I have to chop it before he can pile it!"
Click to expand...
 
It takes however long it takes. I've signed people off for both with 2 hours or less. Other people will take 10.
 
jesse said:
It takes however long it takes. I've signed people off for both with 2 hours or less. Other people will take 10.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and the type of aircraft they are transitioning from will likely be the major factor aside from individual learning rates. Transition from a 172 to a 172RG probably gets done in less than 2 hours total. It truly is an extra lever for the prop, an extra lever for the cowl flaps, and an extra lever for the gear. Go over emergency procedures and pre-flight/run-up checks and you're golden.

Moving to a C182 or similar requires a bit more work for increased weights and markedly different control pressures which affect takeoffs/landings (use of trim wheel, etc). Go to a Bo, a Lance, Super Viking, et al., requires yet more time to cover items like greatly increased speeds, possible turbo-normalizing/charging applications, and other systems.

If I went to my CFI and asked for a HP add-on to fly an A36, having only received my complex endorsement in a 172 "Gutless" and he responded that it'd only take an hour or two, I'd be dumbfounded.
 
James331 said:
No, you don't need to know your systems, as long as everything works as advertised you're good.

It's when stuff hits the fan where a understanding of what is happening behind that lever or switch comes into play.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
cirrusmx said:
sure. thats when you grab the respective manual and read about systems. i dont think ground time with a cfi is strictly necessary to learn basic airplane systems such as the prop and gear.
Click to expand...
I agree, but ground training time is always necessary to convince the instructor you really do know that material so s/he can sign the endorsement, and based on my instructing experience, often necessary to obtain adequate understanding of the material which was read.
 
wlawr005 said:
Got my ASEL/Comm/Inst through the FAA MIL COMP test...do I need to get a complex/high performance endorsement in my civilian logbook?
Click to expand...
The FAA regulations make no provision for military equivalence for the 61.31 tailwheel/complex/HP endorsements. So, unless you have PIC time logged prior to 8/4/97 in a military aircraft which meets the HP/complex definitions, you will need a 61.31 additional training endorsement from an FAA-licensed CFI before you act as PIC of a civilian HP/complex airplane. Of course, it would be no problem to do that as part of a type checkout in whatever it is you plan to fly on the civilian side with no additional training time and no extra work other than the instructor writing out that endorsement.

I am under the impression that a commercial cert implies a complex endorsement.
Click to expand...
No, it does not. Many of us got our CP-Airplane before the complex requirement was added back in the 1970's.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Agreed, and the type of aircraft they are transitioning from will likely be the major factor aside from individual learning rates. Transition from a 172 to a 172RG probably gets done in less than 2 hours total. It truly is an extra lever for the prop, an extra lever for the cowl flaps, and an extra lever for the gear. Go over emergency procedures and pre-flight/run-up checks and you're golden.
Click to expand...
How about someone who learned in 152's, then got an RV-6A and flew it a few hundred hours, and now has bought an A36? Takes a bit more work...
 
Jaybird180 said:
Just playing devil's advocate here:

But what does understanding of how the doohickeys valve setup works in a CS prop going to teach someone good airmanship when it's only useful in a hangar discussion and impressing non-pilots? Its ancient thinking that requires good mechanical background just to get into a flight training program, and possibly the reason that aviation is a dying hobby.
Click to expand...

Some examples:
First, what if you're in a C182 and you lose oil pressure, how is your prop going to behave. What if you're in a Mooney Rocket?

Second, you're in the pattern in an C182 with a constant speed prop and you have an engine failure. Can you stretch your glide with the prop control? Yes , maybe, or no, and why? (the proper answer is maybe, depending on the cause of the engine failure).

Third, you're flying in a mooney, with electric gear, and you select gear down, and the gear circuit breaker pops. You try the emergency extension (lifting the lever and then pulling on a lanyard), and the damn thing won't move. Is there anything else you can do? Why?

Fourth, you're flying in a Socata Trinidad, and every so often you see the landing gear pump light illuminate and go out. Why is that a bad thing?

You don't have to tell me the diameter of the orifices in the governor, or the PSI used to retract the gear. But you damn sure better know how the stuff works, because it's that knowledge that helps you detect and manage a small problem before it becomes a big problem.
 
Fearless Tower said:
The 'way it's always been done' is your words. Not any of ours.

Are you seriously asking this question, or just trolling?
Click to expand...

He clearly said in his first response he was playing devil's advocate, so I'm not offended by his questions. I understand that we should know (and be able to express) why we want people to understand the airplane systems.

Also, my complex checkout took 1.2 hours. But I'd studied the systems in advance (for several hours), and the ground portion was me teaching the CFI all about retractable gear, constant speed propellers, and speed brakes (was using an M20J at the time).

If a student comes to me well prepared, then the ground portion will be quite short.
 
When I bought the Comanche I needed both endorsements and 10 hours for the insurance company. I met with my CFI and we came up with a plan to accomplish both, integrated with a flight review and IPC. I did the "systems" study ahead of time and did an emergency gear extension while it was on jacks for the pre-buy. Integrating them all together worked very well from my perspective.

It seemed like a good way to both get the bureaucracy's blessing and really get familiar with the plane and it's nuances.
 
flyingron said:
Yep, I did my HP endorsement in the T-arrow a few months before I got my Navion (1995).
Since the Navion was both HP and Complex, I had the requisite PIC time in the book.
(Frankly, I had it anyhow, because I'd flow several fixed gear 200+ HP: 180, 182, and a 235HP Maule).
Click to expand...

You mean complex in the T-Arrow?
 
Ron Levy said:
The FAA regulations make no provision for military equivalence for the 61.31 tailwheel/complex/HP endorsements. So, unless you have PIC time logged prior to 8/4/97 in a military aircraft which meets the HP/complex definitions, you will need a 61.31 additional training endorsement from an FAA-licensed CFI before you act as PIC of a civilian HP/complex airplane. Of course, it would be no problem to do that as part of a type checkout in whatever it is you plan to fly on the civilian side with no additional training time and no extra work other than the instructor writing out that endorsement.

No, it does not. Many of us got our CP-Airplane before the complex requirement was added back in the 1970's.
Click to expand...

Thanks Cap'n...so if I was to rent a complex/HP, the check pilot should have no problem writing that endorsement as part of the initial insurance checkout?
 
flyingron said:
Yep, I did my HP endorsement in the T-arrow a few months before I got my Navion (1995).
Click to expand...
Sac Arrow said:
You mean complex in the T-Arrow?
Click to expand...
No, it was still a "high performance" endorsement in either a retractable or an over-200HP plane in 1995. It just didn't qualify you to fly a post-97 HP plane after 8/4/97 unless you got some over-200 PIC time on the strength of that endorsement before 8/4/97.
 
wlawr005 said:
Thanks Cap'n...so if I was to rent a complex/HP, the check pilot should have no problem writing that endorsement as part of the initial insurance checkout?
Click to expand...
I can't in my wildest dream imagine someone giving you an insurance-compliant checkout to rent their complex/HP plane in which you had no prior experience without accomplishing enough to sign that endorsement.

But my imagination has failed me before. :dunno:
 
You can even get complex, high performance, and taildragger all at the same time.
If you can find someone who is game for it.
 
I know folks that have no complex, HP, or taildragger endorsements. And are perfectly legal to fly a complex, HP, taildragger.
 
bluerooster said:
You can even get complex, high performance, and taildragger all at the same time.
If you can find someone who is game for it.
Click to expand...
Probably harder than finding a willing instructor is finding a complex, HP, tailwheel airplane available in which to take training unless you buy one yourself.
 
Ron Levy said:
Probably harder than finding a willing instructor is finding a complex, HP, tailwheel airplane available in which to take training unless you buy one yourself.
Click to expand...
I lucked out and found a CFI who owned an AT-6. :D
 
Yeah. At least I think it was. He had a business giving warbird rides, and biplane rides, (he also has a Steerman). I hit him up one day for a ride, and during the ride I mentioned how cool it would be to get the "big three" in the AT-6. He was game for it, so several hundreds of dollars, and about 5 hours later he signed off my endorsements. But that's been a day or two ago.
 
Darn..Couple hundred hrs in my 200HP Mooney M20E and I need ONE more Horsepower to get a HP endorsement.. About my luck, "A day late and a dollar short (or one HP) short". :)
 
TWinter said:
Darn..Couple hundred hrs in my 200HP Mooney M20E and I need ONE more Horsepower to get a HP endorsement.. About my luck, "A day late and a dollar short (or one HP) short". :)
Click to expand...
OTOH, those flying M20's, Arrows, Cardinal RG's, and Beech Sierras don't have to get the HP endorsement to fly their planes, so there's some balance in the universe.
 
Ron Levy said:
Is it insured for him to give training in it?
Click to expand...

There is a guy up in New Bedford, MA that is and will do it in his SNJ, but it will obviously take longer to do all 3 together.

I chose to get my TW in his 170 first and worked my way up to the SNJ.
 
Seems like HP/complex is just something you end up getting one way or another after 100 or so hours.
 
TMetzinger said:
He clearly said in his first response he was playing devil's advocate, so I'm not offended by his questions. I understand that we should know (and be able to express) why we want people to understand the airplane systems.

Also, my complex checkout took 1.2 hours. But I'd studied the systems in advance (for several hours), and the ground portion was me teaching the CFI all about retractable gear, constant speed propellers, and speed brakes (was using an M20J at the time).

If a student comes to me well prepared, then the ground portion will be quite short.
Click to expand...

Welcome back Tim. Hope you stay awhile. Thanks for the study questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top