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

Mine in Red

TMetzinger said:
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?

Doesn't matter, you're in a forced landing situation now. Ditto.

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).


Doesn't matter, you're in a forced landing situation now and you would as the CHECKLIST part of ABC perform whatever steps are in the EMERGENCY PROCEDURES section of the POH .

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?



See the EMERGENCY PROCEDURES section of the POH, which you can probably do in-flight considering we are REQUIRED to have the instruction manual on board the aircraft.

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?

Now we have a viable candidate for why systems knowledge is important, for this may or may not be an emergency situation.

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.
Click to expand...

I am not advocating staying with the basic level of knowledge, but clearly it doesn't require the level that we probably thought when we dreamed of one day, maybe someday, oh boy I hope I can get to fly one of them there aeroplanes levels of systems knowledge for most light planes.

Disclaimer: I have read the full POH for every plane I qualified in, and a few others I am not qualified for. I refresh on my own C-172S from time to time, because minimum isn't enough, FOR ME.
 
Last edited:
Jaybird180 said:
Mine in Red



I am not advocating staying with the basic level of knowledge, but clearly it doesn't require the level that we probably thought when we dreamed of one day, maybe someday, oh boy I hope I can get to fly one of them there aeroplanes levels of systems knowledge for most light planes.

Disclaimer: I have read the full POH for every plane I qualified in, and a few others I am not qualified for. I refresh on my own C-172S from time to time, because minimum isn't enough, FOR ME.
Click to expand...

Here's another example - my plane periodically leaks stuff. I don't worry much about a few drops of oil under the engine. But I did ground the plane when a saw a very fine mist (much less than a couple of drops of oil) of a red fluid on the cowling. Was knowing that this was a grounding condition (bad prop seal) unnecessary information for me to have learned in my complex training?
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
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...
Click to expand...

Absolutely :yes:. Each system, whether it be oxygen, pressurization, turbo engines, landing gear, etc. all require additional time to learn. When transitioning to a new model of aircraft, I'd think it becomes a whole new ballgame. While the RV-6A is a quick bird, there's a bit more going on in the A36, combined with the speed and even CoG calculations that weren't important on the RV. Lots of stuff to learn = longer transition time for the HP/Complex sign off.
 
Sam D said:
Here's another example - my plane periodically leaks stuff. I don't worry much about a few drops of oil under the engine. But I did ground the plane when a saw a very fine mist (much less than a couple of drops of oil) of a red fluid on the cowling. Was knowing that this was a grounding condition (bad prop seal) unnecessary information for me to have learned in my complex training?
Click to expand...

Nah, just follow Jay's advice- fly it 'till it breaks and then whip out the Emergency Landing checklist and you'll be fine!
 
Ron Levy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ah. I see.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Mine in Red



I am not advocating staying with the basic level of knowledge, but clearly it doesn't require the level that we probably thought when we dreamed of one day, maybe someday, oh boy I hope I can get to fly one of them there aeroplanes levels of systems knowledge for most light planes.

Disclaimer: I have read the full POH for every plane I qualified in, and a few others I am not qualified for. I refresh on my own C-172S from time to time, because minimum isn't enough, FOR ME.
Click to expand...

OK, the point here was that good systems knowledge inspires thoughtful questions, which can be helpful in emergencies (before too!). Important points for my questions below

1. Normal C182 Prop will fail to a high-rpm position because the oil pressure is what's used to force the propeller into low-rpm mode. Conversely, a Mooney Rocket with a full feathering prop uses oil pressure to force the prop to high-rpm, and will feather when you lose oil pressure. Bottom line is a Rocket will have less drag in that situation. Knowing that may alter your actions in your forced landing.

2. If you have oil pressure, meaning the prop and engine are still turning (let's say you have a fuel or ignition problem causing your engine failure), you can pull that throttle control back and move the prop towards a low pitch position - this can extend your glide significantly. And it's NOT usually mentioned in the emergency checklist, because that checklist assumes the worst case with no oil pressure.

3. What matters here is not what the emergency procedures say (they won't address this), but your knowledge that the mooney gear is mechanical and interlocked. That knowledge would tell you that your gear is mechanically frozen (which is why the emergency extension isn't working) and that's the position it's gonna stay in. For a while mooney used a somewhat insubstantial gearset in the emergency extension system, and the gears would strip before they'd overcome the resistance to moving the gear, particularly if the gear was misrigged. Again, if you were only taught on electrohydraulic gear systems you might miss the implications unless you really dug into the systems section in the Mooney AFM.

4. Having the hydraulic pump come on in flight when you're not actively moving the gear can be a symptom of a leak in the system. how frequently the pump comes on can reflect how large the leak is. You need to know the system to catch that this matters.

Bottom line is that if someone wants to treat their systems like black boxes they're gonna be passengers instead of aviators when something goes wrong. My students are gonna have to both know the systems and more importantly, know why it's important to know the systems.
 
i did my complex in 2 hours in an arrow.. and my HP in about the same in a 182. I suppose it's all about making the CFI whose signature is going in your book comfortable.
 
I technically am no longer grandfathered, but in March I will be a grandfather.
 
Ron Levy said:
I'm still waiting for our 33-y/o son and his fiancée-elect and co-home-owner of ten years to get engaged, no less married and have kids. :(
Click to expand...

On the bright side at 10 yrs together they are way above average married on statistics now adays. :wink2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top