high performance endorsement (rant)

dmspilot

dmspilot

Final Approach
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
6,169
Display Name
Display name:
DISPLAY NAME
I had to get one in order to fly a 182. It was no harder to fly than a Cutlass or Arrow and was the most pointless waste of money ever. They ought to waive it for commercial pilots.
 
Meh, maybe bump the HP up, or better yet change it to a HP to weight ratio, over X HP per pound would make more sense.

A normal old 182 is nothing, try a 300HP skywagon, or a 900hp 208 ;)
 
I got HP and Complex at the same time and it was pretty quick. Seemed like it could also satisfy a BFR since it covers landings, takeoffs and airwork. The only thing I noticed coming from a Warrior was that the stall recovery took a lot more right rudder to hold the nose anywhere near reasonable heading. How long did it take you?
 
There is a difference between making a few rounds in the pattern and making it sing, do a few days at a 182/206 DZ and you'll know the difference ;)
 
Making it sing was never the requirement as far as I'm aware, being able to recover from a stall should be though :)
 
I believe engine management and control should be the main focus on the High Performance endorsement. You can make some pretty serious mistakes though ignorance.

Any goofball can use more right rudder. Things get interesting with 1,200shp on your nose.
 
I think of engine management as a complex endorsement topic, but like I said I got mine at the same time.

A 201HP with a fixed pitch prop shouldn't take any extra engine management than an O-320
 
Well, they gotta draw the line somewhere. But I agree that 300hp would be a better jumping off point.
 
Cpt_Kirk said:
I believe engine management and control should be the main focus on the High Performance endorsement. You can make some pretty serious mistakes though ignorance.

Any goofball can use more right rudder. Things get interesting with 1,200shp on your nose.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It's more an issue of engine management than difficulty flying it. It's aloft easier to screw up an O-470 with bad power settings than most 200 hp engines.

The real issue IMO is that too many CFIs doing
HP endorsements don't really get that and consequently don't spend the time on engine management.
 
write-stuff said:
Well, they gotta draw the line somewhere. But I agree that 300hp would be a better jumping off point.
Click to expand...
A Continental 470 is considered a big bore engine and less than 300hp You can definitely do damage to it if you don't know what you are doing.
 
Last edited:
I think it's a good endorsement to require. As an old CFI I saw new PPL's go out & purchase an airplane way beyond their flying abilities.

Engine management, weight & balance, are just a few of the items that get more complicated as the seats & horsepower increase.

Example, I got a corporate job flying a T210. I was very careful keeping the cylinder head temps in the green. I was both careful on climb out & when shedding altitude. Due to weather & mountainous terrain we flew in the teen altitudes often. After my first year, the CEO who was also a pilot but didn't fly the 210 asked me why he no longer had to have cylinders rebuild all the time. I told him that I babied his powerplant like it was my own.

My .02 worth.
 
Fearless Tower said:
You can definitely do damage to it if you don't know what you are doing.
Click to expand...

The same could be said of many things in aviation. You can do a lot of damage to a 200hp turbocharged engine if you don't know what you're doing, but you don't need an endorsement for that.

saddletramp said:
As an old CFI I saw new PPL's go out
Click to expand...

That's why I advocated for waiving it for commercial pilots. Or upping the hp. One shouldn't need an endorsement to operate a 201hp engine when that person can operate a 200hp one perfectly fine.
 
dmspilot said:
The same could be said of many things in aviation. You can do a lot of damage to a 200hp turbocharged engine if you don't know what you're doing, but you don't need an endorsement for that.



That's why I advocated for waiving it for commercial pilots. Or upping the hp. One shouldn't need an endorsement to operate a 201hp engine when that person can operate a 200hp one perfectly fine.
Click to expand...
Has nothing to do with being a commercial pilot though. Tons of private pilots are out there flying 182s with -470s.

As was mentioned earlier, they had to pick a number. 300 is too high, as it leaves out the smaller big bores like the 470s. I agree that 201 might not make much difference, but how many 201hp engines are there? I think it was a reasonable number, but it unfortunately doesn't do anything to address what is actually taught for the endorsement.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Has nothing to do with being a commercial pilot though. Tons of private pilots are out there flying 182s with -470s.
Click to expand...

What argument are you trying to make with those two sentences?
 
It seems like C/S prop would be a the deciding factor. Not a lot of delicate engines out there with a fixed pitch prop unless you count the Bonanzas with the electric props, also getting a HP endorsement with a fixed pitch prop doesn't make a lot of sense.

Think of it as the C182 endorsement since that's the driving factor for a lot of HP without complex
 
Last edited:
dmspilot said:
What argument are you trying to make with those two sentences?
Click to expand...
You have twice stated that you think the HP endorsement should be only required for Commercial pilots.

But when you consider the real need for HP training, it has very little to do with professional flying.
 
as you said I believe it gets to a certain point where hopping in a 182 is a no brainer, however most of the high performance endorsements I did during my time as an instructor were newer private or instrument pilots that had never flown something with cowl flaps, and/or a constant speed prop before. The lesson I always strived to convey with them wasn't necessarily how to fly the plane as that was the easiest part of all, but more so how to work and manage the new systems at hand.
 
dmspilot said:
Do you know what the word "waived" means?
Click to expand...
The question is, what does a 250hr CPL who's only ever done his 10 hrs in an Arrow know that allows him to safely operate a big bore engine like a -470?

@dmspilot The engine management characteristics as well as the impact on flight characteristics is noticeable in a lot of birds. The Comanche is easy as pie, it won't redline any of the temps unless you pull the mixture way back so my time was about learning to play with the extra knob and manage it on a go-around plus the plane being nose heavy. Other types are different especially with respect to cooling and the use of cowl flaps if equipped.

@Fearless Tower This is also somewhat of a type specific training topic since you should be able to accomplish this during an insurance checkoutand you'd learn the nuances there. Making the engine last to TBO with minimal maintenance isn't as much a flight safety issue as one of owner annoyance. At some point yes its not having the prop set to 1700 rpm and MP at 30" on an O-540 and that should be required regardless of type
 
airheadpenguin said:
@Fearless Tower This is also somewhat of a type specific training topic since you should be able to accomplish this during an insurance checkoutand you'd learn the nuances there. Making the engine last to TBO with minimal maintenance isn't as much a flight safety issue as one of owner annoyance. At some point yes its not having the prop set to 1700 rpm and MP at 30" on an O-540 and that should be required regardless of type
Click to expand...
That is somewhat true, but just like with the endorsement training, not all insurance checkouts with a CFI are equal.
 
dmspilot said:
Do you know what the word "waived" means?
Click to expand...
Waived generally implies that a requirement is either not applicable or has been met via an alternate method. Neither seems to apply to what you are suggesting.
 
I got a high performance endorsement in a 172 (T-41, technically); fixed pitch prop, crow-bar simple. So I was good to go in a normally aspirated, constant speed prop 182, cowl flaps, etc.

It's the FAA; it doesn't have to make sense. . .then again, the T-41 was a much, much better handling airplane, with far more excess power. . .
 
Fearless Tower said:
Waived generally implies that a requirement is either not applicable or has been met via an alternate method. Neither seems to apply to what you are suggesting.
Click to expand...

Fearless Tower said:
You have twice stated that you think the HP endorsement should be only required for Commercial pilots.
Click to expand...

I said twice that I thought the requirement should be waived for commercial pilots. As in, the endorsement should *NOT* be required for commercial pilots. I don't know why this was such a confusing statement that you thought I meant the complete opposite.

waive
tr.v. waived, waiv·ing, waives
1. To give up (a claim or right, for example) voluntarily; relinquish. See Synonyms at relinquish.
2. To refrain from insisting on or enforcing (a rule, penalty, or requirement, for example); dispense with: "The original ban on private trading had long since been waived" (William L. Schurz).
3. To refrain from engaging in, sometimes temporarily; cancel or postpone: Let's waive our discussion of thatproblem.
4. Sports To place (a player) on waivers.​
 
What did you have to do to get an HP endorsement in a 182 that was different from just checking out in a 182?

My experience was that they were synonymous.
 
I think it's a good endorsement no matter what your rating. In fact I think they should go further in depth. 201hp might be a low choice, but you don't have to get much more power to start getting in some pretty fast planes. Maybe they should have a endorsement for any plane that cruises over 200kts? Or maybe they should have something for a high performance operated in the flight levels?
 
Theboys said:
I think it's a good endorsement no matter what your rating. In fact I think they should go further in depth. 201hp might be a low choice, but you don't have to get much more power to start getting in some pretty fast planes. Maybe they should have a endorsement for any plane that cruises over 200kts? Or maybe they should have something for a high performance operated in the flight levels?
Click to expand...
More red tape isn't going to solve anything. It's using the technology available today to eradicate old wive's tales while demonstrating proper engine management for the most efficient use of an engine.
 
MAKG1 said:
What did you have to do to get an HP endorsement in a 182 that was different from just checking out in a 182?
Click to expand...

Nothing, except I didn't need the checkout either. I just needed the endorsement to be FAA-legal to fly a jump plane (and I couldn't get the endorsement in the jump plane as it doesn't have dual controls).
 
What's good for the engine is a superset of what's safe. If you want endorsements to teach what's good for the engine you need ones for Turbo, Radial, Big bore, Cowl flaps vs no Cowl flaps etc.... We're getting pretty close to type ratings for props at that point.

The goal of the endorsement is to make sure you know how to handle the power not necessarily get to TBO
 
I think the high performance endorsement is a license to learn just like the rest. While it is very easy to manage a Cessna 182 or a Piper 235, it gets little more involved when you bring in turbos and bunch more speed and altitude. It's nice to get comfortable to it in stages. A real high performance will fly it's approach faster than a little 172 can go. However, saying all this I think the insurance companies take good care of requiring initial training for basically any plane considered high performance or complex without the faa even getting involved.
 
One can take any argument in favor of the status quo and make the argument seem silly. A 172RG pilot can't legally fly a 182, but a 182 pilot can legally fly a Piper Malibu?

A commercial pilot has the necessary skills to check himself or herself out in something like a 182 by reading the POH and flying it around solo once or twice. If he or she can't do that he or she does not deserve to possess a CPL.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
How do you end up with a commercial and no hp endorsement?
Click to expand...

The high performance is not a requirement for the commercial. There are plenty of airplanes that are retractable gear that satisfy the requirement of the commercial that are not high performance, such as a 172rg or some arrows, some mooneys etc.

You could also do your commercial initial in a twin like a Seminole and again it's not high performance but satisfies the commercial requirements
 
Theboys said:
I think it's a good endorsement no matter what your rating. In fact I think they should go further in depth. 201hp might be a low choice, but you don't have to get much more power to start getting in some pretty fast planes. Maybe they should have a endorsement for any plane that cruises over 200kts? Or maybe they should have something for a high performance operated in the flight levels?
Click to expand...

What about twins? Two IO360s is NOT HP, but it could be fast, depending on airframe.

Honestly, a 177RG is just a bit faster than a 182 fixed gear, and it's significantly more slippery. But the endorsements are disjoint.

There is definitely some arbitrariness, but the thing I don't understand is why a CPL HP endorsement shouldn't be minimal. 14 CFR 61.31 says there should be ground and flight training, but it doesn't give a minimum and explicitly allows a sim.
 
JustinD said:
The high performance is not a requirement for the commercial. There are plenty of airplanes that are retractable gear that satisfy the requirement of the commercial that are not high performance, such as a 172rg or some arrows, some mooneys etc.

You could also do your commercial initial in a twin like a Seminole and again it's not high performance but satisfies the commercial requirements
Click to expand...


Yes I know there are plenty of ways to meet the requirements without the endorsement. Just didn't figure many people would really do it that way. When I was building my 250 for commercial rating I would fly whatever I could to get hours. Often helping guys move planes for mx or recovering rentals when left by customers that had to drive home because of weather. I just didn't figure that many pilots really made it to the commercial check ride with that little experience. Surprised me a little.

I don't think having the commercial should waive the endorsement. If anything it should be a prerequisite to the commercial.
 
JustinD said:
The high performance is not a requirement for the commercial. There are plenty of airplanes that are retractable gear that satisfy the requirement of the commercial that are not high performance, such as a 172rg or some arrows, some mooneys etc.
Click to expand...

There are no Arrows with more than 200hp, unless they have been modified aftermarket. If you're thinking the PA28R-201 has 201hp, you are mistaken. The 1 is Piper's way of indicating a model with a tapered wing.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Has nothing to do with being a commercial pilot though. Tons of private pilots are out there flying 182s with -470s.

As was mentioned earlier, they had to pick a number. 300 is too high, as it leaves out the smaller big bores like the 470s. I agree that 201 might not make much difference, but how many 201hp engines are there? I think it was a reasonable number, but it unfortunately doesn't do anything to address what is actually taught for the endorsement.
Click to expand...

If you're using "big bore" as an argument, we had better include the Lycoming o-320 and o-360, as they have bores bigger than the o-470 you keep referencing.

My opinion, the high performance endorsement has little to do with engine management and keeping people from destroying their engines. I believe it has more to do with the aircraft handling characteristics that a person may encounter with higher powered airplanes. Where I'd draw the cutoff line power wise, I haven't formed an opinion on that. Each person is different, some can barely handle a 100 horsepower Cessna 150 with substantial training while others could handle a 600 horsepower taildragger with no formal training or experience.

dmspilot said:
Nothing, except I didn't need the checkout either. I just needed the endorsement to be FAA-legal to fly a jump plane (and I couldn't get the endorsement in the jump plane as it doesn't have dual controls).
Click to expand...

In other words, you're upset because you had to jump through a hoop you don't think you should need to, even though everyone else has had to. Was it really that big of a deal?

I'd be curious to hear the reasoning why you feel that a commercial rated pilot should be exempt from this. We've all seen guys who are no more skilled or qualified enough to operate a high performance airplane despite having a commercial rating and a reasonable amount of hours than a new private pilot is.
 
mondtster said:
In other words, you're upset because you had to jump through a hoop you don't think you should need to, even though everyone else has had to. Was it really that big of a deal?
Click to expand...

My personal experience happened six months ago so my conclusions have nothing to do with my "mood".

We can't change what hoops people had to jump through in the past, but we can change them in the future.

It's funny how readily people complain about the FAA and how regulations are excessive, but there is always someone to defend every last one.

mondtster said:
I'd be curious to hear the reasoning
Click to expand...

I gave it already.

mondtster said:
We've all seen guys who are no more skilled or qualified enough to operate a high performance airplane despite having a commercial rating and a reasonable amount of hours than a new private pilot is.
Click to expand...

An endorsement won't magically make such people better pilots. There are people out there who will never be good pilots no matter how much training they receive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top