high performance endorsement (rant)

If I were king, complex endorsement could stay as-is, but HP should move to >349HP.
 
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...

Being a fresh CPL doesn't mean jack, plenty a fresh CPL has been run out of a high end DZ or tow op, especially ones where the DZOs were pilots, being a CPL doesn't mean you know jack about operating a 182/206 especially for DZ ops.
 
dmspilot said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not defending anything, but I do find your proposal to exempt commercial pilots from the endorsement, a bit ridiculous, as if they're a superior pilot or something.

The rules are what they are, someday they may change. What I mainly take issue with is that in general pilots seem to be driven to do the minimum amount of everything - training, maintenance, currency, etc. What's another hour or two of training, flying a new airplane type in the long run? You might learn something.
 
James331 said:
Being a fresh CPL doesn't mean jack, plenty a fresh CPL has been run out of a high end DZ or tow op, especially ones where the DZOs were pilots, being a CPL doesn't mean you know jack about operating a 182/206 especially for DZ ops.
Click to expand...

Why are you so angry? Should there be a "dropzone endorsement" now too? I liked your first post on the subject a lot better.
 
I'm not angry at all lol

I agree that the 200hp thing is a little pointless, that said the CPL being exempt is also silly.
 
mondtster said:
I'm not defending anything, but I do find your proposal to exempt commercial pilots from the endorsement, a bit ridiculous, as if they're a superior pilot or something.
Click to expand...

If you can handle an Arrow or a 172RG you ought to be able to handle a 182, I don't think I'm being ridiculous, but some of the other ideas thrown around such as bumping it up to 300hp instead of 200hp sound good to me too.

The point is, is the HP endorsement really necessary

mondtster said:
What I mainly take issue with is that in general pilots seem to be driven to do the minimum amount of everything
Click to expand...

If that's where you think I'm coming from, you have me completely wrong. I am not opposed to learning new things and improving my skills; in fact, precisely the opposite is true. You're talking about pilots who don't want to challenge themselves. That's not at all what I'm talking about. I have consistently heard from other CPLs that their HP endorsements were so easy as to be pointless.
 
Last edited:
This thread makes me feel old. The two endorsements were one and the same when I started flying. They weren't split yet. Someone at FAA decided they weren't the same thing in the 90s. Before that it basically meant "anything with more than two levers, three if you couldn't carb heat..." Heh. ;) Didn't really matter what the new levers were.
 
dmspilot said:
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.​
Click to expand...
So you basically want it 'waived' with no basis for the waiver. Sounds like you'd rather just stew in your juices and complain than learn anything. If that is the case, I'm done here.
 
hindsight2020 said:
If I were king, complex endorsement could stay as-is, but HP should move to >349HP.
Click to expand...
Why? a 600hp airplane doesn't really feel all that different from a 300HP airplane. I use about the same amount of rudder (maybe a little more) in the Cherokee 6 than in a T-6.
 
mondtster said:
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.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but in all fairness those are Lycs. Continentals cylinders are known for being the wink point compared to Lycs. I think you are more likely to damage an O-470 by poor engine management than a O-320 or 360.
 
Fearless Tower said:
So you basically want it 'waived' with no basis for the waiver. Sounds like you'd rather just stew in your juices and complain than learn anything. If that is the case, I'm done here.
Click to expand...

I have given logical justifications for the argument more than once, but obviously your reading comprehension is so poor and/or you are too preoccupied with trying to insult me that you must have missed them. Nobody else had such a hard time understanding what I wrote.

Fearless Tower said:
Why? a 600hp airplane doesn't really feel all that different from a 300HP airplane.
Click to expand...

And a 230hp one is so different than a 200hp one?
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
Perhaps, but in all fairness those are Lycs. Continentals cylinders are known for being the wink point compared to Lycs. I think you are more likely to damage an O-470 by poor engine management than a O-320 or 360.
Click to expand...

Wink point?
 
Last edited:
Best way would be a power to weight ratio.
 
Does the endorsement really add any cost or time? In order to be insured or rent a plane, you usually need an aircraft check out. There's no reason a high performance endorsement (or complex endorsement, for that matter) couldn't be done along with the check out.
 
Brad Z said:
Does the endorsement really add any cost or time? In order to be insured or rent a plane, you usually need an aircraft check out. There's no reason a high performance endorsement (or complex endorsement, for that matter) couldn't be done along with the check out.
Click to expand...
This.
 
In this case, a checkout wasn't needed, so he was paying extra for it.
 
EdFred said:
In this case, a checkout wasn't needed, so he was paying extra for it.
Click to expand...


Seeing that he was a new DZ pilot, he probably had some OJT required anyways, probably shouldn't have needed to pay for it, that said there are good DZs where the DZO would cover this, and not so good DZs, strangely enough I'm not sure any if the big DZs would hire a CPL without any high performance experience for insurance reasons.
 
James331 said:
Seeing that he was a new DZ pilot, he probably had some OJT required anyways, probably shouldn't have needed to pay for it, that said there are good DZs where the DZO would cover this, and not so good DZs, strangely enough I'm not sure any if the big DZs would hire a CPL without any high performance experience for insurance reasons.
Click to expand...
From the OP's previous posts, the DZ airplane did not have dual controls so a checkout would not have been possible. As far as waiving the requirement for commercial pilots, I don't see why commercial pilots should receive that consideration when private pilots don't.
 
James331 said:
Seeing that he was a new DZ pilot, he probably had some OJT required anyways
Click to expand...

I had some OJT which I did not pay for (though I wasn't paid either). I needed to get the endorsement first.

Everskyward said:
I don't see why commercial pilots should receive that consideration when private pilots don't.
Click to expand...

My argument is that a CPL has 10 hours complex and ought to be able to handle a HP airplane, however, I find some of the other ideas equally appealing. It might have been a mistake to split it off from complex endorsement in the 90s.

There is a cost/benefit to every reg. Why is a >200hp aircraft singled out meanwhile turbocharged, glass, noncomplex retractable, etc. aren't. It seems like the cost/benefit isn't there for this one except perhaps for a newly minted PPL.
 
dmspilot said:
My argument is that a CPL has 10 hours complex and ought to be able to handle a HP airplane, however, I find some of the other ideas equally appealing. It might have been a mistake to split it off from complex endorsement in the 90s.

There is a cost/benefit to every reg. Why is a >200hp aircraft singled out meanwhile turbocharged, glass, noncomplex retractable, etc. aren't. It seems like the cost/benefit isn't there for this one except perhaps for a newly minted PPL.
Click to expand...
For most people it is a non-issue since insurance or the place they rent from is going to require a checkout in a HP airplane if they haven't flown one before.
 
dmspilot said:
I had some OJT which I did not pay for (though I wasn't paid either). I needed to get the endorsement first.



My argument is that a CPL has 10 hours complex and ought to be able to handle a HP airplane, however, I find some of the other ideas equally appealing. It might have been a mistake to split it off from complex endorsement in the 90s.

There is a cost/benefit to every reg. Why is a >200hp aircraft singled out meanwhile turbocharged, glass, noncomplex retractable, etc. aren't. It seems like the cost/benefit isn't there for this one except perhaps for a newly minted PPL.
Click to expand...

Because you have to draw the line somewhere. Take a look at the preamble to the 1997 Part 61 rewrite 1995 NPRM and 1997 final rule. It addresses the reason why the FAA required a separate endorsement for aircraft with engines greater than 200 horsepower. Ironically, due to complaints from commentors, the FAA changed the final rule from "200hp and greater" to "greater than 200hp", thus preventing anyone training in a 200hp complex aircraft from getting their HP at the same time. Nice job, whiners! :)

Every significant regulatory change (including the 1997 part 61 changes) includes a regulatory evaluation where the FAA considers the costs and benefits of the rule. I've never looked at the regulatory evaluation of the 1997 part 61 re-write, but I image that the FAA considered the cost minimal since a pilot flying a new aircraft (regardless of horsepower or complexity) generally gets checked out by a flight instructor prior to acting as PIC.

There's nothing in the ASE commercial PTS that focuses on high performance operations. Should they change the PTS?
 
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...

I'm quite surprised that the insurance provider didn't require any prior 182 time.
 
Pretty sure I got my hp endorsement during pp training as I owned a commanche then. It wasn't a big deal but with learning to fly and going from a 172 it was slightly daunting with the other additional systems on the commanche. 172 seemed much easier after flying.
 
Still seems odd to me that according to the FAA (not the insurance company) that with my PPL, HP, and complex, that I could jump into a turboprop and technically not need any more training.
 
Brad Z said:
I'm quite surprised that the insurance provider didn't require any prior 182 time.
Click to expand...

Something is going on in the 182 insurance world (can't speak for commercial, but for sure in the private side)... prices keep dropping, and minimum hours in type also do, which is never what one expects from an insurance company.

Five-ish (?) years ago our policy ran a little over a $1000/year and required 10 hours in type, period.

This year, it's almost below $800, and the wording changed to allow 5 hours in type OR a CFI sign off of type training (annually if you don't get to 5 hours).

In other words, 182s appear to be getting cheaper and cheaper to insure, which is fascinating. Maybe they're writing more of them off instead of fixing them?
 
denverpilot said:
In other words, 182s appear to be getting cheaper and cheaper to insure, which is fascinating. Maybe they're writing more of them off instead of fixing them?
Click to expand...

My guess would be that there are fewer claims being made per number of planes insured. It could be because people are flying less, although I'd guess number of hours flown per year is a factor they consider when calculating premiums.
 
Brad Z said:
Ironically, due to complaints from commentors, the FAA changed the final rule from "200hp and greater" to "greater than 200hp", thus preventing anyone training in a 200hp complex aircraft from getting their HP at the same time. Nice job, whiners! :)
Click to expand...

I think it made more sense the original way. And it's easier to find a 200hp aircraft to rent. I was so focused on eliminating or increasing the HP requirement that I never thought of lowering it could also work.

Oh well. Your explanation of the NPRM is duly noted.
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
From the OP's previous posts, the DZ airplane did not have dual controls so a checkout would not have been possible. As far as waiving the requirement for commercial pilots, I don't see why commercial pilots should receive that consideration when private pilots don't.
Click to expand...

A checkout, well you need dual controls for instruction, but wonder if a checkout counts? I was check out in a couple 200 series cessnas, one didn't have dual controls and the guy doing the checkout wasn't a current CFI, insurance co was still happy, and I logged it non the less.


drotto said:
Still seems odd to me that according to the FAA (not the insurance company) that with my PPL, HP, and complex, that I could jump into a turboprop and technically not need any more training.
Click to expand...

Depends, most turbo props will fly high enough that you'll need a high altitude endorsement.
 
Last edited:
My opinion is to fly a complex or a hp aircraft, you should get the additional training and the subsequent endorsement. For the commercial checkride, you should be able to do it in a 172 or similar, non-complex. Heck, add spins to the commercial PTS makes more sense, but what additional proof is needed that you can fly a complex beyond an endorsement in your log? If a commercial applicant doesn't have HP or complex endorsements, he can't fly those aircraft until he adds them by getting an endorsement(s). As it stands now, a commercial pilot that doesn't have the HP just needs to get the HP endorsement to get paid to fly HP. Same should apply to complex. I could even go with requiring the endorsements for the checkride but allowing the commercial applicant to use any airplane, simple, complex, or HP. It's all about the maneuvers anyway.
 
James331 said:
A checkout, well you need dual controls for instruction, but wonder if a checkout counts? I was check out in a couple 200 series cessnas, one didn't have dual controls and the guy doing the checkout wasn't a current CFI, insurance co was still happy, and I logged it non the less.
Click to expand...
"Checkout" is a nebulous term. I have had a couple checkouts in airplanes for jobs which were not done by CFIs. However, I already had a high performance endorsement. They could obviously not have signed me off for that.
 
drotto said:
Still seems odd to me that according to the FAA (not the insurance company) that with my PPL, HP, and complex, that I could jump into a turboprop and technically not need any more training.
Click to expand...
Don't forget your High Altitude endorsement.
 
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...

It's not even a requirement for a CFI if I've heard correctly
 
denverpilot said:
Something is going on in the 182 insurance world (can't speak for commercial, but for sure in the private side)... prices keep dropping, and minimum hours in type also do, which is never what one expects from an insurance company.

Five-ish (?) years ago our policy ran a little over a $1000/year and required 10 hours in type, period.

This year, it's almost below $800, and the wording changed to allow 5 hours in type OR a CFI sign off of type training (annually if you don't get to 5 hours).

In other words, 182s appear to be getting cheaper and cheaper to insure, which is fascinating. Maybe they're writing more of them off instead of fixing them?
Click to expand...

No kidding. Insurance on my 90k hull valued 182 is down to $629/year, down from about $900 six years ago. I'm not complaining. :)
 
luvflyin said:
It's not even a requirement for a CFI if I've heard correctly
Click to expand...
Correct, it is not. Not having HP would prevent you from acting as PIC of an HP aircraft so you couldn't do HP endorsements as a CFI. Same as a CFI who doesn't have TW
 
Brad Z said:
How's a 350hp engine any different from a 310hp engine?
Click to expand...

It gets it closer to the piston limit, which lends itself to aggregating the piston players together and leaving most of the turbines to deal with the added kabuki of a "high performance" idiosyncrasies without going the way of type rating for all.

I do not subscribe the idea HP endorsement was meant to address finicky 6 bangers that don't like being firewalled to the degree an O-360 can, nor do I think most 349HP and below equipped airplanes have a wide envelope of performance difference between light and gross weight, which I do consider a more meaningful measure for warranting a high performance endorsement. The step up from a warior to a Cirrus SR22 and similarly equipped 280-300hp equipped airplanes can be addressed notionally without the need for a formal endorsement. It's just not that much pep in your step. Stepping into a workhorse like a C208 however does carry imo the need to formalize that distinction. The 350HP number merely seeks to draw the line where turbines generally start taking off from pistons as a matter of convenience.
 
Funny as a Commercial Helicopter pilot with no HP endorsement I flew an 800 hp Wright radial engine equipped S-55 Sikorsky. Also flew the Bell 47G3B2A with supercharged 280 horse engine and weighted tip blades. Both of those were considerably more of a handful and more complicated than any C182 I've been in.

I find the +200 hp HP requirement to be preposterous and I don't think a waiver for a Commercial pilot is a bad idea at all considering in the Helicopter world we don't need such a thing.

Scratch that... just figured it out... helicopter pilots are just that much better pilots than starch wingers :p
 
Flying 350+ HP Pistons has very little prep for flying turbines, in many ways turbines are easier to fly, it's just the startup and knowing the TQ and temp limits
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top