HP, Complex & Multiengine

[Henning]

Here's a question... Can a PP-ASEL get the HP and complex endorsements in a twin from a multi engine rated CFI?

I don't see why not. In fact, the FAA nods in allowance by letting you do initial Commercial and Instructor rides in a twin to get the complex issues, and then complete the CSEL/CFI-A in a 172. If you use a twin of over 200 hp/side like a 310 (American Flyers uses 310s) or Baron, I don't see why that would not count towards High Performance requirements. Maybe I'm missing another rule, but nothing in the endorsements leads me to believe there is a restriction in regards to this.

 

[Henning]

I believe the answer is no based on the way the endorsement is worded.

What are you reading in the endorsement that specifies it to be SE? I'm missing it.

To act as PIC in a complex airplane: section 61.31(e).
I certify that (First name, MI, Last name), (pilot certificate), (certificate number), has received the required training of section 61.31(e) in a (make and model of complex airplane). I have determined that He/She is proficient in the operation and systems of a complex airplane.
[DATE] Instructor Name, 1234567CFI, Exp. 12/31/2014

To act as PIC in a high performance airplane: section 61.31(f).
I certify that (First name, MI, Last name), (pilot certificate), (certificate number), has received the required training of section 61.31(f) in a (make and model of high performance airplane). I have determined that He/She is proficient in the operation and systems of a high performance airplane.
[DATE] Instructor Name, 1234567CFI, Exp. 12/31/2014

 

[frcabot]

The solo student is most definitely PIC, as they are the only pilot in the plane therefor 'in command' by default. The only issue that confuses people is that the CFI still has a level of liability with regards to a solo student having an accident. If the plane leaves the ground, there must by legal definition be a PIC onboard.

When a student pilot is solo, they are by definition PIC. When a student pilot is dual, they are not PIC. When a rated pilot flies with a CFI, the rated pilot is PIC and logs PIC time (because sole manipulator of the controls typically).

 

[EdFred]

When a rated pilot flies with a CFI, the rated pilot is PIC and logs PIC time (because sole manipulator of the controls typically).

Not necessarily PIC. Logs it yes. But he might not be endorsed, he might not be current, might not have a medical, so he might not actually BE pic.

 

[frcabot]

Not necessarily PIC. Logs it yes. But he might not be endorsed, he might not be current, might not have a medical, so he might not actually BE pic.

Ok, good point.

 

[EdFred]

Ok, good point.

Or the CFI might just say, "my ass on the line this flight, I am PIC for this flight."

 

[Kritchlow]

I don't see why not. In fact, the FAA nods in allowance by letting you do initial Commercial and Instructor rides in a twin to get the complex issues, and then complete the CSEL/CFI-A in a 172. If you use a twin of over 200 hp/side like a 310 (American Flyers uses 310s) or Baron, I don't see why that would not count towards High Performance requirements. Maybe I'm missing another rule, but nothing in the endorsements leads me to believe there is a restriction in regards to this.

Right.... You can have a AMEL cat/class without a ASEL, so that should be proof positive.

 

[rbridges]

I stand corrected. Been gone awhile. Thank you.

I thought people had to resort to meltdowns and personal attacks when corrected on POA. I didn't know you could reply civilly.

 

[flyingron]

So it seems the consensus is that a student pilot flying solo can log it as PIC but he is not actually PIC.

He is the PIC. That's the whole point of the "student pilot certificate."

Even before student pilots could log PIC time, they were PIC when solo. Read the student pilot limitations:

(a) A student pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft:
(1) That is carrying a passenger;

 

[EdFred]

Right.... You can have a AMEL cat/class without a ASEL, so that should be proof positive.

I may have been thinking about getting a flight review in a plane you weren't rated for vs endorsements.

 

[Neal Howard]

I don't see why not. In fact, the FAA nods in allowance by letting you do initial Commercial and Instructor rides in a twin to get the complex issues, and then complete the CSEL/CFI-A in a 172. If you use a twin of over 200 hp/side like a 310 (American Flyers uses 310s) or Baron, I don't see why that would not count towards High Performance requirements. Maybe I'm missing another rule, but nothing in the endorsements leads me to believe there is a restriction in regards to this.

I have a CFI buddy who offered to give me some ME instruction in his Cessna 401 and was wondering if he could also give me the HP and complex endorsements in the C401 as well. We also have access to Viking 300 but it's currently in the paint shop getting some hangar rash refinished on a wingtip. If there's any question of the validity of the HP/complex signoff in the 401, then I'll wait for the Viking to be repainted. I've already got some right seat time in the Viking and it's a piece of cake to fly... the 401 is a bit more intimidating.

 

[Henning]

I have a CFI buddy who offered to give me some ME instruction in his Cessna 401 and was wondering if he could also give me the HP and complex endorsements in the C401 as well. We also have access to Viking 300 but it's currently in the paint shop getting some hangar rash refinished on a wingtip. If there's any question of the validity of the HP/complex signoff in the 401, then I'll wait for the Viking to be repainted. I've already got some right seat time in the Viking and it's a piece of cake to fly... the 401 is a bit more intimidating.

The 401 also has same direction props, so left turning tendencies are even greater than a SE plane. Normally I advance the throttles on a HP twin with a stagger by pushing the left knob with the tip of my thumb and catching the right in the webbing to control it. I'd be interested in what your CFI determines.

 

[Neal Howard]

The left turning tendency is not what really concerns me. I've got 75 hours in a hotrod RV8 with 192hp and CS prop that'll make an abrupt left turn off the runway if you jab the throttle without a healthy dose of right rudder. My opinion is that plane is a pretty good example of a "high performance" aircraft even though it's 9hp short of the legal definition of HP. What concerns me more about the 401 is that it's big, it's huge, and sits waaaaay high above the ground. And it's got twice as many powerplant handles and gauges. And did I mention it's BIG!
I've also got some right seat time in a C337 but it's just like a larger, heavier C172 except there's this thing back behind the rear seats that makes noise... or at least it's supposed to be making noise.

 

[marcoseddi]

Figures some guy in Jersey told you that..

 

[Henning]

The left turning tendency is not what really concerns me. I've got 75 hours in a hotrod RV8 with 192hp and CS prop that'll make an abrupt left turn off the runway if you jab the throttle without a healthy dose of right rudder. My opinion is that plane is a pretty good example of a "high performance" aircraft even though it's 9hp short of the legal definition of HP. What concerns me more about the 401 is that it's big, it's huge, and sits waaaaay high above the ground. And it's got twice as many powerplant handles and gauges. And did I mention it's BIG!
I've also got some right seat time in a C337 but it's just like a larger, heavier C172 except there's this thing back behind the rear seats that makes noise... or at least it's supposed to be making noise.

Oh, don't worry about the 401. Pay attention to the sight picture as you taxi and you get used to the extra height quickly as everything is still proportional. The 401 is no form of monster to handle, and when light has a fair margin of excess power for OEI performance. Planes don't really get more difficult to fly as they get bigger, it's the systems that get more numerous and complex that add the extra challenges.