HP, Complex & Multiengine

drgwentzel

drgwentzel

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
287
Location
NJ
Display Name
Display name:
Kobra
Flyers,

I had an old-school instructor who stated to me the other day, that as long as one has a basic PP certificate, you can fly a complex, high performance or multiengine airplane all day long, and be legal, as long as you don't carry passengers.

I didn't correct him, but found the reg for complex and HP endorsements (FAR 61.31 (e) and (f). For multiengine, that is a different class of airplane. To be PIC in a different class of airplane, one needs that class rating added to their certificate, but I couldn't find a clear FAR reg that says that...at least one not as clear as 61.31 e and f make HP and complex understood. I'm flying all day today and don't have the time to dig it out. Can someone help me out with this?

Gene
 
Your instructor is full of it. He thinks that (c) is the end-all of the regulation but it applies in tandem with (d), (e), and (f).

(c) says you can't be PIC while carrying passengers or operating for compensation or hire without category/class/type ratings.
(d) says you can't be PIC at all without category/class/type ratings OR a solo sign-off.
(e) and (f) require training endorsements (or be grandfathered) to be pilot in command.

Essentially, you can't fly for compensation on a commercial ticket and just a solo sign-off is what (c) is saying.
 
Actually your instructor and you are both incorrect.

He is wrong in his assertion that you do not need an endorsement for HP or complex. The regs state that you must have these to be PIC. If you are flying solo, you are PIC. You do not need pax to be PIC.

You are wrong in your belief that you need a ME rating to fly ME as PIC. You do not. All you really need is at least a student pilot certificate and a solo endorsement for that make and model aircraft. Remember, flying solo makes you PIC.
 
Technically you don't need any endorsement or certificate to fly anything. Just go up to Alaska and see what I mean.
 
NJP_MAN said:
Technically you don't need any endorsement or certificate to fly anything. Just go up to Alaska and see what I mean.
Click to expand...

Yep, I have met as many people flying in Alaska without a certificate, medical or current annual on the airplane as I have met in the lower 48.
 
Stewartb said:
It looks pretty clear to me. You can't operate a high performance, complex, or tailwheel airplane as PIC unless you have an endorsement. The exception is being grandfathered in.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.31
Click to expand...



Yup

Plus I'd love to see a 172 pilot try to fly a champ or something with zero instruction, well it would be sad when the plane gets bent, but yeah who needs cable TV with idiots like that out there.
 
Why would an instructor tell ,anyone to go fly without the rating,or checkout.? Must have enough customers.
 
NJP_MAN said:
Technically you don't need any endorsement or certificate to fly anything. Just go up to Alaska and see what I mean.
Click to expand...

Alaska has the healthiest and most vibrant GA population of anyplace I've seen by a large margin. Lots of good equipment, good mechanics, parts stores, and a pilot community that I'm blessed to be part of. I enjoy being around Lake Hood even if just out walking my dog. Lucky me, I get to park next to my plane when I do. I dropped wifey off early at the big airport. Then the dog and I jumped in the Cessna and went fishing. I caught fish after fish and she swam out after every one. Another great day. Life is good. :)
 
SkyDog58 said:
Actually your instructor and you are both incorrect.

He is wrong in his assertion that you do not need an endorsement for HP or complex. The regs state that you must have these to be PIC. If you are flying solo, you are PIC. You do not need pax to be PIC.

You are wrong in your belief that you need a ME rating to fly ME as PIC. You do not. All you really need is at least a student pilot certificate and a solo endorsement for that make and model aircraft. Remember, flying solo makes you PIC.
Click to expand...


Pilot in Command: means the person who:
1. Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight;
2. Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and
3. Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.

A student pilot's time is logged as "solo" not PIC until he is rated in the aircraft.
 
Stewartb said:
Alaska has the healthiest and most vibrant GA population of anyplace I've seen by a large margin. Lots of good equipment, good mechanics, parts stores, and a pilot community that I'm blessed to be part of. I enjoy being around Lake Hood even if just out walking my dog. Lucky me, I get to park next to my plane when I do. I dropped wifey off early at the big airport. Then the dog and I jumped in the Cessna and went fishing. I caught fish after fish and she swam out after every one. Another great day. Life is good. :)
Click to expand...

That's because GA has great utility in Alaska due to lack of roads. If you're going to live out bush, it's a tough life without an airplane. With an airplane, you can really enjoy everything Alaska offers, plus still maintain a reasonable standard of living.
 
There's more to it than that. But I've only lived here for 47 years and have only flown for half of that so I'll defer to those with more experience. ;)
 
I'm going to disagree with everyone else, and agree with the original CFI statement.
As long as you have a student certificate, a valid medical, a valid solo endorsement, and a valid 90 day endorsement, to fly a particular plane, you can fly that plane, no matter what it is.
If you have a valid pilots certificate, all you need is a solo endorsement (you don't even need a 90 day endorsement) while working on HP, complex, multi or any other rating.
There was a recent (within the last month?) clarification on this from the FAA.
 
Shepherd said:
I'm going to disagree with everyone else, and agree with the original CFI statement.
As long as you have a student certificate, a valid medical, a valid solo endorsement, and a valid 90 day endorsement, to fly a particular plane, you can fly that plane, no matter what it is.
If you have a valid pilots certificate, all you need is a solo endorsement (you don't even need a 90 day endorsement) while working on HP, complex, multi or any other rating.
There was a recent (within the last month?) clarification on this from the FAA.
Click to expand...

Yep, as long as the CFI is willing to sign off solo privileges to a student, they can fly that plane regardless what it is. However it's really a moot issue for the HP or Complex, as those training endorsements can be signed off before the student achieves a PP rating, mine were and it was standard in the cirriculum where I trained. The insurance dictates what the requirements are to solo most planes anyway.
 
Stewartb said:
There's more to it than that. But I've only lived here for 47 years and have only flown for half of that so I'll defer to those with more experience. ;)
Click to expand...

I sure as heck couldn't enjoy Alaska fully without a plane. I take it you know who Otto Giest is? He was my great uncle, I have a scrimshaw walrus tusk he gave me for my Christening.
 
Zeldman said:
Yep, I have met as many people flying in Alaska without a certificate, medical or current annual on the airplane as I have met in the lower 48.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I think the FAA leaves Alaska alone as far as enforcement is concerned. When these "pilots" of dubious qualification flying aircraft of dubious airworthiness smack into tall objects, there is simply nothing to be done. I mean, police aren't involved until after the unlicensed driver in the unregistered vehicle has already caused an accident. The FAA simply doesn't want that burden...so it's all the NTSB's problem after-the-fact.
 
SbestCFII said:
Sometimes I think the FAA leaves Alaska alone as far as enforcement is concerned. When these "pilots" of dubious qualification flying aircraft of dubious airworthiness smack into tall objects, there is simply nothing to be done. I mean, police aren't involved until after the unlicensed driver in the unregistered vehicle has already caused an accident. The FAA simply doesn't want that burden...so it's all the NTSB's problem after-the-fact.
Click to expand...

Texas, Alabama, Florida, and even your fine state of North Carolina, I know 'rogue' pilots in all of them.
 
drgwentzel said:
Flyers,

I had an old-school instructor who stated to me the other day, that as long as one has a basic PP certificate, you can fly a complex, high performance or multiengine airplane all day long, and be legal, as long as you don't carry passengers.
Click to expand...

There is only one way that could be correct. If you build it, you can fly it solo with a PPSEL license, whatever "it" is. Build a mosquito helicopter, you can legally fly it. Or attempt to anyway.
 
old cfi said:
[/B]A student pilot's time is logged as "solo" not PIC until he is rated in the aircraft.
Click to expand...

That ***USED*** to be the case but hasn't been true for nearly two decades. 61.51 was changed in 1997 to allow student solo to be PIC.

And soloing students ARE PIC. The student pilot certificate is a certificate.
 
SbestCFII said:
Sometimes I think the FAA leaves Alaska alone as far as enforcement is concerned. When these "pilots" of dubious qualification flying aircraft of dubious airworthiness smack into tall objects, there is simply nothing to be done. I mean, police aren't involved until after the unlicensed driver in the unregistered vehicle has already caused an accident. The FAA simply doesn't want that burden...so it's all the NTSB's problem after-the-fact.
Click to expand...

That is a serious load of crap. The entire statement. I'm disappointed anyone would make such a statement. How many years did you fly in Alaska and how long ago was it?
 
flyingron said:
That ***USED*** to be the case but hasn't been true for nearly two decades. 61.51 was changed in 1997 to allow student solo to be PIC.

And soloing students ARE PIC. The student pilot certificate is a certificate.
Click to expand...

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Been out of it awhile.
 
old cfi said:
Pilot in Command: means the person who:
1. Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight;
2. Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and
3. Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.

A student pilot's time is logged as "solo" not PIC until he is rated in the aircraft.
Click to expand...

Well that is not my understanding but as you are an old CFI, I will defer to your knowledge and wisdom.
 
old cfi said:
Pilot in Command: means the person who:
1. Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight;
2. Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and
3. Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.

A student pilot's time is logged as "solo" not PIC until he is rated in the aircraft.
Click to expand...
You are confusing acting as PIC versus logging as PIC. They are two different things with two different requirements. So, essentially, you're wrong. :)

A student pilot may log PIC time when he/she is the sole occupant of the aircraft while training for a pilot certificate and has a current solo flight endorsement.

See FAR 61.51(e)(4):
A student pilot may log pilot-in-command time only when the student pilot—

(i) Is the sole occupant of the aircraft . . . ;

(ii) Has a solo flight endorsement as required under §61.87 of this part; and

(iii) Is undergoing training for a pilot certificate or rating."
 
Last edited:
old cfi said:
Why don't you read my last 2 posts this morning. I was corrected and I acknowledged that fact.
Click to expand...
Noted, I didn't read all the way through. But thanks for acknowledging your mistake. I've seen so many people argue about this ad nauseum (including clueless DPEs) even though the regs are very clear.
 
So it seems the consensus is that a student pilot flying solo can log it as PIC but he is not actually PIC. So who is the PIC? The CFI on the ground? It seems totally illogical that you can have a piloted aircraft flying around without a PIC. I believe this is an error of omission in the FAR or poor wording and not an intentional decision to declare a solo student to not be PIC. But regardless of the actual definition of PIC, if you can log it as such that is all that really matters to most of those who concern themselves with these arguments.
 
The student is the PIC. There's a legal letter out there somewhere that states someone on board is (and has to be) the PIC.
 
Solo student has been PIC ever since I started training in the early 90s.:dunno:
 
EdFred said:
The student is the PIC. There's a legal letter out there somewhere that states someone on board is (and has to be) the PIC.
Click to expand...

That is what I would think but unless I'm reading all of the posts incorrectly it appears that people are saying the student logs it as PIC but is not PIC which sounds really dumb.
 
SkyDog58 said:
That is what I would think but unless I'm reading all of the posts incorrectly it appears that people are saying the student logs it as PIC but is not PIC which sounds really dumb.
Click to expand...

Did you forget we are dealing with the FAA here:yes:
 
Here's a question... Can a PP-ASEL get the HP and complex endorsements in a twin from a multi engine rated CFI?
 
SkyDog58 said:
That is what I would think but unless I'm reading all of the posts incorrectly it appears that people are saying the student logs it as PIC but is not PIC which sounds really dumb.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Neal Howard said:
Here's a question... Can a PP-ASEL get the HP and complex endorsements in a twin from a multi engine rated CFI?
Click to expand...

I believe the answer is no based on the way the endorsement is worded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top