What do you do?

[SkyHog]

It doesn't make it valid though Nick. You still must correct it. The FAA has been pretty clear about that -- like that DPE deal where they invalidated a bunch of certificates because they didn't like the guy.

It doesn't really matter because there is no punishment involved in something like this, you'll just be told to get the endorsement. Someone will of course come along and say "If you have an accident the insurance will deny" which is also false. Unless you knowingly lied to commit fraud on your insurance application, the insurance will still be valid, the former endorsement being accepted in 'good faith'.

That's my point - there's no failure on the pilot's part here. He gets the endorsement and goes on his way. All previous hours flown are still valid and legal because he was flying with the endorsement.

 

[Skylane81E]

In the right parts of the envelope there is most certainly an increase -- one of which I set people up to experience during such a transition and it almost always catches them off guard.

HP aircraft often also have larger weight envelopes too, even my "easy" 182 can theoretically see a 1000lb difference between a light pilot solo with little fuel and max gross. It is two different planes at those extremes. While the typical trainer also sees performance changes with weight they aren't likely that dramatic.

 

[jesse]

That's my point - there's no failure on the pilot's part here. He gets the endorsement and goes on his way. All previous hours flown are still valid and legal because he was flying with the endorsement.

It's unlikely previous time would be invalidated, correct, I'm not sure that's ever been done. The pilot though will have to get a new endorsement that is valid. If the pilot chooses not to do so and continues to fly under the old one they'll face action.

In order to save people the drama I always look at their stuff to make sure if it looks legit. If it does not I let them know and offer to fix it.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron - is it really the pilot's responsibility to ensure that the endorsements he receives are valid?

Legally, yes. In practice, the FAA would most likely tell the pilot to stop doing whatever s/he was doing until s/he gets a valid endorsement -- and then go string up the endorsing instructor from a telephone pole outside the FSDO as a warning to the rest of the instructors in the district.

I would think that's between the CFI and the FAA. By the wording of the endorsement, the pilot is allowed to fly high performance aircraft, and by the wording of the regulation:

The regulation as worded says the training or pre-97 experience must have been in a high performance airplane, and goes on to define what a high performance airplane is in this context (over 200HP). The fact that before 1997 the definition of a HP airplane was different is not relevant.

I would think that if a CFI gives you an endorsement, as a pilot, you satisfied the requirements he set forth to determine that you've shown proficiency. Because the CFI is wrong doesn't make the pilot wrong, right?

Since the endorsement isn't the only thing required, that doesn't help the pilot involved. But as I said, if the pilot was misinformed by the instructor what the rule is, then I expect the instructor will be the one bearing the brunt of the FAA's wrath.

 

[poadeleted20]

Which is exactly what the case was. They had the HP endorsement from prior to 1997, but never flew anything above 200HP until after the regulation change, so he wasn't able to be grand fathered in. I simply gave him a sign off

Meaning a 61.31(f) high performance endorsement in his logbook, right?

since we did a flight review in my Comanche.

Then you did the right thing to make him legal to fly an over-200HP airplane starting with the day you did that.

 

[poadeleted20]

It doesn't really matter because there is no punishment involved in something like this, you'll just be told to get the endorsement.

Maybe. The FAA will first put you through the wringer to ensure that you were truly misinformed by your instructor, and not just playing games with them. But in the end, if it happened as Ed said, and the endorsing instructor was the one who caused the problem, then I see nothing more than a Warning Letter telling the pilot involved not to fly an over-200HP airplane again until s/he gets a proper HP endorsement. If it gets to a Warning Letter, rather than just an informal counseling, that will stay in the pilot's file for two years so if anything happens in the future, the FAA will be able to consider whether or not the pilot is a real scofflaw, not just a one-time mistaker.

 

[poadeleted20]

That's my point - there's no failure on the pilot's part here. He gets the endorsement and goes on his way. All previous hours flown are still valid and legal because he was flying with the endorsement.

And my point is that there is a failure on the pilot's part, specifically the failure to know and understand the applicable regulations -- a duty which is incumbent upon all of us even when the rules change. The fact that one instructor more than 16 years ago misinformed the pilot may or may not be accepted as a defense -- it's not like this rule just changed yesterday.

 

[poadeleted20]

In order to save people the drama I always look at their stuff to make sure if it looks legit. If it does not I let them know and offer to fix it.

Me, too, as described above with the guy with the Saratoga.

And just this week I did refresher training with a guy with an SR22 -- and no HP endorsement in his logbook (he just started flying about 10 years ago, so grandfathering isn't a possibility). He's got a certificate on his wall which says he got the official Cirrus training including HP training when he bought the plane around 2007, but no logbook endorsement IAW 61.31(f). As I know the instructor who gave him that training, I called the instructor and asked about it -- he was shocked that he hadn't done it right, and will sign one in the log at his first opportunity, backdated to when he trained the guy in the SR22. Of course, I signed one in his log myself, anyway, so at least he's legal for flying from yesterday until he gets with the original instructor.

Oh, yeah -- I gave this guy refresher training two years ago and missed the omission then myself.

 

[EdFred]

Meaning a 61.31(f) high performance endorsement in his logbook, right?

Then you did the right thing to make him legal to fly an over-200HP airplane starting with the day you did that.

Correct, he had two pilot logbooks. The second one had the pre-printed verbiage for the endorsement, and I filled in the blanks. I took liberty with the story telling and the CFI saying the Arrow III was 201HP - because it is often thought that the 201 is 201HP and we talked about that being a point of confusion for some people.

In reality he got the (old) high performance endorsement in a 200HP retract, but never logged any 201HP+ time until after the changeover. So from 1997 until now he assumed that the pre-1997 high performance endorsement covered them until I asked what the high performance endorsement was done in. And since I wasn't flying pre-1997, I never had to deal with the grandfathering and old endorsements not covering new requirements until this week.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'd still like to strangle whoever decided to keep "high performance" name for the reduced range of aircraft in the 1997 changes. If that person (or those who reviewed the proposed rule) had a lick of sense, they would have come up with a different name (like "high powered" or something) so this confusion would have been avoided.

In any event, I got PIC time in a T-34B (retractable, flaps, c/s prop, 225HP) in 1973, so I'm grandfathered for both complex and high performance under the current rules.

 

[Sac Arrow]

I'd still like to strangle whoever decided to keep "high performance" name for the reduced range of aircraft in the 1997 changes. If that person (or those who reviewed the proposed rule) had a lick of sense, they would have come up with a different name (like "high powered" or something) so this confusion would have been avoided.

In any event, I got PIC time in a T-34B (retractable, flaps, c/s prop, 225HP) in 1973, so I'm grandfathered for both complex and high performance under the current rules.

Well, still, when you have a "PA28R 200" designation where the 200 means 200 horsepower, it's logical to assume that "PA28R 201T" turbocharged airplane has at least one additional horsepower, if one didn't know better. Particularly given that there are versions of the Continental TSIO 360 that produce up to 225 hp.

 

[denverpilot]

Not possible. No such thing as a "complex endorsement" before 1997.

However, what someone could have received before 1997 in an Arrow III (which has a 200HP engine even though its official designation is PA28R-201) is a "high performance" endorsement, since before 1997, both retractable and over-200HP airplanes were lumped together in one regulation as "high performance."

Completely legal as long as you got some PIC time in one of those over-200HP airplanes prior to 1997. Until 8/4/97, that pre-97 "high performance" endorsement earned in an Arrow allowed that pilot to act as PIC in any "high performance" airplane, including those with over 200HP as well as those with retractable gear. However, in the 1997 Part 61 rewrite, the FAA split this group into "complex" for those airplanes with retractable gear/flaps/CS prop and (with a great lack of thought or foresight) "high performance" for those with an engine of more than 200HP. This foolishness created just the confusion upon which this entire thread is based.

If someone earned a pre-97 "high performance" endorsement in an Arrow, that endorsement is no longer valid for complex airplanes under the current version of 61.31(e). However, the PIC time they logged as sole manipulator on that training flight grandfathers them for complex under 61.31(e)(2), so their lack of a complex endorsement and the fact that their old HP endorsement was obtained in what is not today considered an HP aircraft are moot.

OTOH, the person who got that pre-97 "high performance" endorsement in an Arrow cannot use that endorsement to meet the current 61.31(f) HP endorsement requirement, since that endorsement must have be earned in what is now considered a HP airplane, i.e., one with an engine over 200HP, and an Arrow isn't that. Of course, that person could have, before 1997, used that pre-97 HP endorsement earned in an Arrow to act as PIC in a 230HP C-182, and then after 1997 used that C-182 PIC time to meet the grandfathering rule in 61.31(f)(2).

The problem occurs when the pilot who got a pre-97 HP endorsement in an Arrow doesn't read the rules carefully and never logs PIC time anything with over 200HP before 1997. That pilot may think s/he is legal to hop in a C-182 today as PIC, but s/he is wrong -- s/he needs a new, post-97 61.31(f) HP endorsement earned in something with over 200HP in order to legally act as PIC in that C-182. Bumped into someone like that a few years ago -- earned a HP endorsement before 1997 in an Arrow, flew it a lot, and then traded up to a Saratoga in 2003. The instructor who checked him out in that 'Toga didn't check his log carefully, and did not give him a post-97 61.31(f) HP endorsement in the 'Toga. In 2007, the pilot came to me for instrument rating training, and I discovered the omission. He got one on Day 2 of training, but technically, all his flying in the 'Toga from when he started flying it as PIC in 2003 until I filled the empty square in 2007 was illegal.

If the CFI said that, s/he didn't know much about Arrow III's, since PA28R-201's are only 200HP airplanes. If someone today signed off a "high performance" endorsement in a PA28R-201, that endorsement would be invalid, and the CFI involved would be subject to corrective action by the FSDO. However, before 1997, you could legally receive a HP endorsement in a PA28R-201, because it met the pre-97 definition of HP, even though it does not have over 200HP. It's just that the HP endorsement legally earned then in that plane does not count under today's version of 61.31(f), and someone with that pre-97 endorsement earned in an Arrow would, in order to act as PIC in an over-200HP today, need either a new HP endorsement earned in an over 200HP airplane, or logged PIC time from before 1997 in something that was over 200HP.

BTW, there's a ton of inaccurate information in the posts above, and I haven't the time to address each item individually, but it's all explained in this post.

Well described. I had this problem but also had time above the HP limit. CFI still didn't "like" it so he wrote two new style post '97 endorsements into my book during additional C-182 training prior to me purchasing one.

His comment was, "Easy to make sure some stupid lawyer doesn't get their panties in a bunch later, we'll just put new endorsements in here."