Originally Posted by Banshee365
Do type ratings automatically include a non-written high altitude endorsement?
It will depend on if you had a PIC Proficiency check under 121 or 135. According to 61.31(g)...as already quoted above...
(3) The training and endorsement required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this section are not required if that person can document satisfactory accomplishment of any of the following in a pressurized aircraft, or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a pressurized aircraft:
(iv) Completing a pilot-in-command proficiency check under part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter conducted by the Administrator or by an approved pilot check airman."
This means that the High Altitude Training Endorsement requirement is NOT required if you completed a Prof Check therefore, someone who has done this and NEVER got a physical endorsement in their logbook MAY legally act as PIC of a pressurized airplane other than what their prof check / training was done in.
As someone also pointed out, this does NOT alleviate the requirement to hold a type rating in said airplane if it requires one. 61.31 is all about ACTING as PIC, not logging PIC time.
Originally Posted by Banshee365
A high altitude endorsement was never entered into any logbook of mine but I have a CL-65 type rating. I would imagine that the high altitude endorsement would be covered with a type rating but I know how the FAA regs can be and want to get some opinions on if I can log PIC time in turbine's other than what my type rating covers.
Although you do hold a type rating in the CL-65, I don't think it will legally cover you to forego the endorsement requirement.
I am not sure if you have an "SIC Only" or a full type rating in the CL-65 but I'll address both. The "SIC Only" is a no-go because you do not hold a full type rating and therefore, are not able to act as pilot in command of the very pressurized airplane you were trained on and since the problem in question is whether or not you can ACT AS PIC of a high altitude airplane, I do not believe this would satisfy this requirement.
The full type rating could be tricky simply because, although you were trained to PIC standards for the type rating, the regulation states that you must have completed...a pilot-in-command proficiency check under part 121
. If your training was only to be an FO but still requiring a full type (PIC Privileges), I'd say the interpretations could lean either way. You would have to prove that the Proficiency Check you took at the end of training was a "Pilot In Command" proficiency check which, according to your seat position (if you are an FO), it wasn't even though the FAA typed you fully in the airplane so I'm on the fence on this one.
This is one area where I can see it going either way. You DO hold an FAA Type Rating to fly as PIC in a High Altitude airplane... however, if you did not technically take a "PILOT IN COMMAND Proficiency Check", would the FAA still say it is ok? I think it is time for a "test case" lol
With all of that said above, I am making one HUGE assumption... that you were trained as an FO. If you were trained as a captain, then you are good to go.