Search
Notices
Flight Schools and Training Ratings, building hours, airmanship, CFI topics

Complex endorsement???

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 01-11-2008, 10:36 AM
  #11  
Moderator
 
Cubdriver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
Default

You have my sympathy on that one. I have been through a number of checkouts in the last few years that I thought were totally unnecessary. To rent a 172 you will have to spend $500 showing them you can do turns around a point and power off stalls. FAA certificate holders are already approved to do these things; so where do they get off second-guessing the FAA? I can see merits of having minimum hour requirements to qualify to fly a certain aircraft, but I have never seen they will allow relaxation of the checkout based on flight experience one already has.

Last edited by Cubdriver; 01-12-2008 at 06:51 AM.
Cubdriver is offline  
Old 01-11-2008, 04:50 PM
  #12  
Gets Weekends Off
 
the King's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: JS32 FO
Posts: 848
Default

5 hours seems like a lot. I understand 2 or 3, but 5? See if the instructor will give you the Complex Endorsement though if you go through with the checkout. They should be able to and if they won't, I would question their operation. After 5 hours we give the endorsement to our Commercial applicants. I don't see why they wouldn't for you.
the King is offline  
Old 01-12-2008, 06:51 AM
  #13  
Moderator
 
Cubdriver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
Default

Originally Posted by the King View Post
5 hours seems like a lot. I understand 2 or 3, but 5?...
Right on. There is a give and take in forces determining checkout requirements among renters and clubs that own aircraft, and I think they are out of balance these days. Checkout procedures are reactionary in that they tend to respond to accidents, rising litigation, rising costs of aircraft and of course the profit motive, but without sufficient counter forces such as lower accident rates, lower fleet utilization, and safer aircraft & aircraft systems cinching it back down, the bar just gets too high. It is to the point that a 500 plus-hour piston single or twin pilot has spend $500 just to get approved to fly around the patch and has to do it over for each minor variation in aircraft type or equipment in the fleet. It has an autopilot? 4 hour checkout. It goes to 25,000 feet? 5 hour checkout. It goes 160 knots? It has a turbo on it? 5 hour checkouts. The pilot customer doesn't do it because it's so ridiculous and the planes sit idle without any arguable advantage. An idle aircraft isn't safer, it just isn't being used.

Last edited by Cubdriver; 01-12-2008 at 07:13 AM.
Cubdriver is offline  
Old 01-12-2008, 08:49 AM
  #14  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,277
Default

Originally Posted by Raildriver View Post
I have a high performance endorsement, but not a complex. I do have all my civilian ratings, just not the "complex" endorsement for an airplane that has constant speed prop, flaps, and retractable landing gear, even though the airplane I fly everyday has all that plus 1200shp a side.
Your military experience does not matter in this case. You WILL need the complex endorsement in order to avoid breaking the law. But it's easy to get...you will need a club checkout anyway, just tell the instructor in advance that you need a complex endorsement at the same time. It should only require a little extra time on the ground to discuss the prop governor and RPM vs. MP technique.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 01-12-2008, 09:50 AM
  #15  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 762
Default

The 5 hour checkout is most likely required per their issurance. The reason being is because it is complex, insurance is higher for those aircraft and so they require a longer checkout.
NE_Pilot is offline  
Old 01-12-2008, 10:39 PM
  #16  
Gets Weekends Off
 
BoilerWings's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: wing-walker
Posts: 252
Default

Originally Posted by Cubdriver View Post
You have my sympathy on that one. I have been through a number of checkouts in the last few years that I thought were totally unnecessary. To rent a 172 you will have to spend $500 showing them you can do turns around a point and power off stalls. FAA certificate holders are already approved to do these things; so where do they get off second-guessing the FAA? I can see merits of having minimum hour requirements to qualify to fly a certain aircraft, but I have never seen they will allow relaxation of the checkout based on flight experience one already has.
I see your point, but I can personally attest to multiple experiences checking out airline pilots in C172s. I notice 2 common things:

1. Flying final approach at 120
2. Starting the roundout and flare more than 50 feet above the ground.
BoilerWings is offline  
Old 01-13-2008, 09:31 AM
  #17  
On Reserve
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: RC-12P Left seat
Posts: 17
Default

I see your points. But I am not an airline pilot that flys a heavy or does very little GA flying. I fly a very souped up Super King Air that happens to weigh 16,500 pounds with 1900 parts all over it and 1200hp a side . My military stuff is moot. I have all my civilian ratings, SEL and MEL commercial instrument, type rating in 300 series King airs. I also have my high perf. endorsement.

What I am saying or asking, why isn't flying a King Air with retractable gear, two constant speed props, and flaps considered a complex aircraft? For which I should just be given the endorsement? We have three CFII rated pilots in my unit that are also our military instructor pilots, one has said he will sign my endorsement and it should be totally legal. I think it silly that I have to be "trained" on a "complex" aircraft, like how a constant speed prop works, what a prop governor is, how a speeder spring and fly weights work, and how now I have to remember to put the gear down. See my point?? My beef is I understand 5 hours for insurance, but to say I don't have a "complex endorsement" so I have to pay them to "teach" the differences between flying a 172 and a "complex" aircraft, total BS. I fly my father in laws C-182 all the time, it has a CS prop, I know how to manage MP vs. prop rpm (also what I got my High perf endorsement in), I just want to be able to rent a local Piper Arrow which adds retracts to the equation. Does this make sense? I am probably going to walk in and have 4 to 8 times the hours of my CFI or more. Yes, I fly my approaches at 120 kias and do start roundout at 50 or more feet , but fly many different aircraft including medium twin engine helicopters, I don't confuse those with fixed wing flying, I fly each aircraft based on how it is suppose to be flown.

Last edited by Raildriver; 01-13-2008 at 09:50 AM.
Raildriver is offline  
Old 01-13-2008, 12:40 PM
  #18  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: CFI
Posts: 82
Default

...sounds like you should have your complex endorsement already...
patton33 is offline  
Old 01-13-2008, 09:48 PM
  #19  
Gets Weekends Off
 
LineTroll's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Posts: 151
Default

It doesn't matter what you think, just get the endorsement if you want to rent the plane.
LineTroll is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 06:06 AM
  #20  
Line Holder
 
iflyabeech's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 68
Smile

Originally Posted by Raildriver View Post
I see your points. But I am not an airline pilot that flys a heavy or does very little GA flying. I fly a very souped up Super King Air that happens to weigh 16,500 pounds with 1900 parts all over it and 1200hp a side . My military stuff is moot. I have all my civilian ratings, SEL and MEL commercial instrument, type rating in 300 series King airs. I also have my high perf. endorsement.

What I am saying or asking, why isn't flying a King Air with retractable gear, two constant speed props, and flaps considered a complex aircraft? For which I should just be given the endorsement? We have three CFII rated pilots in my unit that are also our military instructor pilots, one has said he will sign my endorsement and it should be totally legal. I think it silly that I have to be "trained" on a "complex" aircraft, like how a constant speed prop works, what a prop governor is, how a speeder spring and fly weights work, and how now I have to remember to put the gear down. See my point?? My beef is I understand 5 hours for insurance, but to say I don't have a "complex endorsement" so I have to pay them to "teach" the differences between flying a 172 and a "complex" aircraft, total BS. I fly my father in laws C-182 all the time, it has a CS prop, I know how to manage MP vs. prop rpm (also what I got my High perf endorsement in), I just want to be able to rent a local Piper Arrow which adds retracts to the equation. Does this make sense? I am probably going to walk in and have 4 to 8 times the hours of my CFI or more. Yes, I fly my approaches at 120 kias and do start roundout at 50 or more feet , but fly many different aircraft including medium twin engine helicopters, I don't confuse those with fixed wing flying, I fly each aircraft based on how it is suppose to be flown.
This is why you won't just be "given" the endorsement, and it isn't fair to criticize a flight school for complying with the FARS. No matter how high and mighty we might think we are, we still have to comply with the rules and check the required boxes:

FAR 61.31
(e) Additional training required for operating complex airplanes.



(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a complex airplane (an airplane that has a retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller; or, in the case of a seaplane, flaps and a controllable pitch propeller), unless the person has --


(i) Received and logged ground and flight training from an authorized instructor in a complex airplane, or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a complex airplane, and has been found proficient in the operation and systems of the airplane; and


(ii) Received a one-time endorsement in the pilot's logbook from an authorized instructor who certifies the person is proficient to operate a complex airplane.

(2) The training and endorsement required by paragraph (e)(1) of this section is not required if the person has logged flight time as pilot in command of a complex airplane, or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a complex airplane prior to August 4, 1997.
If you meet 61.32 (e)(2), the you do not need an endorsement. Otherwise, it doesn't matter what you fly in the service, you need a complex endorsement to act as PIC in a complex aircraft. There should not be a problem having your squadron mates give you the endorsement, provided they have complied with 61.31 (e)(i) and (ii).

The 5 hour check out is probably for the insurance requirements for the Arrow, which are crazy now. The insurance policy probably requires 5 hours in type to act as PIC as an unnamed pilot. Its possible they could name you as a PIC after checking with the underwriter and providing him with some of your flight times.
iflyabeech is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
johnpeace
Career Questions
30
03-16-2011 07:34 PM
SongMan
Flight Schools and Training
16
12-10-2007 09:23 AM
Bowersbum
Flight Schools and Training
22
11-09-2007 04:42 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices