172RG complex or not

[MattM]

I was talking to my CFI about the 10 hrs of complex time required for the commercial certificate. I asked him if this could be accomplished with a 172RG and he told me no it could not. It used to be classified as complex for use of the time, but it no longer can be categorized as complex for the 10 hrs time required. Is this true? I can't find anything in the FAR/AIM.


Matt

 

[MYFpilot]

It has a gear lever, a prop control, and a flap handle. So, if it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, it must be a duck.

 

[Andy Neill]

Refer to 61.31e(1):

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.

 

[KEROSINE BURNER]

Absolutely you can use a C-172 RG


There used to be no definition for complex, regarding ENDORSEMENTS.

Pre 1994, I think (?), it worked like this:

C-182 = hi perf, due to OVER 200hp

C-172RG = hi perf, due to retractable gear & CS prop

Back then, checking out in a fixed gear 182 actually covered for a retract endorsement as well, since no endorsement was required for 'complex' since the term complex only existed to define some of the training for the commercial.

For the purposes of getting the commercial certificate, the definition COMPLEX referred to an airplane with retractable gear, CS prop, etc.

Then the FAA changed it, bringing retracts out of the high performance endorsement and creating the totally new endorsement - complex.

So now:

Checking out in a fixed gear 182 gets you a hi perf endorsement

Checking out in a 172RG gets you a complex endorsement

Checking out in a 182RG gets you BOTH


**********
Pop quiz for CFIs - Can you get get a hi perf AND complex endorsement in a duchess or seminole? The answer ( from some FEDS) may surprise you.

 

[TXCAP4228]

The 172RG is complex. Why would your CFI say it doesn't count for Commercial training?

 

[Pilotadjuster]

hi perf

Actually, the unless the 172rg has more than 200hp, its only complex, which is all you need for the commercial and cfi.

Did both of mine in an Arrow, which is complex, but not high-performance; same deal as the 172RG I think.

And the duchess/seminole? I have heard the feds say if there is not at least ONE engine OVER 200 hp, you cannot use it to obtain the high performance endorsement. I know a lot of people probably have incorrect endorsements because of that....

 

[AVI8V1]

pa44-180, unless it is bored out to make it over 200 hp you have to wait on the high performance. But the feds always tell me I'm wrong so propbably wrong here too.

 

[larry]

You CFI is an idiot, find a new one that knows what a complex airplane is.

 

[KEROSINE BURNER]

Correct on the Duchess/Seminole, also true for the non turbo Seneca.

Odd twist of fate in the turbo Senecas - our FSDO says that they ARE also hi perf, because at altitude the engine is rated at 210 or 215. Loophole!

Other FSDOs may not agree.

Don't dump your CFI yet - for one possibly honest mistake - but if you see much more of this lack of knowledge, you might want to look elsewhere.


Humorous side note-

I remember getting a call from one of our renters who had gone to take the CFI checkride.

Went like this:

"I passed the checkride, but it's night now and I'm not night current to fly back."

This had me looking for a nice place to bang my head.

 

[starvingcfi]

haha. i've got to agree with larry. your cfi is an idiot, but don't dump him. we all make mistakes. that's just a really weird one to make a mistake on. still kinda scratching my head here.

starvingcfi

 

[MattM]

What my cfi meant was that before a Cessna 172 RG used to count as a HP aircraft even though it was less than 200 hp. Now since their are two different classifications it is now complex. My instructor is not an idiot. In fact he is probably the best instructor on the east coast and possibly in the US. He's been flying for 50 years and racked up 32,000 hrs of which 30,000 were teaching.


Matt

 

[Chunk]

Best on the East Coast, huh? Hmmm...What's his name? I'll have to go check tapes of the CFI Olympic Games and see who won the "Best of Coast" Gold.

Not trying to be a smart@ss (well, okay, maybe I am) but dude...how old is this guy?

 

[tarp]

So MattM,

Let's try and get the story straight. Your CFI (the old wise one, like me) told you "no". The only "no" for the C172-RG is "No, you can't get a 'high performance' signoff (endorsement) in an airplane rated at 200hp or less".

If the question is "Can the C-172RG be used for the Commercial rating?" The answer is "Yes, the C172RG is a 'complex' airplane and can be used for a Commercial certificate". There is NO requirement for a commercial pilot to have a 'high performance' endorsement for the rating. The "10 hours" are in a "complex" airplane.

Your old CFI was right that prior to 1997, there was no such thing as a "high performance" airplane and people just sought a "complex" rating. However, after 1997 and without a "high performance" endorsement, you had to have somewhere in your logbook, proof that you had indeed flown an airplane with greater than 200hp. I have no "high performance" endorsement in my logbook, but prior to 1990, I did have something like 185 hours of flight time in aircraft rated at greater than 200hp (C-210's, C-182's, B35's, B-36's, etc.)

In the old days, the insurance companies were the keepers of high performance - it was hard to rent or fly an airplane without 25 hours make and model. Pilots are creative folks, though and they kept finding ways to get into high performance machines without really understanding what all that torque does to an airplane.

I'm glad you are happy with your CFI. Just make sure that you and he are communicating the same messages.

 

[tarp]

Oh, MattM, I forgot:

Complex airplanes: 61.31(e)
High Performance: 61.31(f)

Commercial Pilots (10 hours complex rule): 61.129 (a)(3)(ii)

Enjoy.

 

[flywithastick]

I have no "high performance" endorsement in my logbook, but prior to 1990, I did have something like 185 hours of flight time in aircraft rated at greater than 200hp (...B35's, B-36's, etc.)

I'd darn sure say a B-36 has more than 200 hp... I'd guess something like 20,000 with the 4360's. and that doesn't count the turbojets hung later on!!

 

[bobbysamd]

High Performance v. Complex

. . . . or, a rose, by any other name . . . . .

Your CFI is misinformed. Your 172RG checkout can and should count as your "complex" endorsement but not for "high-performance."

I, too, was misinformed until I came on the board a year and a half ago after eight years out of aviation. Apparently several years ago the FAA made this extremely stupid distinction between high-performance and complex. Twenty years ago, I got my high-performance endorsement in a PA-28R-200, which is an Arrow with the 200-hp Lycoming. There was no such thing as a "complex" airplane. In those days, people called such airplanes "complex," but that was not an official FAA term. In those days, you could have checked out in a 450-hp radial Stearman and it would have counted for retractable gear, flaps, and controllable propeller as well as high-performance.

I started reading here about "complex" and learned that the FAA had established "complex" as a term and distinguished between it and "high performance," and that flying a TWIN ENGINED Seminole (which most are) was now invalid for a high-performance endorsement! I say again, twin-engined. The kind of PIC time and large quantities of which will win you regional airline consideration but not a high-performance endorsement. Does that mean that if one is hired at the regionals with Seminole being one's only retractable time that one must beg the regional check airman for a high-performance endorsement before being legal to fly a 1900? Sarcasm is deliberate. I have former colleagues whom the commuters hired with only 172 and Seminole time, so what I'm saying isn't as far-fetched or rad as it sounds. Hello?!?

It is all so stupid. Not to count a twin checkout as high-performance. But, the FAA didn't seek our input, so the long and short of it is your checkout in a 172RG can be written up as your "complex" endorsement. Not like the old days, it cannot be written up as a high-performance endorsement.

Perhaps this should be added to JetPilot500's FAR-changing discussion.

 

[flywithastick]

How about flying a Twin Otter and not needing a complex endorsement?!

 

[starvingcfi]

i'm willing to bet that if your instructor really were the "best on the east coast and possibly in the us" he might've known the answer to the question you're asking all us other pilots. just a thought. sounds like you need a lesson in common sense. think about it. you'll get it.

starving-and laughing-cfi

 

[starvingcfi]

....ps....my dad can beat up your dad

 

[100LL... Again!]

---------------------------------
Your old CFI was right that prior to 1997, there was no such thing as a "high performance" airplane and people just sought a "complex" rating. However, after 1997 and without a "high performance" endorsement, you had to have somewhere in your logbook, proof that you had indeed flown an airplane with greater than 200hp.
---------------------------------


I believe the opposite was true.

There was no such thing as a COMPLEX endosrement prior to the rule change.

There was a HI PERF endorsement. Worked for both sub-201hp retract AND any A/C above 200 hp.

The term COMPLEX existed only to define aircraft used for commercial training.

 

[Pilotadjuster]

hi perf

Bobby--I understand (from my old cfi - 16000 + hours, probably 15000 dual given...) that the Arrow USED to be rated at 201 HP and was approved by the FAA for the hi perf endorsement. Now not the case however (post 97?). Find myself looking for a 182 to get a couple hours dual in just to get a hi perf endorsement. (though I'd probably need at least 10 hrs to fly one solo per the insurance company)...

 

[bobbysamd]

PA28R-200

100LL is correct in his comments.

PA28R-200 was the type Arrow that I flew. It was something like a 1976 model. Its ASI was calibrated in mph. In 1983 the regulation said either gear, flaps and prop or an engine with 200 hp or more qualified you for the high-performance endorsement - meaning you could also get it in a 182, Cherokee Six, etc. People used "complex airplane" in conversation but it was not part of the official FAA nomenclature at the time. I believe Piper created a version of Arrow with the designation PA28R-201.

What makes it all so ridiculous is we issued high-performance endorsements to our Riddlers and FSI students who were flying Seminoles. At ERAU students who were in the multi program went from 172s to Seminoles. The irony of it all was that many were hired at Riddle as instructors and went from Riddle to the commuters, having flown only these two airplanes. Fast-forward ten years from 1990 and I'm sure it was the same - except no "high performance" endorsement. I'd feel pretty embarassed to ask a check airman for one if I were in their shoes, though it was not their fault.

 

[Rich Man]

I know Im asking for it.... so let it come

I have in my hands a 1970's POH for a Piper Cherokee Arrow III designated as PA-28R-201. and on page 1-3 paragraph 1.3 ENGINES says the following:

(a) Number of Engines...............................................1
(b) Engine Manufacturer................................Lycoming
(c) Engine Model Number.........................IO-360-C1C6
(d)Rated Horsepower.............................................200
(e)Rated Speed (RPM)...........................................2700

and so on and so forth.....

After the Arrow III came the Turbo Arrow III (PA-28R-201T) and later Arro IV and Turbo Arrow IV. and it is my understanding that both IV's and Turbo III were of more than 200HP, however, the #1 in the designator of PIPER planes, like the PA-28-151,161 Aroow 201 and 201T is a designator for the design of the wing which is semitappered, however if you note the PA-28-140 and PA-28R-200 still have the Hershy-bar rectangular wing. so the #1 in the 201 does not mean H.P. but semi-tappered wing, the letter "T" in 201T which stands for tubo, might produce over 200 H.P. at least on T.O likewise on Turbo powered Seneca's.

There is however an "T" tail Arrow III from around 1986 that might be over 200H.P. but I doubt it, it is normally aspirated and the only change I know is the "T" tail.

The original question in this thread was if the 172RG is an A/C one could use for commercial training and if it is a complex A/C and by the definition in the FAR's it is.

the 172RG is as far as anything else could be from a high performance A/C, as a matter of fact a 172 could outclimb an RG, the 172 RG is good and fast in cruise.... but that's about were it ends.

alright, flame away!

Rich!

 

[bobbysamd]

Good post, Rich

Yes, the Arrow I flew had the Hershey wing.

 

[starvingcfi]

first off, deftone. love your avatars. very good stuff.


MATTM, my instructor can beat up your instructor.

 

[Bluestreak]

The reg changed 8-4-97 for "high performance".To wit:

Old reg (61.31 (f) ) said "200 HP or more",the new reg said "more than 200 HP" -see the subtle difference ? Under the old reg,200 ponies was ok,but now it has to be "more than" 200 HP.

 

[tarp]

Mea Culpa.

Dug into my logbook and regs. I have a "high performance" signoff from the old days even though at that time I never saw anything with greater than 200hp. The word "complex" entered the regulation world in 1997 to describe the thing that the commercial certificate always required (retract, flaps and control pitch prop). Between 1973 and 1997, we received an "HP" endorsement for any plane that had the afore mentioned "complex" characteristics OR "more than 200hp".

And heaven forbid that I tried to save typing the letter "e" in a popular airplane descriptor - with all the spelling mistakes made on this board. OK, I flew Be-35 and Be-36.

I feel much better now.

 

[BoDEAN]

I was talking to my CFI about the 10 hrs of complex time required for the commercial certificate. I asked him if this could be accomplished with a 172RG and he told me no it could not. It used to be classified as complex for use of the time, but it no longer can be categorized as complex for the 10 hrs time required. Is this true? I can't find anything in the FAR/AIM.


Matt

Matt:

SIT DOWN with your instructor, and tell him to SHOW you where the FAR/AIM says you can't use that 172RG. If you are an AOPA member, I would call their toll free hotline, right then and there, in front of him, and have them give you the "Of course you can" while he is standing there. CFI's are not perfect, and any errors I or any others at the airport make, we like to "correct" the other and let them know what's correct. So I would definitely sit down with him and show him what was copy/pasted on here. Don't feel "SMALL" compared to your CFI. Share what you know, it will only make you a better and more well-rounded person in the future (Aviation or in any other field).