172RG complex or not

[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).