Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Way2Broke said:Does anyone know what altitude the C-414 is certified too?
Way2Broke said:I was wondering if it required a high altitude endorsement.
Way2Broke said:Does anyone know what altitude the C-414 is certified too? I was wondering if it required a high altitude endorsement.
tracearabians said:If you are full of fuel and more than one pax you will never get high enough to require an endorsement.
You might doublecheck the reg, flyboyike...the endorsement is only required if the airplane is certificated ABOVE 25,000 feet.flyboyike said:The 414 is a pressurized airplane and, as such, requires a high-alt. See 61.31(g).
Fly safe!...no person may act as pilot in command of a pressurized aircraft (an aircraft that has a service ceiling or maximum operating altitude, whichever is lower, above 25,000 feet MSL)...
MauleSkinner said:You might doublecheck the reg, flyboyike...the endorsement is only required if the airplane is certificated ABOVE 25,000 feet.
Interesting...considering that the reg is entitled "(g) Additional training required for operating pressurized aircraft capable of operating at high altitudes." (nothing that talks about unpressurized aircraft), and the training requirements include "(i) Normal cruise flight operations while operating above 25,000 feet MSL"...how do you do that in an airplane that can't legally go there?flyboyike said:I did. The reg states a pressurized aircraft (an aircraft that has a service ceiling or maximum operating altitude, whichever is lower, above 25,000 feet MSL). I've gone as far as to ask my local FSDO whether the use of the parenthesis in this case means an and/or situation or an i. e. situation. For example, I asked, would an aircraft that has a ceiling of greater than 25K but is NOT pressurized need the endorsement? What about one that is pressurized but is certified to only 24K?
The answer from the MSP FSDO was that this was an either/or thing. If it's pressurized you need the endorsement and if it's over 25K you need the endorsement. It need not be both.
MauleSkinner said:Interesting...considering that the reg is entitled "(g) Additional training required for operating pressurized aircraft capable of operating at high altitudes." (nothing that talks about unpressurized aircraft), and the training requirements include "(i) Normal cruise flight operations while operating above 25,000 feet MSL"...how do you do that in an airplane that can't legally go there?
Kind of hard to do that in an unpressurized aircraft. If you look at the summary of the Federal Register in which the current regulation was published (FR 62 page 40889,) you will find that there is absolutely no question that it was intended to apply to "pressurized aircraft capable of operating at high altitudes" not to : "pressurized aircraft and high altitude aircraft.""(ii)Proper emergency procedures for simulated rapid decompression without actually depressurizing the aircraft".
In addition, new paragraph (g) is corrected by including an endorsement requirement for ground training received on the operation of pressurized aircraft at high altitudes. This requirement was included in §61.31(f) before the adoption of the final rule and was inadvertently omitted. New paragraphs (g) and (i) also have been reformatted to more clearly set forth the additional training requirements for operating pressurized aircraft capable of operating at high altitudes and for operating tailwheel airplanes.
61.31 (f) High Altitude Airplanes
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a pressurized airplane that has a service ceiling or maximum operating altitude, whichever is lower, above 25,000 feet MSL unless that person has completed......."
MauleSkinner said:I might have to ask about this next time I'm at the MSP FSDO.
Agreed...butI wasn't gonna ask 'em for an interpretationA Squared said:I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating that the FSDO has no authority to interpret regulations. That is the domain of FAA Legal Counsel, Unless the folks at the FSDO give you an interpretation from FAA legal counsel, whatever they tell you has no official standing, thus, is meaningless.
Yea, they are very Caravanesque. However, if you are transitioning up from Aztecs and Seneca aircraft, they definitely are a Lincoln or Cadilac of piston twins.tracearabians said:If you are full of fuel and more than one pax you will never get high enough to require an endorsement.