Cessna 414 Question

[MauleSkinner]

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.

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?

Also, the Federal Register Preambles relating to the writing of this reg definitely differentiate between pressurized airplanes certificated above and below 25k.

I might have to ask about this next time I'm at the MSP FSDO.

Fly safe!

David

 

[A Squared]

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?

Agree, the text of the regulation is a little ambiguous, but the title of the regulation makes it absolutely clear what is meant.

In addition to the logical impossibility of a regulatory requirement to for training at cruise altitudes above the maximum operating altitude, the minimum training requirements also include:

"(ii)Proper emergency procedures for simulated rapid decompression without actually depressurizing the aircraft".

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."

From the Federal Register:

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.

Although no further proof should be needed, you can also look at the regulation prior to the 1997 re-write of Part 61.

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......."

Again, absolutely no question that the regulation was intended to apply to "pressurized aircraft capable of operating at high altitudes" not to : "pressurized aircraft and high altitude aircraft."

I might have to ask about this next time I'm at the MSP FSDO.

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.

 

[MauleSkinner]

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.

Agreed...butI wasn't gonna ask 'em for an interpretation

Fly safe!

David

 

[Way2Broke]

Bump, I'm still confused. This plane has the RAM conversion and has a O2 system that allows for a service ceiling of 30k, however that system is not in operation for our ops, limiting us to 25k. Maybe that will help get a clear answer.

 

[FN FAL]

If you are full of fuel and more than one pax you will never get high enough to require an endorsement.

​

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.

You're correct, I found that you fuel to the screens for any trip where you're carrying more than just 2 or 3 pax and briefcases.

I liked the 414, but it handles ice about the same way a Caravan does and it doesn't like circling approaches like a 310. You can cut some pretty good circles in 310 with vortice generators.