Definition of complex airplane?

[milflyboy]

Yes I do have the regs, but I still don't think they answer the question. They give the definition of Complex like it has been done by the original poster, but for logging purposes in a logbook would you log jet as complex? According to the definition you wouldn't, but does that make any sense?

 

[JAFI]

A jet is a "complex" aircraft but not for the requirements of part 61.31

BUT for you to be legal to fly a "complex airplane" under 61.31, you need a sign off by a flight instructor. The reg defines what a complex airplane is for the purpose of 61.31 and it includes a controlable pitch propeller, so no, a jet is not complex for the requirement of part 61.31. To be PIC of a jet (FAA wise) you need a type rating which is more training than just a CFI sign off.

Again think the transition from J3 cub to Piper Arrow.

A twin Otter is a twin turboprop aircraft. It is not complex because it does not have retractable gear, but it does have controllable prop and flaps. A Jet is not complex (for the requirement of 61.31) because it does not have a controlable prop.

For the logging part, you can log any jet time as jet time. but in regard to 61.31 it is not complex time.

If you want to go further, a high performance aircraft (according to 61.31) is an aircraft with more than 200 horsepower. So a jet is not a high performance aircraft (in regard to 61.31) because a jet's power is measured in pounds of thrust, not horsepower.

To fly a jet aircraft you do not need a complex sign off or a high performance sign off (you do need a type rating). To fly a Piper Arrow 201 hp aircraft you need both.

In the logbook world complex means what is in 61.31. A Boeing 767 is not a complex aircraft but a DC6 is.

I'm not sure how to explain this any better.

JAFI

 

[milflyboy]

"If you want to go further, a high performance aircraft (according to 61.31) is an aircraft with more than 200 horsepower. So a jet is not a high performance aircraft (in regard to 61.31) because a jet's power is measured in pounds of thrust, not horsepower."

But you can calculate the horse power equivalent at a given speed, altitude etc. Are you not logging it as high performance?

"(you do need a type rating)."
Not for my jet


"In the logbook world complex means what is in 61.31. A Boeing 767 is not a complex aircraft but a DC6 is."

That answers my question - Thanks !

 

[JAFI]

"But you can calculate the horse power equivalent at a given speed, altitude etc. Are you not logging it as high performance?"

You can calculate jet thrust into inches of Hg also but that does not mean you can log it as high performance. Again according to 61.31.

Complex time is mostly for light aircraft and insurance purposes. It means you are slightly more qualified than a C-172 pilot.

JAFI

 

[A Squared]

JAFI,


I gotta side with Milfboy on this one. The fact that a jet engine is customarily rated in thrust, doesn't mean that it doesn't have horsepower. I can assure you that any jet engine flying on a certificated aircraft has more than 200 horsepower. 61.31 specifies "an airplane with an engine of more than 200 horsepower" it doesn't say "rated at more than 200 horsepower" or anything of that nature. you say this is "Again according to 61.31.", but there is nothing in 61.31 which supports this. the regulation says "an engine of more than 200 horsepower" and without a doubt, the engine on the lowliest citation is capable of producing much more than 200 horsepower.

 

[JAFI]

A Squared, You pose an intresting point. But I base my reply on what an aircraft engine is rated as listed in the Type Certificate Data sheet, see copies of reference below. I looked in the Preamble of 61.31 but the origional was from the mid 60's and has been revised so I could not determine what the author ment by 200 horespower. I also looked at Part 61 FAQ and FAA Legal Interpitations from the Summit CD and found nothing of what "horsepower" ment in relation to the question at hand.

IMHO the intent of the regulation is to ensure some level of training for a pilot transitioning from a C-172 to a "more powerful" aircraft.

For most pilots who were trained the civilian route this is a non issue, they had an endorsement long ago to fly More than 200 horse power engines. The Ex-military pilot who never flew a single engine aircraft but went from flying C5-A's to Boeing 747s for an airline most likely never had an endorsement, and in IMHO does not need one because of the training required to fly such aircraft.

I did not find any specific FAA reference that would define what was ment by "horsepower" in the context of the question, if you have any please post the reference.

JAFI

________________________________________-
TYPE CERTIFICATE DATA SHEET NO. A22CE

I - Model 500, Citation and Citation I, (Transport Category), Approved September 9, 1971

Engine Limits Static thrust, standard day, sea level:
Takeoff (5 min.) 2200 lb.
Max. continuous 2090 lb.

-----------------------------------------------------------
TYPE CERTIFICATE DATA SHEET NO. 3A21

I - Model 210, 4 PCLM (Normal Category), Approved April 20, 1959
Engine Continental IO-470-E

*Engine Limits For all operations, 2625 r.p.m. (260 bhp.)

 

[nosehair]

The Ex-military pilot who never flew a single engine aircraft but went from flying C5-A's to Boeing 747s for an airline most likely never had an endorsement, and in IMHO does not need one because of the training required to fly such aircraft.

One of the interesting events in my career as a Flight Instructor was back during the Viet Nam war when I was a young flight instructor at an airport near an Air Force Base. Frequently we had Air Force pilots come out to rent a 172 to do some local "fun" flying. Most of them had no problem with the little thing, but there were a few, and I think a few too many, who had the devil of a time pushing the rudder to keep the nose aligned on take-offs and landings during power applications. Those F-4 pilots tell me they just don't have to use rudder except to taxi.

Propeller P-Factor: A pilot with lots of flying time in airplanes that do not require constant rudder pressures to counteract P-Factor can lose control of a simple 172 during a go-around during the flare. I worked with many of them, and some I could not allow to rent our 172, even after 8-10 hours.

Just my 2 cents.

Jet time is Jet time; Log it as such. It carries more "weight" than 'Complex", in the over-all picture, but is not characteristic of "prop" time, or "complex" time.
It's "high speed" time, but not complex time.

 

[DA50pilot]

I agree with JAFI on everyone of his posts. Back when I was Flight Instructing, I had an apppointment with an L-1011 Captain, so he could get a HP complex check. When I asked him why (considering he was an L-10 Captain), he brought up the fact about the Controllable Pitch Prop. So, anyway, needless to say I was a little shocked when I heard that.

 

[Big Duke Six]

A Squared:


Seems like I'd hear all kinds of 135 guys asking for (and getting) VFR On Top clearances in order to stay below the MEA's through the mountains. Did you say that VFR-OT was not allowed for Part 135 and 91? I don't think that's correct, but I could be wrong.

 

[A Squared]

A Squared: Seems like I'd hear all kinds of 135 guys asking for (and getting) VFR On Top clearances in order to stay below the MEA's through the mountains. Did you say that VFR-OT was not allowed for Part 135 and 91? I don't think that's correct, but I could be wrong.

No, I didn't say that VFR on top wasn't allowed for 135 operators. I said that they couldn't descend below the MEA on a VFR on top clearence whereas part 121 operators may. It's one of hte rare circumstances where part 121 is more permissive that part 135 and part 91. Here's a legal interpretation which explains it.



FAA Legal Opinion:

AGC-23

Interpretation: IFR Operations - VFR on-Top

Chief, Airspace, Air Traffic, and Environmental Quality Branch, AGC-23

ARM-7B

This is in reply to your memorandum containing the following question presented by your Flight Standards Division.

May an aircraft on an IFR flight plan but cleared by ATC to maintain "VFR conditions on-top" (FAR 91.121(a)) be operated below minimum en route IFR altitudes; i.e., without regard to FAR 91.119(A)?

Such operation is not permitted under Parts 91 or 135. It is our opinion that Sec. 91.119 does apply to IFR operations that are clear for "VFR conditions on-top." The minimum altitude rules of Sec. 91.119 are designed to ensure safe vertical separation between the aircraft and the terrain. These minimum altitude rules apply to all AFE flight, whether in IFR or VFR weather conditions, and whether assigned a specific altitude or flight level or "VFR conditions on-top." A pilot operating on a "VFR conditions on-top" clearance may operate at the altitude or flight level of his choice; however, he is required to adhere to Sec. Sec. 91.119 as well as Sec. 91.109 of the FARs. While Sec. 91.121(a) specifically incorporates the VFR flight levels of Sec. 91.109, there is no basis to conclude that Sec. 91.119 does not apply.

Section 121.657, however, provides for an analogous "over-the-top" IFR operation under certain restrictive conditions at minimum altitudes that may be below those prescribed under Part 95.

This interpretation has been coordinated with AFS-800 and AAT-200 who are of the opinion that the regulations do not need clarification in this respect.

RICHARD W. DANFORTH

 

[cessna_driver2]

a jet is in a class by itself. A jet requires a type rating due to the turbine. See 61.31 (a).

A turboprop is measured in shaft Horsepower. So that will fall into the complex nature. But if Im right most log it as turbine time.

So a turboprop will need a type rating if it weighs 12,500 or more. but will be classified as complex & high performance otherwise.

 

[Ralgha]

a jet is in a class by itself.

No it's not, a jet is a single or multi-engine land or sea class, just like any other airplane.

A turboprop is measured in shaft Horsepower. So that will fall into the complex nature.

How the power output of the engine is measured makes no difference in determining the complex status of an airplane. A turbo-prop is complex if it has retractable gear, flaps, and a controllable-pitch prop, just like any other airplane.

But if Im right most log it as turbine time.

That's because it is turbine time. You can log it as turbine time AND complex time.

So a turboprop will need a type rating if it weighs 12,500 or more. but will be classified as complex & high performance otherwise.

It's complex and high performance even if it needs a type rating. The requirements for complex and high performance do not except airplanes that require type ratings.

 

[JAFI]

It's complex and high performance even if it needs a type rating. The requirements for complex and high performance do not except airplanes that require type ratings.

Do you have a legal interpitation or FAA reference to back this up? I would like a copy.

JAFI