High Altitude Endorsement Question

[Mason]

Let's say you go to a sim center to get a type rating in your average corporate light jet. You don't have a high altitude endorsement. After you get your type does this cover the high altitude requirement considering you'll probably perform a rapid decompression followed by an emergency descent?

 

[scoreboard]

never heard of a high altitude endorsement

 

[Mason]

never heard of a high altitude endorsement

FAR 61.31 (g)

 

[Coool Hand Luke]

Mason:

Not sure in what manner you are getting typed, but if you are getting typed at one of the big two (FSI or SimuFlite) they both have Advanced Airman Courses that will give you your High Altitude endorsement (used to be for free too). I'd give a call to whichever outfit you are getting typed through and see what they say. It's been awhile so I am a little fuzzy on the exact details but it seems like all it was, was 2-4 hours of ground school.

Cheers!

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Let's say you go to a sim center to get a type rating in your average corporate light jet. You don't have a high altitude endorsement. After you get your type does this cover the high altitude requirement considering you'll probably perform a rapid decompression followed by an emergency descent?

This is a good question. Personally I never had a high altitude endorsement but think I'm still qualified to act as PIC in those types of airplanes by my type ratings.

In your case, maybe you could just write in your log book near your rating ride entry. Write somethign like, "CE-500 type rating check, high altitude endorsement requirements met."

 

[twighead]

Yeah good question.

Along the same lines, I've always wondered:

Let's say you are typed in a jet or turboprop, but never had a high performance signoff, are you able to be PIC in a C-182 or something along those lines?

Logic would say yes, but this is the FAA we're talking about.

 

[Coool Hand Luke]

There was a "grandfather date" but I cannot remember what date is was. Anyone having a turbojet type rating prior to that date is exempt from the requirement. Otherwise you are going to need a signoff.

 

[727gm]

April 15th, 1991

Grandfathering applied to all who have logged PIC in a pressurized aircraft that are certified for flight above 25000 feet before that date.

 

[UHBlackhawk]

Yeah good question.

Along the same lines, I've always wondered:

Let's say you are typed in a jet or turboprop, but never had a high performance signoff, are you able to be PIC in a C-182 or something along those lines?

Logic would say yes, but this is the FAA we're talking about.

Not unless the person giving the type ride is a CFI and signs off in your log book. You actually need the endorsement. I tried three different FSDOs and got the same "NO!" Type ratings do not count as high performance signoffs unless the person giving the type rating actually signs off your log book.
As for the high altitude endorsement, if the training includes a PIC proficiency check under 121, 125 or 135 it counts. Otherwise, no- unless you get a CFI at the school where you did the training to endorse you logbook. (61.31 (f)(3). So I get the high altitude endorsement automatically, but I need to get checked out in a 182 in order to get a high performance endorsement.

 

[twighead]

Not unless the person giving the type ride is a CFI and signs off in your log book. You actually need the endorsement. I tried three different FSDOs and got the same "NO!" Type ratings do not count as high performance signoffs unless the person giving the type rating actually signs off your log book.
As for the high altitude endorsement, if the training includes a PIC proficiency check under 121, 125 or 135 it counts. Otherwise, no- unless you get a CFI at the school where you did the training to endorse you logbook. (61.31 (f)(3). So I get the high altitude endorsement automatically, but I need to get checked out in a 182 in order to get a high performance endorsement.

lol figures.

just imagine, you can fly a 747 but not a cessna that does about 140 KIAS. unbelievable.