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.

 

[MauleSkinner]

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

I've seen several pilots who couldn't make that transition...it's not tough to imagine

 

[UHBlackhawk]

I've seen several pilots who couldn't make that transition...it's not tough to imagine

Yeah. When ever I get checked out in GA aircraft and the CFI starts out, "Gee, you have lots of time and type ratings, this should be a piece of cake...", I stop him/her and tell them that transport pilots transitioning to GA are like GA pilots transitioning. The aircraft are different, the flying is different. I don't fly CDIs at work; we don't have a KLN-94; we flair a "little" higher; and approach a little faster. I'm not just getting the check out because the FBO requires it, but I have not flown a 172 in a year and I'm not about to take my kid up in one until a CFI says I'm safe to do so.

 

[honeycomb]

Yeah. When ever I get checked out in GA aircraft and the CFI starts out, "Gee, you have lots of time and type ratings, this should be a piece of cake...", I stop him/her and tell them that transport pilots transitioning to GA are like GA pilots transitioning. The aircraft are different, the flying is different. I don't fly CDIs at work; we don't have a KLN-94; we flair a "little" higher; and approach a little faster. I'm not just getting the check out because the FBO requires it, but I have not flown a 172 in a year and I'm not about to take my kid up in one until a CFI says I'm safe to do so.

That is just smart. Ditto. You are exercising your good judgement.

I'll go one farther. I am afraid I'll yank the controls out of a/c...though it has never happened :laugh: ...but maybe because I take the time to go fly with a cfi (after a lay-off/lapse in flying that, example a champ on paved runways, a/c) until I feel comfortable. Not just the cfi feeling comffff-iiiieeeee with my flying.

 

[Coool Hand Luke]

Yes. Good comments. Seems like CFI's always assume that you are so far advanced that the GA birds will be a piece of cake. I went and got a check out a few years ago in a Warrior. I had a real problem with pulling the power all the way back as I was instructed to do while I was still at 500' AGL...but considering I was still doing 90 KIAS <LOL> it was the right thing to do.

Like y'all said, spending a few extra bucks for a good checkout is the right thing to do.

 

[igneousy2]

Yes. Good comments. Seems like CFI's always assume that you are so far advanced that the GA birds will be a piece of cake. I went and got a check out a few years ago in a Warrior. I had a real problem with pulling the power all the way back as I was instructed to do while I was still at 500' AGL...but considering I was still doing 90 KIAS <LOL> it was the right thing to do.

Like y'all said, spending a few extra bucks for a good checkout is the right thing to do.

This is all true except I still don't understand why the FSDO wouldn't consider this a high-performance endorsement. The purpose of the endorsement was to prevent any old joe schmo pilot from getting into "too much" airplane. The problem with transitioning back to a 172 is that it's NOT high-performance. Too slow and Too under-powered. I had about 5 years off of GA before I got re-checked in a 172 again...it took a solid 4-5 hours before I even started to get comfortable again. The localizer needles don't move as fast as you expect them to and it takes about .1 to land after you cross the threshold. I took a couple of years off and then got "checked out" in an Aztec. I have to say that the Aztec was WAY easier to get back into then the 172 was.

Later

 

[nosehair]

Har!Har!Har! You guys need a "low perfomance" endorsement!

 

[Metro752]

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.

That's why you don't have one Al.