High Performance Endorsement

[Ponypilot]

Hello everyone,

My question is......When do you need a high performance endorsement? If you do you commercial in say a mooney that is only 200 horse power, get the multi-engine rating, CFI etc. build hours flight instructing, go on an interview with a regional.....oops there is no high performance endorsement or do you even need one at this point?

Thanks for all thoughts and opinions on the subject.

 

[bigD]

You don't really need one. I personally received mine because I like flying in regions of high elevations/MEA's, and would prefer the extra power of a 182, 210, or whatever.

Although when I got mine, there weren't two endorsements for high performance and complex.

 

[midlifeflyer]

You only need one if you are going to act as PIC of a high performance aircraft. If you're not you don't.

 

[bobbysamd]

High-performance endorsement v. High-performance endorsement

I have learned that a few years after I stopped flying the FAA differentiated between "high-performance" airplanes and "complex" airplanes. When I learned to fly people threw about the term "complex" airplane when discussing one with retractable gear, flaps, and controllable prop when what they really meant was "high-performance" airplane, one with these items and/or more than 200 hp. Which meant that you could get the signoff in a Cutlass or a fixed-gear 182 and be covered. And, which meant that you could obtain a high-performance endorsement in a two-engined Seminole (I indeed realize that most Seminoles are two-engined, but read on).

It is stupid how the reg reads now. The airplane in question has to have an engine with more than 200 hp. Meaning a two-engined Seminole, i.e. a twin, requiring a multiengine rating to be PIC of same, with a combined horsepower of 360 hp does not count for a high-performance endorsement!!!! I ask, is this, or is this not, ludicrous.

Having said all that, I can forsee a scenario where someone could be hired by a regional and not have a high-performance signoff. Someone, who, just for example, went to Riddle, obtained all his/her single-engine ratings in Riddle's 172s and multi-ratings in its Seminoles, went to work there and built time instructing in that same equipment, and got hired. That was commonplace when I worked at ERAU thirteen years ago. Not that person's fault, but wouldn't it be embarassing to show up at a regional interview without a high-performance endorsement?

As a practical matter, somewhere along the line at some point most people will fly a 182, Dakota, Bonanza, etc. So high-performance endorsement will be covered. But, once more, it shows how stupid the reg is.

Excellent question, actually.

 

[jergar999]

A 135 or 121 PIC or SIC check in a high performance and complex aircraft covers you. It also counts towards high altitude, if the aircraft is pressurized. So the endorsement doesn't really matter unless you want to fly as PIC under Part 91.

 

[bigD]

Does anyone know exactly when they split the single high performance endorsement into one for high performance and one for complex? Not just the year, but the month too? Was it late '97 sometime, or maybe '96? Don't remember...

 

[midlifeflyer]

Re: High-performance endorsement v. High-performance endorsement

Meaning a two-engined Seminole, i.e. a twin, requiring a multiengine rating to be PIC of same, with a combined horsepower of 360 hp does not count for a high-performance endorsement!!!! I ask, is this, or is this not, ludicrous.

Since I'm not being twin-rated, can you explain why requiring =an engine= to be a certain HP is ludicrous? My general understanding is that the HP definition is based on the care and feeding of systems associated with an engine having a certain power level.

 

[Ponypilot]

Thanks!

Thank you all for the replys.

I have the same question as FlyChicaga, if I have sim time in a level 5 and a level D CRJ or Fokker 100 will I also be able to get a high performance endorsement from that sim time?

 

[bobbysamd]

High-performance endorsement

Since I'm not being twin-rated, can you explain why requiring =an engine= to be a certain HP is ludicrous? My general understanding is that the HP definition is based on the care and feeding of systems associated with an engine having a certain power level.

That is how the rule is written. 14 CFR 61.31(e). In most twins, combined horsepower exceeds 200 hp. A Seminole has 180 hp a side. So does a Duchess. Total of 360 hp. Moreover, these are multiengine airplanes. Two of everything. But my main point is combined horsepower exceeds the 200. That's why I feel the rule is ludicrous.

 

[bigD]

Since I'm not being twin-rated, can you explain why requiring =an engine= to be a certain HP is ludicrous? My general understanding is that the HP definition is based on the care and feeding of systems associated with an engine having a certain power level.

Well, that's certainly true - there's a little more care that needs to go into running higher powered engines, but really the extra descent planning, etc...is pretty trivial. I have always felt that the rule was in place so pilots would receive additional training in learning how to stay ahead of the airplane when things are happening more quickly. This isn't so true in a plane like a 182, but there's definitely a difference in flying a plane like a Bonanza or a 210. As far as staying in front of the airlplane, I've always lumped even the lighter twins in with higher performance singles - that's why I don't really understand the rule.