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.
