HP/Complex Endorsement in FTD?

[minitour]

Had to re-re-re-read the reg to make sure I saw it right, but according to 61.31 if I'm in an FTD that has flaps, a controllable pitch prop and retractable landing gear, I can get a complex endorsement from that. Likewise, the regulation is the same for High Performance so that in the case of our school, which operates ATC-710s, I could get both (just recently found out that they are 182RG FTDs).

My question is:
Has anyone ever done that? I find it hard to believe that these FTDs are anything like a real airplane.

The offer was made, but...should I really expect that if I get the HP endorsement (I'll get the complex endorsement in the 172RG) I will really be prepared to operate a HP aircraft? I've been told it's just more right rudder and more planning for a descent and such, but other than that...from what I hear it's pretty much the same.

Any opinions or experiences with something like that?

-mini

 

[nosehair]

...sooo, what does that mean, in the regulation, 61.31, where it says..."or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a (complex)(high performance) airplane..."

I always understood that to mean a full motion flight simulator that behaves and performs like a (HP)(complex) in real life. Not an ATC-710, or any non-motion FTD. I don't really know what is legal, but I think that the authorized instructor should use some common sense of responsibility when exercising his endorsement authority.

 

[minitour]

...sooo, what does that mean, in the regulation, 61.31, where it says..."or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a (complex)(high performance) airplane..."

I always understood that to mean a full motion flight simulator that behaves and performs like a (HP)(complex) in real life. Not an ATC-710, or any non-motion FTD.

That's what I assumed, but when the offer was made to get a HP endorsement for FREE (yay!) I told the instructor that I'd consider it and get back to them in the near future.

I can't believe that I'd be "proficient" enough to fly a HP airplane after sitting in the FTD and "flying" around...that was one concern...the other was the legality of the endorsement. Supposedly, others have gone this route with no problems, but I'm a paranoid "flight info beotch"

-mini

 

[nosehair]

No, really, what does that mean? Someone else can chime in here who has a written reference; not the fact that someone does it - where's the written word.
I know simulators (each type) has to have specific FAA approval for the kind of training intended. The 710 is approved for instrument training, but that does not necessarily mean it is approved as a substitute for the HP/complex endorsement.
Not saying it isn't, just that you should see it in writing. Us, we, you, & instructors tend to pass on "mistaken interpretations" when people of authority pass them on, as we all tend to do.

On the practical side, moving up to a check-out in a 182 from a 172 isn't that big of a deal, and a "simulator check-out" would be *probably* just as good.

But not so in something like a Bonanza or a Mirage.....

 

[Napoleon TNT]

Upon further review, I'd say that 61.31 says "yes" to endosements listed in the chapter using a sim/FTD.

If you want to compare wording, look at 61.61. That section deals with additional A/C ratings, and in there, for each one, it specifically lists Level C, and D sims.

61.31 never says so.


Would I give an endorsement using ONLY that....HECK NO!

 

[mach tuck]

61.31 (e)(1)(i) Recieved and logged ground and flight training from an authorized instructor in a complex airplane, or flight simulator or flight training device (FTD) that is representative of a complex airplane.....Says the same for high performance endorsement.

Says everything you need to know right there. (FTD) If you have a flight training device, approved flight simulator with gear lever, flap handle/lever, and controllable pitch propeller that's all you need. (such as a FRASCA) As long as you can mimic the controls of a complex/high performance airplane in a sim or FTD, and its an approved device, you can obtain your endorsement. I know a few guys that have done this and it is legal. Now, I wouldn't go blasting off in a high performance plane just because you've legally met the requirements of 61.31, use some common sense and your experience level to decide wether or not you should take a few flights with an authorized instructor.

mach

 

[nosehair]

61.31 (e)(1)(i) Recieved and logged ground and flight training from an authorized instructor in a complex airplane, or flight simulator or flight training device (FTD) that is representative of a complex airplane.....Says the same for high performance endorsement.

Says everything you need to know right there. (FTD) If you have a flight training device, approved flight simulator with gear lever, flap handle/lever, and controllable pitch propeller that's all you need. (such as a FRASCA) As long as you can mimic the controls of a complex/high performance airplane in a sim or FTD, and its an approved device, you can obtain your endorsement. I know a few guys that have done this and it is legal. Now, I wouldn't go blasting off in a high performance plane just because you've legally met the requirements of 61.31, use some common sense and your experience level to decide wether or not you should take a few flights with an authorized instructor.

mach

mach, you're throwin' it around like everybody else: "I know a few guys who have done this and it is legal." See? See how the fact that "somebody has done this, therefore it's legal" takes over, even when I asked if anyone knew of specific ATC 710 FTD's that are approved in writing, and you saw the "in writing" part. I've not seen it. I've seen approval in writing for instrument training, but not aircraft training. The ATC 710 camnot mimic the controls of an HP on take-off or go-around.

I know of lots - LOTS of things that have been done for years and years that is still not legal. I used to think, for years and years that a CFI renewal by flying constituted a BFR, but it doesn't. I was wrong for many, many years - I just didn't get caught.

Where's the written word on this, anybody?

 

[mach tuck]

"I've seen approval in writing for instrument training, but not aircraft training. The ATC 710 camnot mimic the controls of an HP on take-off or go-around."

61.1(5)
Flight simulator means a device that-
(i) is a full-size aircraft cockpit replica of a specific type of aircraft, or make, model, and series of aircraft;
(ii) Includes the hardware and software necessary to represent the aircraft in ground operations and flight operations;
(iii) Uses a force cueing system that provides cues at least equivilant to those cues provided by a 3 degree freedom of motion system;
(iv) Uses a visual system that provides at least a 45 degree horizontal field of view and a 30 degree vertical field of view simultaneously for each pilot; and
(v)HAS BEEN EVALUATED, QUALIFIED, AND APPROVED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.

61.1(7)
Flight training device means a device that-
(i) Is a full-size replica of the instruments, equipment, panels, and controls of an aircraft, or set of aircraft, in an open flight deck area or in an enclosed cockpit, including the hardware and software for the systems installed, that is necessary to simulate the aircraft in ground and flight operations;
(ii) Need not have a force (motion) cueing or visual system; and
(iii) HAS BEEN EVALUATED, QUALIFIED, AND APPROVED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.

61.31 says you can use a flight simulator of flight training device to obtain your HP/Complex endorsement, as long as it is approved by the administrator. Such a device may be a FRASCA FTD.

As long as your sim/FTD meets the above requirements, and is approved by the FAA its legal. For a list of every sim/FTD, contact aopa or fsdo.

I'm not trying to be an A$$, just putting my .02 in.

mach

 

[nosehair]

That's what I'm talkin' about.