Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Knocking out Complex/High-Performance/Seaplane at once

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

polaris746

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Posts
22
I'm thinking of getting my seaplane rating in a 172XP. It has a constant-speed prop, a 210HP engine, flaps, and floats, making it 1) a seaplane 2) a complex airplane (doesn't need RG b/c its a seaplane) and 3) a high-performance aircraft.

My question is, with the complex endorsement here, does it qualify as a complex airplane (as opposed to a seaplane) as well? It doesn't have a landing gear, so I don't see how I will be able to fly a 172RG safely with its endorsement.

Are there two separate complex endorsements .. seaplane and airplane?

Thanks in advance.
 
The way the FAR reads, since it is a one time endorsement, it would appear that getting the complex signoff in a seaplane would satisfy the requirement for a retractable gear plane per the FAR.

However, here's the kicker....as you correctly have identified, you wouldn't exactly very safe flying a retractable without any further training and both insurance companies and FBO's who rent planes know this. While you may have an endorsement, without the experience, you are going to find it rather difficult to own and insure or rent a retractable. I've noticed 25 hours being a common magic number for many insurance companies and FBO's before being allowed to solo an RG.
 
Read the regulation word-for-word:

61.31(e) "No person may act as PIC of a complex airplane (an airplane that has a retractable gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch prop; or in the case of a seaplane, flaps and controllable pitch prop0, unless that person has-
(1) Received training in a complex airplane,..."

The regulation specfically seperates the two, and defines the two as seperate. You would need training and endorsement in the airplane with the retractable gear to comply with the regulation concerning acting as PIC in an airplane with retractable gear.
 
That's the way I read it. Even though the "sample" example of the endorsement in AC 61-65 does not specify "Complex" as land or sea, the regulation specifies "acting as PIC in a..with retractable gear...", you would need another endorsement after training in an aircraft "with retractable gear".

This is another example of how not every case of endorsement requirement is covered in the AC. The regulation specific requirements must be met in training and rflected in the endorsement.

If... I were a sea plane instructor, I would modify the seaplane only complex endorsement to read "in a complex seaplane only."
 

Latest resources

Back
Top