Legal to operate a jet without an endorsement for High Performance?

[Avpilot]

I was looking back at my old logbooks and realized that I never received an endorsement for HP back in the day. In the years since, I have received my ATP license, become type rated in a jet, and fly regularly under Part 129, 135, 91, and previously 121. Can someone smarter than I point to the legality, or lack thereof, in this? Thanks.

Tim

 

[Buzo]

Jets are not rated by Horsepower.

 

[Avpilot]

Jets are not rated by Horsepower.

Ok, same question... but without a High Altitude Endoresment. ??

 

[ex j-41]

If you have a type rating it qualifies as a high performance/high altitude endorsement.

 

[Avpilot]

If you have a type rating it qualifies as a high performance/high altitude endorsement.

But only for that airplane, correct? So I could not go and be PIC in a Cessna 182 until having the HP endorsement, correct?

Thanks for your replies.

 

[RiddleEagle18]

But only for that airplane, correct? So I could not go and be PIC in a Cessna 182 until having the HP endorsement, correct?

Thanks for your replies.

Pretty sure that is correct. Flying a 182 wouldnt be such a huge deal but if you went to something with like 300 or more HP it is compeltly different than flying a jet. I think that is the reasoning behind the way the FAA has structured it?

 

[Cardinal]

You just used the words "Reasoning" and "FAA" in the same sentence.

 

[thepotato232]

Jets are not rated by Horsepower.

Aha! So what about turboprops?


...

Anyhoo, if I may direct your attention to FAR 61.31(f):

(f) Additional training required for operating high-performance airplanes.

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a high-performance airplane (an airplane with an engine of more than 200 horsepower), unless the person has --

(i) Received and logged ground and flight training from an authorized instructor in a high-performance airplane, or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a high-performance airplane, and has been found proficient in the operation and systems of the airplane; and

(ii) Received a one-time endorsement in the pilot's logbook from an authorized instructor who certifies the person is proficient to operate a high-performance airplane.

(2) The training and endorsement required by paragraph (f)(1) of this section is not required if the person has logged flight time as pilot in command of a high-performance airplane, or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a high-performance airplane prior to August 4, 1997.

There's a virtually identical provision for High Altitude endorsements later on, in section (g). So, depending on how far back "The Day" was, you're good.

And for an answer that speaks to the question in regards to type ratings:

(h) Additional aircraft type-specific training. No person may serve as pilot in command of an aircraft that the Administrator has determined requires aircraft type-specific training unless that person has --



(1) Received and logged type-specific training in the aircraft, or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of that type of aircraft; and



(2) Received a logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor who has found the person proficient in the operation of the aircraft and its systems.

I don't know about the rest of you, but my signoff for systems in ground school wasn't done in my logbook, it was done in my training records. The same training records show that I was trained in the use of all high-performance-and-altitude systems associated with the aircraft. If a signoff in my FAA-approved training records is good enough to satisfy one reg in 61.31, I interpret that to mean I've satisfied the others. I'll ask a real fed tomorrow.

 

[A-V-8]

My original log book was stolen. What can I do to prove my High alt and High pef. endorsements?

 

[airplane wizard]

So according to the FAA, an F-16 is not a high performance aircraft??

 

[airplane wizard]

My original log book was stolen. What can I do to prove my High alt and High pef. endorsements?

Did you have a seperate HP rating under the new rules or were you grandfathered under the old rules for just a complex sign off which would combine a complex/hp endorsement?

 

[MMO 0.705]

This also falls under the realm of the operations manual of the air carrier. Under 121/135, you comply with the air carrier's training program.

 

[epic!]

Aha! So what about turboprops?

i was wondering about this too

 

[Jar Jar]

LoL that would put about 30-40% of regional airline pilots out of action.. That'd be stellar.

 

[crj567]

So according to the FAA, an F-16 is not a high performance aircraft??

If guys with an F-16 checkout convert their ratings, they will have no multi-engine priviledges (if, for instance -they flew a T038 and F-16.) I know people who were in similar circumstances and needed to go rent a Seneca or Cessna 340 for a couple of hours to get their "centerline thrust" restriction removed.

-Interesting question about the HP endorsement, though. I am not sure what the correct answer would be. I would bet you would get 8 different answers from 3 or 4 FSDOs, though.

 

[Propsync]

At least. BTW- The T-38 is a twin. F-5 and T-38's were twins, the F-20 was a variant single (however I think they only made a few for demos, remember seeing a pic with Yeager).

 

[keebird]

At least. BTW- The T-38 is a twin. F-5 and T-38's were twins, the F-20 was a variant single (however I think they only made a few for demos, remember seeing a pic with Yeager).

They may be twins but according to the FAA, most twin-engine military fighters are "centerline thrust" only due to an aircraft certification technicality.
Read the last page of AC61-89.

 

[Mud Eagle]

So according to the FAA, an F-16 is not a high performance aircraft??

In order to fly an F-16 that was civilian owned and operated, you would need an Experimental Type Rating, which would fill all those requirements.

 

[Mud Eagle]

They may be twins but according to the FAA, most twin-engine military fighters are "centerline thrust" only due to an aircraft certification technicality.
Read the last page of AC61-89.

Doesn't matter. The FAA still issues a multiengine land rating, but on the back side it has the centerline thrust restriction.

Removal of that restriction is essentially a flight in which you go fly a Vmc demo with a DE.

 

[keebird]

Doesn't matter. The FAA still issues a multiengine land rating, but on the back side it has the centerline thrust restriction.

Removal of that restriction is essentially a flight in which you go fly a Vmc demo with a DE.

So it does matter.
crj567 pointed out the irony that guys with a multiengine land rating and lots of T-38 time had to go rent a Seneca to get that restriction removed.