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??