Hi-performance endorsment with a experimental engine

[Paul Lee]

FAA requires hi-performance endorsment for 200+ engines.
Is that requirement only for certified planes?
One CFI indicated that it is not required for experimentals.

[Ed Wischmeyer]

> FAA requires hi-performance endorsment for 200+ engines.
> Is that requirement only for certified planes?
> One CFI indicated that it is not required for experimentals.

Depends on the operating limitations of the aircraft in question. There
is an FAR somewhere that says, in effect, you don't need the appropriate
ratings to be legal -- legal that is, not safe. However, frequently the
operating limitations for that individual aircraft state differently.

Ed Wischmeyer

[x]

The hi-performance endorsement is for the pilot, not the aircraft.
Experimental/non-experimental is not a factor.

Also it is for greater than 200 hp, so a 200 hp does not require it.

"Paul Lee" > wrote in message
om...
> FAA requires hi-performance endorsment for 200+ engines.
> Is that requirement only for certified planes?
> One CFI indicated that it is not required for experimentals.

[Ron Natalie]

"x" > wrote in message news:RI17b.395481$uu5.73501@sccrnsc04...
> The hi-performance endorsement is for the pilot, not the aircraft.
> Experimental/non-experimental is not a factor.

61.31 which talks about requirements for category, class, and type ratings as
well as the tailwheel, high performance, complex, and high altitude training
requirements, has a clause that exempts experimentals from the "ratings
limitations."

[Dave Hyde]

Eric Miller wrote:

> Nod, I recently became aware that a tailwheel endorsement wasn't required to
> fly a tailwheel experimental.

Tailwheel and/or high perf endorsements may not be required
by part 61, but it may (emphasize MAY) be required by your
operating limitations.

Dave 'read and heed' Hyde

[Eric Miller]

"Dave Hyde" > wrote
> Tailwheel and/or high perf endorsements may not be required
> by part 61, but it may (emphasize MAY) be required by your
> operating limitations.

I gather you mean as specified by the FAA inspector on your airworthiness
certificate.

Well again, I wasn't *suggesting* anyone foregoes tailwheel/high perf
training.
In my book, this is definitely listed under Trivia :p

Eric

[Barnyard BOb --]

>Eric Miller wrote:
>
>> Nod, I recently became aware that a tailwheel endorsement wasn't required to
>> fly a tailwheel experimental.
>
>Tailwheel and/or high perf endorsements may not be required
>by part 61, but it may (emphasize MAY) be required by your
>operating limitations.
>
>Dave 'read and heed' Hyde

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Quite true.
But, I've always wondered why Part 61 is not required
to stand on its own and be the final governing authority.

Kinda sux that a single high minded DAR can usurp the
authority and intent of a huge deliberate bureaucracy.

One should be free to kill oneself.
Is this not the American way? <g>


Barnyard BOb --

[Eric Miller]

"Jerry Springer" > wrote
> No.. he meant the "operating limitations" which is the bible for each
> individual experimental homebuilt aircraft. This is not spelled out
> on the airworthiness certificate.
>
> Jerry

POH right? As the builder, don't you write that yourself?

Eric

[Barnyard BOb --]

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 06:03:24 GMT, "Eric Miller" >
wrote:

>"Jerry Springer" > wrote
>> No.. he meant the "operating limitations" which is the bible for each
>> individual experimental homebuilt aircraft. This is not spelled out
>> on the airworthiness certificate.
>>
>> Jerry
>
>POH right? As the builder, don't you write that yourself?
>
>Eric
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Nope.
Operating limitations are not the POH.


Barnyard BOb --

[Eric Miller]

"Barnyard BOb --" > wrote
> Nope.
> Operating limitations are not the POH.
>
> Barnyard BOb --

Alright, I said as "part of airworthiness certificate", which is wrong.
But I also said, as "specified by inspector", which is right, n'est ce pas?

Eric

[Barnyard BOb --]

>> Nope.
>> Operating limitations are not the POH.
>>
>> Barnyard BOb --
>
>Alright, I said as "part of airworthiness certificate", which is wrong.
>But I also said, as "specified by inspector", which is right, n'est ce pas?
>
>Eric
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Me thinks... faux pas. <g>


Barnyard BOb --

[BD5ER]

>One should be free to kill oneself.
>Is this not the American way? <g>

It use to be. The Darwinian way has been legislated into near obscurity.
Kinda takes the fun out of things and made the poplulation lazy and
stupid........IMHO

[Michael]

"Eric Miller" > wrote
> Alright, I said as "part of airworthiness certificate", which is wrong.

It's not wrong. If you read an actual set of operating limitations,
it says right at the top, in limitation #1 (as required by FAA Order
8130.2d): These operating limitations are a part of the FAA Form
8130-7, special airworthiness certificate...

For rec.aviation.homebuilt, there sure seem to be a lot of people here
who don't seem to own a homebuilt aircraft...

Michael

[Jerry Springer]

Michael wrote:
> "Eric Miller" > wrote
>
>>Alright, I said as "part of airworthiness certificate", which is wrong.
>
>
> It's not wrong. If you read an actual set of operating limitations,
> it says right at the top, in limitation #1 (as required by FAA Order
> 8130.2d): These operating limitations are a part of the FAA Form
> 8130-7, special airworthiness certificate...
>
> For rec.aviation.homebuilt, there sure seem to be a lot of people here
> who don't seem to own a homebuilt aircraft...
>
> Michael

How many and what have you built Michael?

Jerry

[Michael]

Jerry Springer > wrote
> > For rec.aviation.homebuilt, there sure seem to be a lot of people here
> > who don't seem to own a homebuilt aircraft...
>
> How many and what have you built Michael?

I own, fly, and maintain an HP-11 with T-tail mod. I used to help
maintain and fly a Starduster Too, before my girlfriend sold it. I am
not a builder, and never claimed to be. But at least I actually own,
fly, and maintain a homebuilt.

Michael

[Dave Hyde]

Michael wrote:

> For rec.aviation.homebuilt, there sure seem to be a lot of people here
> who don't seem to own a homebuilt aircraft...

I used to read rec.aviation.student but then we sold
our student so I had to quit.

Dave 'low miles' Hyde