Complex endorsement: what is so special about flaps?

[es330td]

I read the the complex endorsement involves being instructed in
retractable gear, flaps and constant speed prop. I'm learning to fly
in a C172, which has flaps, so it seems unusual to me that flaps are
specified in the complex rating given that I have been using them
since day one.

The only reasons I can guess that this is pointed out are that A:
people learn to fly in planes without flaps or B: flaps are "one more
thing to worry about" and so the definition includes all three to make
sure the pilot can handle multiple things to worry about in the small
amount of time one has to land a plane. I'm leaning toward B but
thought I'd ask here.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 24, 2:05*pm, es330td > wrote:
> I read the the complex endorsement involves being instructed in
> retractable gear, flaps and constant speed prop. *I'm learning to fly
> in a C172, which has flaps, so it seems unusual to me that flaps are
> specified in the complex rating given that I have been using them
> since day one.

A friend of mine used to have a Swift. Retract, with flaps but fixed
prop. He never needed a complex endorsement and I always thought that
was odd.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

es330td > wrote in news:c51c25af-bccc-4776-9614-
:

> I read the the complex endorsement involves being instructed in
> retractable gear, flaps and constant speed prop. I'm learning to fly
> in a C172, which has flaps, so it seems unusual to me that flaps are
> specified in the complex rating given that I have been using them
> since day one.
>
> The only reasons I can guess that this is pointed out are that A:
> people learn to fly in planes without flaps


Lots of them do.


Actually, they;'re a bit of a crutch. even when I taught in airplanes with
flaps, I usually left them out of the equation for the first few hours if
it were possible.


Bertie

[buttman]

On Feb 24, 3:05*pm, es330td > wrote:
> I read the the complex endorsement involves being instructed in
> retractable gear, flaps and constant speed prop. *I'm learning to fly
> in a C172, which has flaps, so it seems unusual to me that flaps are
> specified in the complex rating given that I have been using them
> since day one.
>
> The only reasons I can guess that this is pointed out are that A:
> people learn to fly in planes without flaps or B: flaps are "one more
> thing to worry about" and so the definition includes all three to make
> sure the pilot can handle multiple things to worry about in the small
> amount of time one has to land a plane. *I'm leaning toward B but
> thought I'd ask here.

Its a holdover from the olden days when flaps weren't standard
equipment, as they are now. In the next few months/years the FAA is
supposed to redo part 61, and many believe they will change the
complex requirement to something more modern.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

buttman > wrote in news:f2a1bdc1-f525-416f-a96d-
:

> On Feb 24, 3:05*pm, es330td > wrote:
>> I read the the complex endorsement involves being instructed in
>> retractable gear, flaps and constant speed prop. *I'm learning to fly
>> in a C172, which has flaps, so it seems unusual to me that flaps are
>> specified in the complex rating given that I have been using them
>> since day one.
>>
>> The only reasons I can guess that this is pointed out are that A:
>> people learn to fly in planes without flaps or B: flaps are "one more
>> thing to worry about" and so the definition includes all three to make
>> sure the pilot can handle multiple things to worry about in the small
>> amount of time one has to land a plane. *I'm leaning toward B but
>> thought I'd ask here.
>
> Its a holdover from the olden days when flaps weren't standard
> equipment, as they are now.


No, it isn't


Bertie

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 24, 4:40*pm, buttman > wrote:
> On Feb 24, 3:05*pm, es330td > wrote:

> Its a holdover from the olden days when flaps weren't standard
> equipment, as they are now. In the next few months/years the FAA is
> supposed to redo part 61, and many believe they will change the
> complex requirement to something more modern.

Old days as in the 1990's.

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:edbfad8d-752e-47b1-8543-
:

> On Feb 24, 4:40*pm, buttman > wrote:
>> On Feb 24, 3:05*pm, es330td > wrote:
>
>> Its a holdover from the olden days when flaps weren't standard
>> equipment, as they are now. In the next few months/years the FAA is
>> supposed to redo part 61, and many believe they will change the
>> complex requirement to something more modern.
>
> Old days as in the 1990's.
>

Well, the rules governing this sort of stuff were put in during the major
revamp in the 70s, and even then there were very few production aircraft
with no flaps.The Citabria ( and some of those had them) Pitts and Great
Lakes are the only three that come to mind..

And flaps are probably less "standard" than they were in the seventies.


Bertie

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 24, 5:10*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:edbfad8d-752e-47b1-8543-
> :
>
> > On Feb 24, 4:40*pm, buttman > wrote:
> >> On Feb 24, 3:05*pm, es330td > wrote:
>
> >> Its a holdover from the olden days when flaps weren't standard
> >> equipment, as they are now. In the next few months/years the FAA is
> >> supposed to redo part 61, and many believe they will change the
> >> complex requirement to something more modern.
>
> > Old days as in the 1990's.
>
> Well, the rules governing this sort of stuff were put in during the major
> revamp in the 70s, and even then there were very few production aircraft
> with no flaps.The Citabria ( and some of those had them) Pitts and Great
> Lakes are the only three that come to mind..

I seem to remember the HP and complex endorsements coming of age in
the 90's. Before that I thought there was some sort of a hydrid
endorsement.

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 24, 5:10*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>> news:edbfad8d-752e-47b1-8543-
>
>> :
>>
>> > On Feb 24, 4:40*pm, buttman > wrote:
>> >> On Feb 24, 3:05*pm, es330td > wrote:
>>
>> >> Its a holdover from the olden days when flaps weren't standard
>> >> equipment, as they are now. In the next few months/years the FAA
>> >> is supposed to redo part 61, and many believe they will change the
>> >> complex requirement to something more modern.
>>
>> > Old days as in the 1990's.
>>
>> Well, the rules governing this sort of stuff were put in during the
>> major revamp in the 70s, and even then there were very few production
>> aircraft with no flaps.The Citabria ( and some of those had them)
>> Pitts and Great Lakes are the only three that come to mind..
>
> I seem to remember the HP and complex endorsements coming of age in
> the 90's. Before that I thought there was some sort of a hydrid
> endorsement.
>

No, definitely in the early to mid seventies. They may have been
modified and tweaked in the nineties, but they were definitely around in
the seventies. I had to sign quite a few guys off in the Stearman for
horsepower only, for instance. There was a major rejigging of the regs
around 73 or so. Before that, for instance, if you had a flight
instructor raing you could teach in anything you had a rating for.
Previous to that if you got a multi engine rating you could teach in
twins with no special CFIME add on to your instructor ticket. THe flight
instructor ticket was also limited to two years at this point.
A lot of further requirements for all ratings were added about this time
as well. Night training for the private, for instance. I never had one
minute of night instruction and i went off and did night flying the day
after I got my private. Next night i did a night cross country.. All
legal then. The BFR was also introduced at the same time if I'm not
mistaken.
I have no idea how to date these changes exactly, but I'm thinking
'73-'74.
Three inch numbers came in the same year,IIRC. This is the one we found
most exciting.

Bertie

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 24, 6:21*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> No, definitely in the early to mid seventies. They may have been
> modified and tweaked in the nineties, but they were definitely around in
> the seventies. I had to sign quite a few guys off in the Stearman for
> horsepower only, for instance. There was a major rejigging of the regs
> around 73 or so. Before that, for instance, if you had a flight
> instructor raing you could teach in anything you had a rating for.

My wife's grandfather held a commercial ticket with a flight
instructor rating. He still shows up on registry.faa.gov but it says
something like "Instructor rating not valid after 197x". I assume that
is when they introduced the instructor certificate. However, it makes
sense to say if you are rated to fly a ME plane and you have some the
ability to teach then why do you need a different checkride for the
MEI.

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:da3b9741-1ac7-4b99-9a1e-
:

> On Feb 24, 6:21*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> No, definitely in the early to mid seventies. They may have been
>> modified and tweaked in the nineties, but they were definitely around in
>> the seventies. I had to sign quite a few guys off in the Stearman for
>> horsepower only, for instance. There was a major rejigging of the regs
>> around 73 or so. Before that, for instance, if you had a flight
>> instructor raing you could teach in anything you had a rating for.
>
> My wife's grandfather held a commercial ticket with a flight
> instructor rating. He still shows up on registry.faa.gov but it says
> something like "Instructor rating not valid after 197x". I assume that
> is when they introduced the instructor certificate. However, it makes
> sense to say if you are rated to fly a ME plane and you have some the
> ability to teach then why do you need a different checkride for the
> MEI.

I'd say there was a string of mishaps that guided them in that direction,
as always.
The guys who had been instructing were exempt from having to take
checkrides, I believe, but they would have to renew from that date forward.
IOW if they had been doing ME instruction they automaticaly got a CFI ME
and if they had so many instrument instructing hours they got a II, but i
was amongst the first in the new system so it was all of only academic
interest to me.

Bertie

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-02-24, es330td > wrote:
> I read the the complex endorsement involves being instructed in
> retractable gear, flaps and constant speed prop. I'm learning to fly
> in a C172, which has flaps, so it seems unusual to me that flaps are
> specified in the complex rating given that I have been using them
> since day one.

It's a minimum level of complexity - retract gear AND controllable prop
AND flaps - three major systems a 'non complex' may not have
that must be manipulated for each takeoff and landing.

It may seem a bit arbitrary, but many of the rules do.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Ron Natalie]

buttman wrote:

>
> Its a holdover from the olden days when flaps weren't standard
> equipment, as they are now. In the next few months/years the FAA is
> supposed to redo part 61, and many believe they will change the
> complex requirement to something more modern.

The rules were rewritten in 95 (effective 97) and all they did
is split > 200HP from the rest of complex. The last round of
Part 61 changes (mostly instrument currency and training) proposed
don't seem to have any attempt to change this.

[Mark T. Dame]

es330td wrote:
> I read the the complex endorsement involves being instructed in
> retractable gear, flaps and constant speed prop. I'm learning to fly
> in a C172, which has flaps, so it seems unusual to me that flaps are
> specified in the complex rating given that I have been using them
> since day one.
>
> The only reasons I can guess that this is pointed out are that A:
> people learn to fly in planes without flaps or B: flaps are "one more
> thing to worry about" and so the definition includes all three to make
> sure the pilot can handle multiple things to worry about in the small
> amount of time one has to land a plane. I'm leaning toward B but
> thought I'd ask here.

When I first started flying I thought that complex was FAA-speak for
retractable. Eventually I came to realize that it wasn't but spent many
years wondering why a retractable gear aircraft with a fixed pitch prop
wasn't complex.

What it really comes down to, as you pointed out in your message, is a
complex aircraft is just that: complex. Meaning you have a lot to do,
especially during take off and landing. Manipulating gear, flaps, and
prop adds workload. It's not difficult once you get used to it, but the
first time you have add another system to the mix requires some effort.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## CP-ASEL-IA, CFI-A, AGI
## <insert tail number here>
## KHAO, KISZ
"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by
stupidity."
-- Hanlon's Razor

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> buttman wrote:
>
>>
>> Its a holdover from the olden days when flaps weren't standard
>> equipment, as they are now. In the next few months/years the FAA is
>> supposed to redo part 61, and many believe they will change the
>> complex requirement to something more modern.
>
> The rules were rewritten in 95 (effective 97) and all they did
> is split > 200HP from the rest of complex.

Which was a pain in my club, where the only craft readily available for
a complex endorsement was the 200 HP 177RG. Had to get the HP one
separately in a 182.