FAR:Safety Pilot & High Performance/Complex?

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
"Many people" included the FAA. The official FAA opinion (before 1997)
was
that a high performance signoff meant you were good to fly either a
complex
or 200 HP aircraft. They did not differentiate (despite whatever the
original
writer of the reg intended).

I never saw that opinion. Was it actually published? Can you provide a
citation? The wording of the regulation, because of the use of the words
"as appropriate", seemed to pretty clearly mean one endorsement did not
qualify for the other. Logically, it makes no sense that it would.

Ron is correct. The regulations were changed in 1997. We now have two
separate endorsements (the "high-performance" endorsement was added). Under
the old regs, there was only one.

George Patterson
They say that nothing's certain except death and taxes. The thing is,
death doesn't get worse every time Congress goes into session.
Will Rogers

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
Ron is correct. The regulations were changed in 1997. We now have two
separate endorsements (the "high-performance" endorsement was added).
Under
the old regs, there was only one.

I know the regulations were changed in 1997. If you'd been paying
attention, you'd have noticed I said so.

But the previous regulation required the endorsement to apply to complex or
high-performance separately "AS APPROPRIATE". Nothing in the regulation
could be logically regarded to mean that an endorsement for high-performance
aircraft would apply to complex aircraft as well. The regulation took pains
to call out that the endorsement needed to be APPROPRIATE to the clause
referred to in the regulation. That is, complex OR high performance.

The new regulation is simply a clarified restatement of the old one. It's
not semantically different.

Pete