If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep | C J Campbell | Instrument Flight Rules | 117 | July 22nd 04 05:40 PM |
Pilot Error? Is it Mr. Damron? | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 3 | June 23rd 04 04:05 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
Enlisted pilots | John Randolph | Naval Aviation | 41 | July 21st 03 02:11 PM |