A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » General Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

FAR:Safety Pilot & High Performance/Complex?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old August 8th 03, 07:10 PM
Jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'd agree with that. I got an additional endorsement when I got checked out
in a 182RG a couple years ago. However strange it may seem, the FBO's
insurance statement requires 100 hours in retractables or 10 hours
instruction in the 182RG, it doesn't mention high performance time
requirements. Obviously gear up landings are more common than torque roll
stall/spins on go-around.
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply


"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
...
You are only grandfathered with the 1997 changes according to the
airplane type that you got the previously lumped complex/high
performance endorsement in. A close look at 61.31 (f) (2) indicates
that the Arow endorsement will not suffice for high performance. The
biggest reason that you might want to get re-endorsed are for
insurance purposes.



On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 08:41:11 -0500, "Jim" wrote:

I got my endorsement sometime in the late 80s and mine is one

endorsement.
It was a ink stamp that the instructor had that called it a "High
Performance/Complex Airplane Endorsement". I did how ever do all my
training in a non high performance 200hp Piper Arrow.




Ads
  #32  
Old August 8th 03, 07:17 PM
Jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

No a strict reading doesn't say that. He may be a safety pilot, as that
requires
only ratings. He can not log safety pilot time as PIC time as he can not

legally
be PIC.



Right. Which brings me back to a question I had earlier. Is there ever a
circumstance that a pilot can log PIC time when he is not certified,
endorsed or current in that aircraft? I can't think of a case but maybe I'm
overlooking something.
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply


  #33  
Old August 8th 03, 08:16 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ace Pilot" wrote in message
om...
FAR 61.31 says that no endorsement is needed if you have logged PIC
time in that kind of aircraft (complex or high performance) prior to
August 4, 1997. Does anyone remember what the required endorsement(s)
was/were prior to this date? Were there 2 endorsements, or was there
only one covering complex and high performance aircraft?


It was basically the same as it is now, but not written as clearly. It
combined the "complex" and "high performance" in a single paragraph, using
the words "as appropriate" to cover the two different situations. While the
regulation wasn't intended as such, many people took it to mean that an
endorsement for a "complex" sufficed for flying a "high performance"
airplane, and vice a versa.

I presume that the grandfather clause in the new regulation is intended to
try to acknowledge that ambiguity. Even prior to the change, no one should
have been flying without the appropriate endorsement.

Pete


  #34  
Old August 8th 03, 09:20 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jim" wrote in message news
Right. Which brings me back to a question I had earlier. Is there ever a
circumstance that a pilot can log PIC time when he is not certified,
endorsed or current in that aircraft? I can't think of a case but maybe I'm
overlooking something.
--

Sure there is. There are three ways to log PIC time (for those not CFIs or ATPs).

1. Sole occupant of the aircraft.
2. Sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which you are rated.
3. Pilot in command of a multipilot operation (under the regs/type certificate)

#1 doesn't require you to be rated in the aircraft. Your instructor can sign you off to go
solo on any pilot certificate (student or otherwise).

#2 doesn't require currency or endorsement requirements to be met provided there is
someone else aboard who is actually PIC.


  #35  
Old August 9th 03, 07:26 AM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
|
| "C J Campbell" wrote in message
| A strict reading of these two regulations would indicate that a private
| pilot holding a certificated for single engine land airplanes may log
PIC
| for the time he is acting as safety pilot in a complex or high
performance
| airplane whether he is signed off for those airplanes or not.
|
| No a strict reading doesn't say that. He may be a safety pilot, as that
requires
| only ratings. He can not log safety pilot time as PIC time as he can not
legally
| be PIC.

Where does it say that in the regulations?


  #36  
Old August 9th 03, 07:27 AM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
...
| Ron is entirely correct on this. I have heard this many times during
| pilot examiner school in OKC. The policy statements explained to me
| from AFS-640 are very clear about this. You must be totally qualified
| and legal to fly the bird by yourself in order to log PIC as a safety
| pilot. (medical, category and class, flight review, and proper 61.31
| endorsements) The regulations themselves are clear: In order to BE
| the PIC and be the safety pilot, (and thats the only way a non-CFI,
| non-manipulator can log PIC time in single pilot airplanes as a safety
| pilot), you must meet ALL the prerequisites.
|

No dice. Policy statements and wishful thinking are not regulations. Show me
a regulation, please.


  #37  
Old August 9th 03, 11:34 AM
Matthew Waugh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
There is no regulatory requirement that you be able to act as PIC....
....
(iii) Except for a recreational pilot, is acting as pilot in command of an
aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type
certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is
conducted.


What part of that is not clear to you? To log PIC as a safety pilot
(required crewmember) you must be "acting" as PIC and acting as PIC requires
a myriad of requirements, but in this case I refer you to 61.31 where the
phrase "act as PIC" is used extensively.

You keep saying "point me to the regulation" when you already quoted the
regulation.

Mat

--
Matthew Waugh
Comm. SEL MEL, CFI-AI
http://home.nc.rr.com/mwaugh/learn2fly/index.htm



  #38  
Old August 9th 03, 01:59 PM
Bill Zaleski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron & Peter are exactly on point in this area. You need to stop
reading between the lines and take the FAR exactly as written. If you
want to BE the PIC, you must qualify as one just as any pilot must.
There is no automatic relief just because you are a required crew
member. Somebody has to qualify as PIC and there can only be one, but
both can LOG PIC, under the very clear regulation.




On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 02:30:52 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
No dice. Policy statements and wishful thinking are not regulations. Show

me
a regulation, please.


You have the regulation in front of you. You quoted part of it. There is
nothing that says that a person acting as safety pilot is acting as PIC.
Furthermore, one must meet very specific requirements in order to act as
PIC, and those include having appropriate endorsements and having a current
medical.

Your post indicates to me that you, for some reason, believe that acting as
safety pilot automatically means you are also acting as PIC. It does not.
The person under the hood may well be acting as PIC, even in visual
conditions. If the safety pilot is not qualified to act as PIC (e.g.
without appropriate endorsements, ratings, or current medical), then the
person under the hood MUST be acting as PIC.

Pete


  #39  
Old August 9th 03, 02:35 PM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
| "C J Campbell" wrote in message
| ...
| No dice. Policy statements and wishful thinking are not regulations.
Show
| me
| a regulation, please.
|
| You have the regulation in front of you. You quoted part of it. There is
| nothing that says that a person acting as safety pilot is acting as PIC.
| Furthermore, one must meet very specific requirements in order to act as
| PIC, and those include having appropriate endorsements and having a
current
| medical.
|
| Your post indicates to me that you, for some reason, believe that acting
as
| safety pilot automatically means you are also acting as PIC.

OK, you convince me. However, I never believed that the safety pilot was
automatically PIC.


  #40  
Old August 10th 03, 05:40 AM
Robert Perkins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 22:18:50 -0500, "Highfllyer"
wrote:

Yah. That "more than" removed a lot of planes from the high
performance category.


I always thought it interesting that my current Stinson Reliant, that
cruises at 100 knots on 300HP, is officially a "high performance" while my
old straight 35 Bonanza with its E185 185 horsepower engine and controllable
pitch prop that cruised at 160 knots was NOT "high performance."


I was told the high performance regs had more to do with left turning
tendencies, dangerous on the runway during takeoff for example, than
they did with cruising speeds.

Rob
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 03:26 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.