"High Performance Rating" ?

[FullyFlapped]

I was told yesterday that in order to pilot a fairly high-performance SEP - and to be properly insured for same - it is necessary to take a "high performance rating", which I have personally never heard of except in relation to turbine-powered aircraft.
I'll be asking my insurers, naturally, but I know some of you guys on this forum fly fast singles, so ... is this true ? Or is it yet another load of old ... turbulence ?
Also, do any of you fast boys/girls know if insurers tend to require minimum hours or training before giving the green light ?
Thanks,
FF :ok:

[benhurr]

SEP class rating is the only rating. Wobbly prop, taildragger, retractable are all things which would need differences changes but don't warrant a separate rating. I was of the opinion that each SET had its own type rating requirement.

I hope this is true as I use my twin stuff to cover me for retractable single wobbly prop stuff!

[Confabulous]

"High perfomance" is performance related - "complex" means wobbly prop and/or retractable. Neither of then are ratings, merely checkouts (and will vary accord to club training/hiring requirements) and don't require any CAA approved exams.

[Say again s l o w l y]

There is a high performance aspect to this, the definition being that the cruising speed is greater than 140kts.

This is covered in the same way as other difference training.

Check LASORS.

[Whopity]

Certain single pilot aeroplanes are designated HPA in Appendix 1 to JAR-FCL 1.220. In order to fly such aircraft you are required to pass additional written exams to ensure that you know how to operate in the environment they are designed to fly in. ATPL holders are deemed qualified.

These include:

Beech 90/100/200/300/1900 Series
Cessna 406/425/441/501/500/505/525 Series
Mitsubishi MU 2B
Piper PA31/PA46
Rockwell AC680/690/900 SeriesFairchild 226/227 Series
Pilatus PC7/PC9
Walter Extra 400
Aerospatiale MS760

[FullyFlapped]

Thanks guys. Looking at the aircraft on Whopity's list, I'm absolutely certain that the plane I have in mind won't require this extra accreditation etc, but I'll go dig out LASORS and that Appendix and have a thorough look to make sure.
Cheers,
FF :ok:

[muffin]

There was an article about the HPA rating in (I think) the last issue of the AOPA UK mag General Aviation. Is is apparently quite hard and most definitely not trivial. The guy who wrote the article went through the whole rating as he was told he had to, then when he got it they decided the aircraft he had bought did not fall within the list of those requiring it!

[IO540]

Well I would expect a PPL who gets into a MU-2 to expect to need additional training ;) And the amount of training would be truly huge compared to the tech knowledge one gets in a plain PPL.

A SEP doesn't need anything beyond a "complex conversion", unless it is one of very few prescribed types. I think a Malibu (?) is one of those, because of pressurisation.

But then you cannot make proper use of such a plane unless you have a full IR, anyway. It's different in the USA (no Class A below 18000ft) where a PPL can fly a jet with just a type rating.

[Julian]

The FAA has

- a HP Rating which is for aicraft with engines of 200+ HP
- a Complex rating which is retracts & variable pitch prop
- High Altitude rating which is basically pressureised aircraft and emphasis on emergency procedures.

Julian.

[READY MESSAGE]

It's all in LASORS, mate of mine got caught with this last year. CAA refused to issue a type rating as he was a PPL/IR and had not attended a 'High Performance Aircraft Course'. Any type of aircraft in LASORS with HPA next to it requires you to do the HPA course unless you have an ATPL or Frozen ATPL. I think the only people in the UK to offer the course are in Bournemouth (possibly ETA)

[rustle]

... I think the only people in the UK to offer the course are in Bournemouth (possibly ETA)

Bournemouth Commercial Flight Training do it as well. (see here (http://www.bcft.org.uk/hpa.shtml))

[172driver]

The FAA has
- a HP Rating which is for aicraft with engines of 200+ HP
- a Complex rating which is retracts & variable pitch prop
- High Altitude rating which is basically pressureised aircraft and emphasis on emergency procedures.
Julian.

Julian,

While these three do indeed exist, they are not RATINGS they are SIGN-OFFS. The difference is that one lives on your license (the rating) the other in your log-book (sign-off) and they are done by an examiner (rating) and instructor (sign-off) respectively. Hope that clears it up for the FAA front at least.

[flyboyike]

The FAA has

- a HP Rating which is for aicraft with engines of 200+ HP
- a Complex rating which is retracts & variable pitch prop
- High Altitude rating which is basically pressureised aircraft and emphasis on emergency procedures.

Julian.
.

The proper term is endorsements. See FAR 61.31 (e), (f) and (g).

[172driver]

.

The proper term is endorsements. See FAR 61.31 (e), (f) and (g).

I stand corrected. Guess 'sign-off' is the colloquial term used.

[Julian]

Indeed!
I need to drink more coffee before I post. :}

[Chippik]

you can also get a supercharging sign-off/endorsement

[flyboyike]

you can also get a supercharging sign-off/endorsement

Not in the US, you can't.