FAA Complex Rating - Definition

[Planetonic]

I am a FAA ppl flying G registered a/c in the UK. I have the opportunity to conduct difference trg onto an a/c with a controllable pitch prop. Under FAA rules (FAR sect 61) complex is defined as flaps, retractable gear AND cpp from what I can see.
Can any one advise if just a cpp requires a complex endorsement by an FAA approved instructor?

[S-Works]

Yes it does.

[Pilot DAR]

I am a not an FAA licensing expert, however,

When I look at the "ratings" available for issue from the FAA as listed in FAR part 61, I find the following:


(b) The following ratings are placed on a pilot certificate (other than student pilot) when an applicant satisfactorily accomplishes the training and certification requirements for the rating sought:

(1) Aircraft category ratings--
(i) Airplane.
(ii) Rotorcraft.
(iii) Glider.
(iv) Lighter-than-air.
(v) Powered-lift.
(vi) Powered parachute.
(vii) Weight-shift-control aircraft.

(2) Airplane class ratings--
(i) Single-engine land.
(ii) Multiengine land.
(iii) Single-engine sea.
(iv) Multiengine sea.
........

(7) Aircraft type ratings--
(i) Large aircraft other than lighter-than-air.
(ii) Turbojet-powered airplanes.
(iii) Other aircraft type ratings specified by the Administrator through the aircraft type certification procedures.
[(iv) Second-in-command pilot type rating for aircraft that is certificated for operations with a minimum crew of at least two pilots.]
(8) Instrument ratings (on private and commercial pilot certificates only)--
(i) Instrument -- Airplane
(ii) Instrument -- Helicopter
(iii) Instrument--Powered-lift.


I don't see anything specifically referring to a constant speed prop, flap or retractable gear, or even "complex" specified in that list. Thus, I would not expect to see "complex" as an endorsement or rating issued to an FAA license. If you have a license whis says "Airplane" and you're flying one within the "class" endorsed on your license, and it does not require a type endorsement (and small "complex" single engine propeller types would not), I would think that you've met the FAA licensing requirements.

It is likely that the owner of the aircraft will want you take some training on the plane (though, if you've read and follow the flight manual, constant speed props are pretty simple), but other than that, I cannot see that the FAA cares one way or the other.

[multycpl]

Sorry DAR.......but

FAR 61.31

(e) Additional training required for operating complex airplanes. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a complex airplane (an airplane that has a retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller; or, in the case of a seaplane, flaps and a controllable pitch propeller), unless the person has—
(i) Received and logged ground and flight training from an authorized instructor in a complex airplane, or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a complex airplane, and has been found proficient in the operation and systems of the airplane; and
(ii) Received a one-time endorsement in the pilot's logbook from an authorized instructor who certifies the person is proficient to operate a complex airplane.
(2) The training and endorsement required by paragraph (e)(1) of this section is not required if the person has logged flight time as pilot in command of a complex airplane, or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a complex airplane prior to August 4, 1997.


Not sure what happens if the ac has 2 of the 3 above, ie c182......
Oh and a PA 28 arrow counts for above but doesn't count for below.....

(f) Additional training required for operating high-performance airplanes. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a high-performance airplane (an airplane with an engine of more than 200 horsepower), unless the person has—
(i) Received and logged ground and flight training from an authorized instructor in a high-performance airplane, or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a high-performance airplane, and has been found proficient in the operation and systems of the airplane; and
(ii) Received a one-time endorsement in the pilot's logbook from an authorized instructor who certifies the person is proficient to operate a high-performance airplane.

[India Four Two]

(an airplane that has a retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller; or, in the case of a seaplane, flaps and a controllable pitch propeller)

That's interesting. You can fly a 182 with no endorsement, but if you then put it on floats, you now need one!

[IO540]

Don't forget also the 'high perf' endorsement, required for any plane of 200HP or more, regardless of landing gear etc.

I know MC mentions it in his quote above.

[multycpl]

C182 not quite true.........l believe that the 182 has a 235hp engine so high perf. kicks in. Do both in a 182 rg and get it over with. ;)

[172driver]

C182 not quite true.........l believe that the 182 has a 235hp engine so high perf. kicks in. Do both in a 182 rg and get it over with.

Correct, although some instructors are reluctant to do both at the same time. Depends obviously on your experience level. A good one to do the complex in is a 172RG. Has all the required bells and whistles but doesn't need the high-performance endorsement.

[IO540]

I don't really understand why the FAA set the HP threshold at 200HP.

A 200HP 4-seat plane which weighs say 1500kg is pretty anemic in performance, but a 1000kg single seat one (narrow hull) will go like a rocket.

[172driver]

Guess they had to set it somewhere. And as all (civilian) trainers I know of are below the 200hp mark, whereas many 'working' SEPs are above, 200hp is probably not a bad threshold.

[Planetonic]

Gentlemen .... And ladies for all I know, thank you for the views - it has helped me clarify a few points and gives me a better idea of the route I should follow.

[Pilot DAR]

Hmm, I stand corrected.

I find it interesting that the FAR I found does not contain a clause to the effect of: "subject to FAR 61.31.....". The two do seemed rather co dependent....

[Human Factor]

Where do I stand with a FAA PPL (issued on the basis of an accompanying JAA PPL) in order to fly complex and/or high performance types?

I'm current on the Yak (which at 360hp, qualifies for both) in the UK but have the opportunity for some serious high performance flying in the US. I presume I need the logbook endorsement from an FAA instructor anyway but I guess that would be a formality rather than requiring a check ride.

[englishal]

The DA40 is not "complex" as per the FAA definition even though it has CSP, so to be complex or to get the complex endorsement you need to have all three.

Regarding the High performance endorsement, yes it is indeed OVER 200HP "on any one engine during any phase of flight". This means that a 200HP Seneca II is indeed high performance despite only being rated to 200 HP at sea level...because the Turbocharged engines actually develop 215 HP at altitude apparently.

[englishal]

I am a FAA ppl flying G registered a/c in the UK. I have the opportunity to conduct difference trg onto an a/c with a controllable pitch prop. Under FAA rules (FAR sect 61) complex is defined as flaps, retractable gear AND cpp from what I can see.
Can any one advise if just a cpp requires a complex endorsement by an FAA approved instructor?
A you don't need a Complex endorsement to fly the aeroplane, you are good to go under the FARs. Get the UK FI to write in your logbook anyway that you have been cleared to fly the aeroplane and then you cover all eventualities (i.e. if you ever decide to get an EASA PPL).

[Human Factor]

I'd certainly need a FR. My complex flying was done post '97 so technically, I would need a competency check with a FAA CFI. Having said that, I can prove competency due to my logged time in the Yak (and recency) so would it just be a matter of a CFI signature?

That said, the complex types I refer to are some pretty heavy metal and I wouldn't be let loose on them without some training anyway.

[Human Factor]

Thanks for the info.