FAA Complex Rating - Definition
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
From: Hampshire
FAA Complex Rating - Definition
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?
Can any one advise if just a cpp requires a complex endorsement by an FAA approved instructor?
Fleet Manager
Joined: Aug 2006
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 7,090
Likes: 2,952
From: Ontario, Canada
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.
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.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
From: USA
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.
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.
Last edited by multycpl; 8th September 2011 at 13:38.
Joined: Jun 2002
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 7,177
Likes: 297
From: Nanaimo (CAC8)
(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)
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
From: SoCal
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.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
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.
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.
Fleet Manager
Joined: Aug 2006
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 7,090
Likes: 2,952
From: Ontario, Canada
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....
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....
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
From: The Twilight Zone near 30W
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.
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.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
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.
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.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
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?
Can any one advise if just a cpp requires a complex endorsement by an FAA approved instructor?
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
From: The Twilight Zone near 30W
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.
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.
