FAA -- High Performance & Complex

[Ralliart]

Has anyone converted their TCCA licenses to FAA licenses and dealt with the complex aircraft and high performance aircraft rules?

I converted my ATP a couple years ago and ended up flying a 208. No big deal. Now I might be moving on to twin-engine aircraft again, and the company requires proof that FAR 61.31 (e) and (f) is satisfied with my converted ATP and previous experience.

(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.

(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.

Obviously with my ATP, I've done an initial multi-IFR (Duchess) and have also done PPCs on a Navajo and B1900. But this was all Canadian stuff and I'm not sure if this satisfies the FAA rule?

I mean, I've done the flight and ground training for a few multi-engine aircraft, but I never had anyone sign my logbook specifically stating that I was good to fly a complex or high-performance machine.

On my FAA ATP I have an endorsement for BE1900 (SIC required) -- essentially a PIC endorsement. I'm hoping I can make that work for their paperwork requirements.

Anyone have any insight before I talk to the local FAA FSDO?

Thanks

[Panama Jack]

This is obviously an area where the tracks don't align entirely, since the endorsements required by FAR Part 61 never envisioned the simplified conversion facilitated by the agreement between TC and the FAA. It is an area in the regulations screaming for ammendment.

My initial reaction is that you will get a response from the FAA that you would be required to jump through these hoops. Without having referred to Part 61, I seem to remember that there is a grandfather clause in there, so if you are an old-timer in Canadian aviation you would be exempt if you can demonstrate (in your logbook) that you have logged the required flights prior to the implementation dates. Keep your eyes open for additional endorsements that you may require such as a tailwheel endorsement (unless you have grandfather rights) and high-altitude endorsements. Also, don't forget the Flight Review that you will require after every 2 years and the and possibly the Instrument Proficiency Check that you may require. If you are planning on keeping proficiency with the 6-6-3 rule, make sure your read the details on what exactly you must log to keep current.

My experience has been that the FAA is a little more legal-eagle oriented than TC's.

[Ralliart]

Thanks.

I saw the grandfather clause for flights before 1997, but I wouldn't qualify since I started in 1998.

[Nark]

Come up to Alaska and I'll sign you off...


I'm 99% sure that the PPC (TC) does not count as either a High Perf or complex endorsement.

Both are useless endorsements in my opinion. (the need for them, not the actual CFI stamp.)

[alti2d]

Why not just call up a friendly FSDO and ask them the question, avoid all the interpretive hassle.

[Ralliart]

Why not just call up a friendly FSDO and ask them the question, avoid all the interpretive hassle.

Yea I did that this morning. Turns out there is no credit towards those endorsements if you convert your license from outside the US.

[Panama Jack]

I suspect, based on your findings, that quite a number of Canadian pilots who converted their licences and did not do the research, leave themselves open to one or more violations of Part 61.

The beauty of the FAA is they traditionally have tended to tag on a violation of Part 91.13 to a wide range of other violations.

[Nark]

91.13 is the catch all.

But if you were smart you could copout with 91.3

This of course is assuming you're flying under part 91.

You plan on making money with your ticket?

[Ralliart]

The good news is I had the two endorsements signed off today.

The bad news is I had to pay for 0.7 flight time to get it.

[Panama Jack]

Congratulations, Ralliart. All things considered I wouldn't consider that to be too bad news, though.

It reminds me of the story of one my university professors at a large aviation university in the United States. He had been a fighter jock during the Vietnam War-- mostly F-4 Phantoms. Notwithstanding the complex systems and retractable gear, flaps, jet engines with afterburner and napalm on a Phantom, when he left the military and did the conversion to get his Commercial Multi-engine land, he still had to go out and seek the Complex Airplane endorsement. Why? Because an F-4 Phantom does not have a controllable-pitch propeller.

[Nark]

As an instructor I had to memorize all the endorsements I needed to give my students.

There is roughly 8 I had to write in their log book before the 4 I had to write for their flight test. If I allowed them to fly at night and in Class B their was another possible 3.

Don't forget the high altitude and tailwheel ones.