Complex Aircraft

[CGToronto]

I've been searching for a flight school that has complex aircraft training.
Specifically, I'm looking for time in a Piper Arrow and a Mooney M20.
Oshawa had an Arrow... but no more...
I've found nothing that even suggests a Mooney.

Any ideas ?

[Shiny Side Up]

Few schools keep a complex single these days since there isn't a lot of demand for them and not a lot of necessity. You might look south of the border since complex singles are more useful down there. Also you might look into doing some multi training, more expensive, but just as "complex".

[Stephen Szikora]

Brampton, Waterloo, Brantford and others have 172RG's so it's not hard to do some training in a complex aircraft. If you want to limit yourself to a low-wing aircraft, that's another story.

[Colonel Sanders]

If it's gotta be low wing, why not a Seminole or Duchess?

Plenty of those around ...

[cgartly]

Curious, why are Complex Aircraft more useful in the US than Canada?

[Cat Driver]

An even more curious question would be what exactly is " complex " about a Cessna 172RG?

[photofly]

Apparently the test for a US CPL has to be done in a complex type. There's also a sign-off before you're allowed to PIC in one.
A complex a/c in the US must have a controllable pitch prop, and a retractable gear (as well as flaps).

There's another signoff required before you can fly a high performance aircraft in the US, which is anything with more than 200hp.

[Cat Driver]

A complex a/c in the US must have a controllable pitch prop, and a retractable gear (as well as flaps).

So the PBY would not qualify.

Yeh that makes perfect sense because a Cessna 172RG is way more demanding to fly.

[photofly]

A complex a/c in the US must have a controllable pitch prop, and a retractable gear (as well as flaps).

So the PBY would not qualify.

Yeh that makes perfect sense because a Cessna 172RG is way more demanding to fly.

Sea-planes are not required to have a retractable gear; they count as complex if they have flaps and a controllable pitch prop.

[Cat Driver]

Sea-planes are not required to have a retractable gear; they count as complex if they have flaps and a controllable pitch prop.

Yes, I understand.

And my statement remains true, the PBY is not a complex aircraft under that criteria.....

....why is it so difficult to agree on anything on this forum?

The definition of complex as seen by the training industry is really weird when you look at how the rules are written and the beliefe system so embraced by the rank and file in the industry.

Example:

Cessna 172RG is complex.

PBY is non complex....

....therefore any PPL can just jump in a PBY and fly it because it is not complex compared to a Cessna 172RG.

[Shiny Side Up]

Don't get your panties in a knot Cat, its just a term, and one we don't even use north of the border. Like someone above said, the type is generally only applicable to FAA commercial training, hence if you have a school down there you need to have a "complex" (note the quotes) aircraft. Now I'm not 100% on the rules down there but I think that any multi engined aircraft qualifies as "complex" by their definition. I'd have to do a search of the FARs, but I'll leave that to the Colonel, deferring to his greater expertise on the subject.

[North Shore]

Actually, IIRC, the term for a PBY is neither 'complex,' nor 'simple.'

- It's 'Antique'!

[photofly]

Which bit is it missing, then?

[Cat Driver]

All I was trying to point out is it is just a little bit of overkill to think a simple basic little airplane becomes " complex " just because it has a constant speed prop or retractible gear and flaps.

But I guess it does sound impressive enough to require extra training for the complexity.

[Cat Driver]

Which bit is it missing, then?

Flaps.

[photofly]

I wouldn't get too hung up on terminology, but it doesn't strike me as too unreasonable of the FAA to want you to have time in something with flaps, a wobbly prop and wheels that go up and down, before throwing you a CPL. In fact it seems a bit odd that you can get a CPL in Canada never having flown something more advanced than a 150.

[Cat Driver]

Even more odd is the low threshold to hold a ATPL in Canada.

But don't feel bad because the rest of the world is getting as weird when it comes to training.

What really puzzeled me in Europe was watching the flight schools use big circuits with long flat final approaches to mimic large jets.....weird, truly weird.

[Masters Off]

Now, I could swear it would be cowl flaps...not regular flaps. But it really doesn't matter.

And, in New Zealand, one has to fly all sorts of fancy airplanes to get to the ATPL. I believe their minimum is a King Air 90 for the final flight test. I'm sure someone could tell me the real answer, but that's what I heard when I was there. Presurized, multi-engine, turbine, etc.

[Colonel Sanders]

The regulatory "complex" term used to be an
FAA-only thing, but it crept into the CARs when
that awful "integrated CPL" was created. See
CAR 426.75:

5 hours flight time on complex or technically advanced aeroplanes

"complex airplane" is defined in CAR 400.01 as:

“complex aeroplane” means an aeroplane that has flaps and a constant-speed propeller and, except in the case of a seaplane, retractable landing gear;

This was all borrowed from the FAA, of course.

FAR Part 61.31(e) says:

(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, 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

With respect to my FAA pilot certificate, I don't need this
training and endorsement because I am grandfathered -
I was PIC of a "complex aircraft" before August 4, 1997.
I suspect many Canadians who obtain FAA pilot certificates
do not qualify, and might be contravening this regulation.


FAR Part 61.31(f) says:

(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.

(2) The training and endorsement required by paragraph (f)(1) of this section is not required if the person has logged flight time as pilot in command of a high-performance airplane, or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a high-performance airplane prior to August 4, 1997.

Again, I am grandfathered. Heck, the airplane I soloed on
had more than 200 hp. Again, I suspect many Canadians
are contravening this regulation if they obtain FAA pilot
certificates and do not obtain the required logbook endorsement
from an FAA CFI.

Does it make sense for someone to get some training
if they soloed on a buck fifty and then want to jump into
a Bonanza? Yeah, it probably does. In Canada we rely
upon the insurance company to specify the required
training. A little indirect, but that's the way it works
up here.


In a similar vein, FAR Part 61.31(i) says:

(i) Additional training required for operating tailwheel airplanes.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a tailwheel airplane unless that person has received and logged flight training from an authorized instructor in a tailwheel airplane and received an endorsement in the person's logbook from an authorized instructor who found the person proficient in the operation of a tailwheel airplane. The flight training must include at least the following maneuvers and procedures:

(i) Normal and crosswind takeoffs and landings;

(ii) Wheel landings (unless the manufacturer has recommended against such landings); and

(iii) Go-around procedures.

(2) The training and endorsement required by paragraph (i)(1) of this section is not required if the person logged pilot-in-command time in a tailwheel airplane before April 15, 1991.

Again, I'm grandfathered - I soloed in a tailwheel
airplane before 1991 - but again, many Canadians
would need a logbook endorsement to legally fly
an N-reg taildragger using their FAA pilot certificate.


There is lots of other interesting reading in FAR part 61.31
such as pressurized, high altitude, etc.

[Shiny Side Up]

The regulatory "complex" term used to be an
FAA-only thing, but it crept into the CARs when
that awful "integrated CPL" was created. See
CAR 426.75:

Ugh. I guess I need to read even more disappointing stuff about that "integrated CPL". I suspect that most of the programs out there fulfill the requirement by using a TAA rather than a "complex" aircraft, another thing I'm starting to despise.

Thanks for dredging up the FARs by the way.

many Canadians
would need a logbook endorsement to legally fly
an N-reg taildragger using their FAA pilot certificate.

I actually know someone who was caught violating that, but apparently the FAA is somewhat less draconian than TC over such things. The inspector, after giving him a regulation length disapproving frown and admonition, then just hopped in the plane with him, did a bit of dual and signed him off.

I wonder who decided on the cut off dates? I don't hold an FAA certificate but apparently would have to get a tailwheel endorsement, though would be grandfathered in under all of the high performance and complex mumbo jumbo. Strange stuff.

[Colonel Sanders]

who decided on the cut off dates?

That's when the regulation was enacted.

The inspector, after giving him a regulation length disapproving frown and admonition, then just hopped in the plane with him, did a bit of dual and signed him off

That's the way the regulator ought to be - instead
of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in
court over many years.

I am no Scotland Yard "Inspector" but I spend a lot
of time trying to make people around me safe and
legal, despite what many people might think. People
do a lot of strange things. I knew one pilot - he's
been dead for a while now - used to line up the bearing
and track on his GPS, then set his DG to North and
held it there. I guess that's probably safe and legal,
but pretty weird nonetheless.

Hey, gotta joke for you about Scotland Yard, who
are the legendary police force of London, England:

Q: Why is Scotland Yard so good?
A: They have to be - there are no dental records
and all the DNA is the same!

[Shiny Side Up]

who decided on the cut off dates?

That's when the regulation was enacted.

One would have thought that they would have been all the same, though I guess one can't expect that they would do sometihng that makes sense. After all, seems wierd that they would decide that people need tail wheel endorsements and then six years later decide that they also need complex airplane endorsements too. Oh well.