Twin Wasp

You can't be an old fr8 dog if you don't have a recip type!

I've heard the arguement before that jets aren't complex because they don't have a controllable pitch prop. It's fairly easy to show a 727 generates more than 200 HP.

JamesNoBrakes

AC 61-89:

Furthermore, in the FAA we've had plenty of industry airline pilots try to fly the light pistons used in the pre-employment checkride and fail, due to recency and experience in such aircraft. As someone that probably values experience, you probably know that flying a 767 doesn't make you a 152 expert, and flying a 152 doesn't make you a 767 expert. A higher performance piston might have some severe nose-down tendency during landing, complex systems that only have one pilot to operate, different ways the prop may go if you lose oil pressure, considerations for shock cooling and temperature operating ranges, excessive turning tendencies and the proper visual correction for, situations limiting the use of certain power settings, recent advancements and improvements from the systems 30 years ago, and so on. According to 61.31, 61-98b and 61-89, it seems pretty certain that when flying small piston aircraft with more than 200hp, you need to have a high performance endorsement.

You possibly have a bye if you can prove this out of 61.31:

This is most likely when the high performance stuff became mandatory, but I'd have to look at historical CFRs to be sure. So if you logged time before this according to the above, it's likely "ok" and you are grandfathered in, but if you wanted to help cover yourself, it'd probably be a good idea to write something in your logbook referencing that part of 61.31 to avoid any confusion.

I'm not sure if you have a high altitude endorsement, but you might want to check 61.31 and make sure you meet the exception if you do not.

rotorhead1026

It was in effect when I got my license in 1974, or shortly after, with a similar grandfather clause - dated earlier, of course. The late-nineties Part 61 rewrite led to re-dating the requirement.

NoyGonnaDoIt

It's earlier than 1997 and had gone through a few iterations.

Prior to 1997 the endorsements were there but what are now two endorsements ("high performance" and "complex") were joined to gether as simply "high performance - either >200HP or controllable pro flaps and gear. Here's from the 1991 version, which was passed in 1973 and had only minor revisions until 1977.

==============================
a person holding a private or commercial pilot certificate may not act as pilot in command of an airplane that has more than 200 horsepower, or that has a retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable propeller, unless he has received flight instruction from an authorized flight instructor who has certified in his logbook that he is competent to pilot an airplane that has more than 200 horsepower, or that has a retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable propeller, as the case may be. However, this instruction is not required if he has logged flight time as pilot in command in high performance airplanes before November 1, 1973
==============================

Whether there is an version earlier than 1973 I don't know.

Still doesn't answer the question of the jet. I can see where a jet is not a complex aircraft since it doesn't have a controllable propeller but I can't find my way past the concept that a jet doesn't have an engine that produces more than 200 HP. But I'm no engineer and it could be the convention of using HP for props and Thrust for a measure of power for jets actually means something in terms of training requirements.

JamesNoBrakes

I think it's fairly clear (at least relative to the FAA) what to do for the high performance based on what I posted above. Logged high performance before 1997? Your fine. Logged jet before then (see advisory circular about "or equivalent thrust") and it seems fine. Got your type and logged all your jet time after 1997: you need those endorsements. Complex has a similar date exception, so I'd assume that is met in most cases. If you want to argue about the "complex", you could always say thrust setting controls compressor stator vanes? :)