Complex endorsement: what is so special about flaps?

I read the the complex endorsement involves being instructed in
retractable gear, flaps and constant speed prop. I'm learning to fly
in a C172, which has flaps, so it seems unusual to me that flaps are
specified in the complex rating given that I have been using them
since day one.

The only reasons I can guess that this is pointed out are that A:
people learn to fly in planes without flaps or B: flaps are "one more
thing to worry about" and so the definition includes all three to make
sure the pilot can handle multiple things to worry about in the small
amount of time one has to land a plane. I'm leaning toward B but
thought I'd ask here.

On Feb 24, 2:05*pm, es330td wrote:
I read the the complex endorsement involves being instructed in
retractable gear, flaps and constant speed prop. *I'm learning to fly
in a C172, which has flaps, so it seems unusual to me that flaps are
specified in the complex rating given that I have been using them
since day one.

A friend of mine used to have a Swift. Retract, with flaps but fixed
prop. He never needed a complex endorsement and I always thought that
was odd.

es330td wrote in news:c51c25af-bccc-4776-9614-
:

I read the the complex endorsement involves being instructed in
retractable gear, flaps and constant speed prop. I'm learning to fly
in a C172, which has flaps, so it seems unusual to me that flaps are
specified in the complex rating given that I have been using them
since day one.

The only reasons I can guess that this is pointed out are that A:
people learn to fly in planes without flaps


Lots of them do.


Actually, they;'re a bit of a crutch. even when I taught in airplanes with
flaps, I usually left them out of the equation for the first few hours if
it were possible.


Bertie

On Feb 24, 3:05*pm, es330td wrote:
I read the the complex endorsement involves being instructed in
retractable gear, flaps and constant speed prop. *I'm learning to fly
in a C172, which has flaps, so it seems unusual to me that flaps are
specified in the complex rating given that I have been using them
since day one.

The only reasons I can guess that this is pointed out are that A:
people learn to fly in planes without flaps or B: flaps are "one more
thing to worry about" and so the definition includes all three to make
sure the pilot can handle multiple things to worry about in the small
amount of time one has to land a plane. *I'm leaning toward B but
thought I'd ask here.

Its a holdover from the olden days when flaps weren't standard
equipment, as they are now. In the next few months/years the FAA is
supposed to redo part 61, and many believe they will change the
complex requirement to something more modern.

buttman wrote in news:f2a1bdc1-f525-416f-a96d-
:

On Feb 24, 3:05*pm, es330td wrote:
I read the the complex endorsement involves being instructed in
retractable gear, flaps and constant speed prop. *I'm learning to fly
in a C172, which has flaps, so it seems unusual to me that flaps are
specified in the complex rating given that I have been using them
since day one.

The only reasons I can guess that this is pointed out are that A:
people learn to fly in planes without flaps or B: flaps are "one more
thing to worry about" and so the definition includes all three to make
sure the pilot can handle multiple things to worry about in the small
amount of time one has to land a plane. *I'm leaning toward B but
thought I'd ask here.

Its a holdover from the olden days when flaps weren't standard
equipment, as they are now.


No, it isn't


Bertie

On Feb 24, 4:40*pm, buttman wrote:
On Feb 24, 3:05*pm, es330td wrote:

Its a holdover from the olden days when flaps weren't standard
equipment, as they are now. In the next few months/years the FAA is
supposed to redo part 61, and many believe they will change the
complex requirement to something more modern.

Old days as in the 1990's.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:edbfad8d-752e-47b1-8543-
:

On Feb 24, 4:40*pm, buttman wrote:
On Feb 24, 3:05*pm, es330td wrote:

Its a holdover from the olden days when flaps weren't standard
equipment, as they are now. In the next few months/years the FAA is
supposed to redo part 61, and many believe they will change the
complex requirement to something more modern.

Old days as in the 1990's.


Well, the rules governing this sort of stuff were put in during the major
revamp in the 70s, and even then there were very few production aircraft
with no flaps.The Citabria ( and some of those had them) Pitts and Great
Lakes are the only three that come to mind..

And flaps are probably less "standard" than they were in the seventies.


Bertie

On Feb 24, 5:10*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:edbfad8d-752e-47b1-8543-
:

On Feb 24, 4:40*pm, buttman wrote:
On Feb 24, 3:05*pm, es330td wrote:

Its a holdover from the olden days when flaps weren't standard
equipment, as they are now. In the next few months/years the FAA is
supposed to redo part 61, and many believe they will change the
complex requirement to something more modern.

Old days as in the 1990's.

Well, the rules governing this sort of stuff were put in during the major
revamp in the 70s, and even then there were very few production aircraft
with no flaps.The Citabria ( and some of those had them) Pitts and Great
Lakes are the only three that come to mind..

I seem to remember the HP and complex endorsements coming of age in
the 90's. Before that I thought there was some sort of a hydrid
endorsement.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
:

On Feb 24, 5:10*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
news:edbfad8d-752e-47b1-8543-

:

On Feb 24, 4:40*pm, buttman wrote:
On Feb 24, 3:05*pm, es330td wrote:

Its a holdover from the olden days when flaps weren't standard
equipment, as they are now. In the next few months/years the FAA
is supposed to redo part 61, and many believe they will change the
complex requirement to something more modern.

Old days as in the 1990's.

Well, the rules governing this sort of stuff were put in during the
major revamp in the 70s, and even then there were very few production
aircraft with no flaps.The Citabria ( and some of those had them)
Pitts and Great Lakes are the only three that come to mind..

I seem to remember the HP and complex endorsements coming of age in
the 90's. Before that I thought there was some sort of a hydrid
endorsement.


No, definitely in the early to mid seventies. They may have been
modified and tweaked in the nineties, but they were definitely around in
the seventies. I had to sign quite a few guys off in the Stearman for
horsepower only, for instance. There was a major rejigging of the regs
around 73 or so. Before that, for instance, if you had a flight
instructor raing you could teach in anything you had a rating for.
Previous to that if you got a multi engine rating you could teach in
twins with no special CFIME add on to your instructor ticket. THe flight
instructor ticket was also limited to two years at this point.
A lot of further requirements for all ratings were added about this time
as well. Night training for the private, for instance. I never had one
minute of night instruction and i went off and did night flying the day
after I got my private. Next night i did a night cross country.. All
legal then. The BFR was also introduced at the same time if I'm not
mistaken.
I have no idea how to date these changes exactly, but I'm thinking
'73-'74.
Three inch numbers came in the same year,IIRC. This is the one we found
most exciting.

Bertie

On Feb 24, 6:21*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

No, definitely in the early to mid seventies. They may have been
modified and tweaked in the nineties, but they were definitely around in
the seventies. I had to sign quite a few guys off in the Stearman for
horsepower only, for instance. There was a major rejigging of the regs
around 73 or so. Before that, for instance, if you had a flight
instructor raing you could teach in anything you had a rating for.

My wife's grandfather held a commercial ticket with a flight
instructor rating. He still shows up on registry.faa.gov but it says
something like "Instructor rating not valid after 197x". I assume that
is when they introduced the instructor certificate. However, it makes
sense to say if you are rated to fly a ME plane and you have some the
ability to teach then why do you need a different checkride for the
MEI.

-Robert