Hi-performance endorsment with a experimental engine

FAA requires hi-performance endorsment for 200+ engines.
Is that requirement only for certified planes?
One CFI indicated that it is not required for experimentals.

FAA requires hi-performance endorsment for 200+ engines.
Is that requirement only for certified planes?
One CFI indicated that it is not required for experimentals.

Depends on the operating limitations of the aircraft in question. There
is an FAR somewhere that says, in effect, you don't need the appropriate
ratings to be legal -- legal that is, not safe. However, frequently the
operating limitations for that individual aircraft state differently.

Ed Wischmeyer

The hi-performance endorsement is for the pilot, not the aircraft.
Experimental/non-experimental is not a factor.

Also it is for greater than 200 hp, so a 200 hp does not require it.

"Paul Lee" wrote in message
om...
FAA requires hi-performance endorsment for 200+ engines.
Is that requirement only for certified planes?
One CFI indicated that it is not required for experimentals.

"x" wrote in message news:RI17b.395481$uu5.73501@sccrnsc04...
The hi-performance endorsement is for the pilot, not the aircraft.
Experimental/non-experimental is not a factor.

61.31 which talks about requirements for category, class, and type ratings as
well as the tailwheel, high performance, complex, and high altitude training
requirements, has a clause that exempts experimentals from the "ratings
limitations."

Eric Miller wrote:

Nod, I recently became aware that a tailwheel endorsement wasn't required to
fly a tailwheel experimental.

Tailwheel and/or high perf endorsements may not be required
by part 61, but it may (emphasize MAY) be required by your
operating limitations.

Dave 'read and heed' Hyde

"Dave Hyde" wrote
Tailwheel and/or high perf endorsements may not be required
by part 61, but it may (emphasize MAY) be required by your
operating limitations.

I gather you mean as specified by the FAA inspector on your airworthiness
certificate.

Well again, I wasn't *suggesting* anyone foregoes tailwheel/high perf
training.
In my book, this is definitely listed under Trivia

Eric

Eric Miller wrote:

Nod, I recently became aware that a tailwheel endorsement wasn't required to
fly a tailwheel experimental.

Tailwheel and/or high perf endorsements may not be required
by part 61, but it may (emphasize MAY) be required by your
operating limitations.

Dave 'read and heed' Hyde

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Quite true.
But, I've always wondered why Part 61 is not required
to stand on its own and be the final governing authority.

Kinda sux that a single high minded DAR can usurp the
authority and intent of a huge deliberate bureaucracy.

One should be free to kill oneself.
Is this not the American way? g


Barnyard BOb --

"Jerry Springer" wrote
No.. he meant the "operating limitations" which is the bible for each
individual experimental homebuilt aircraft. This is not spelled out
on the airworthiness certificate.

Jerry

POH right? As the builder, don't you write that yourself?

Eric

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 06:03:24 GMT, "Eric Miller"
wrote:

"Jerry Springer" wrote
No.. he meant the "operating limitations" which is the bible for each
individual experimental homebuilt aircraft. This is not spelled out
on the airworthiness certificate.

Jerry

POH right? As the builder, don't you write that yourself?

Eric
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Nope.
Operating limitations are not the POH.


Barnyard BOb --

"Barnyard BOb --" wrote
Nope.
Operating limitations are not the POH.

Barnyard BOb --

Alright, I said as "part of airworthiness certificate", which is wrong.
But I also said, as "specified by inspector", which is right, n'est ce pas?

Eric