Constant Speed Prop Endorsement

I'm just about to do my first flight in a 9A with a constant speed prop. There seems to be some debate about rather I need to have a constant speed endorsement to do my first flight. Does anyone know rather this is necessary? The FAA regs seem to be some what confusing on this point as it's not a high performance engine ( O-320 in this case ) and it's obviously not a retract.

Thanks,

Nope

That's the short answer.

You need an endorsement for a complex aircraft = CS prop, flaps, retracts

If you don't have all three, then you don't have a "complex aircraft" and don't need an endorsement.

If you have an engine with more than 201hp, then technically you also need a high performance endorsement as well.

The regs are one thing, but prudent training is another matter entirely, especially if you are talking test flying. If you have not had any experience or training behind a CS prop, I would recommend at least going with an instructor or a friend in something with a CS prop so that you can get some experience. CS props are by no means complicated, even less so if you are running a non-turbo-charged engine.

But making your first test flight in a CS equipped aircraft with no CS experience is just going to add an unecessary stressor to your test flight. Make that test flight a non-event and go get an hour or two of CS training from your friendly local CFI. You need to get a feel for power settings as well as the braking action that most CS props provide when you pull the throttle back. And you need the instructor there to yell at you on your first go around when you forget to put the prop lever full forward before you throttle up - doh! Also, the same aircraft can have very different approach and landing characteristics when using a CS vs. FP prop.

Not wanting to split hairs... but.

Thanks very much for the quick reply.

I have time behind a CS prop as my transition training with my first RV was in a 6A with CS. I was lucky enough to catch a ride and do a little right seat PIC in the last few days in Scott Card's "fine" 9A that also sports a CS prop. So I'm pretty confident that I can do the FF without issue.

My question is actually about a CS endorsement by itself. I'm aware of the fact that I don't need a Complex endorsement as this appears to be a different subject. I was told by the CFI that did my last BFR that a "stand lone" CS endorsement was necessary, but when I ask other RV pilots they said it was not.

A google search of this came up with several hits of flight schools that will provide a pilot with both a Complex endorsement "and/or" a CS endorsement as two distinctly different endorsements.

So whats the story here?

Look at those links again...

They are in Australia....

In the US, we don't have that requirement. Here is an FAA document that lists the endorsements in a "personal training goals" section:

http://www.faa.gov/pilots/training/media/flight_review.pdf

See page 25.

Also, see:

http://www.faa.gov/safety/programs_initiatives/oversight/iasa/model_aviation/media/PART02.doc

See section 2.1.1.1 - there is no mention of an endorsement for a "controllable propellor" just by itself:

2.1.1.1 General Requirements: Personnel Licenses, Ratings, and Authorisations


(f) No person may act as the PIC of an aircraft unless that person holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating (if a class rating and type rating is required) for the aircraft to be flown, except where the pilot is the sole occupant of the aircraft, or—

(1) Is receiving training for the purpose of obtaining an additional pilot license or rating that is appropriate to that aircraft while under the supervision of an authorised instructor; or
(2) Has received training required by this Part that is appropriate to the aircraft category, class, and type rating (if a class or type rating is required) for the aircraft to be flown, and has received the required endorsements from an authorised instructor.
(g) A pilot may not act as PIC of an aircraft that is carrying another person, or is operated for compensation or hire, unless that pilot holds a category, class, and type rating (if a class and type rating is required) that applies to the aircraft.

Note: This subsection does not require a category and class rating for an aircraft not type certified as an aeroplane, rotorcraft, glider, powered-lift, or lighter-than-air aircraft.
(h) Except as provided in paragraph (i) of this subsection, no person may act as PIC of a complex aeroplane, high-performance aeroplane, or a pressurised aircraft capable of flight above 25,000 feet MSL, or an aircraft that the Authority has determined requires aircraft type‑specific training unless the person has—

(1) Received and logged ground and flight training from an authorised instructor in the applicable aeroplane type, or in an approved flight simulator or approved flight training device that is representative of that, and has been found proficient in the operation and systems of that aeroplane; and
(2) Received a one-time endorsement in the pilot’s logbook from an authorised instructor who certifies the person is proficient to operate that aircraft.
(i) The training and endorsement required by paragraph (h) of this subsection is not required if the person has logged flight time as PIC of that type of aircraft, or in an approved flight simulator or approved flight training device that is representative of such an aircraft, prior to [the effective date of the rule].

(j) Additional training required for operating tailwheel aeroplanes. Except as provided in paragraph (j)(3) of this subsection, no person may act as PIC of a tailwheel aeroplane unless that person has:

(1) Received and logged flight training from an authorised instructor in a tailwheel aeroplane on the manoeuvres and procedures listed in paragraph (j)(2) of this subsection.
(2) Received an endorsement in the person’s logbook from an authorised instructor who found the person proficient in the operation of a tailwheel aeroplane, to include at least normal and crosswind takeoffs and landings, wheel landings (unless the manufacturer has recommended against such landings), and go‑around procedures.
(3) The training and endorsement required by this subsection is not required if the person logged PIC time in a tailwheel aeroplane before [the effective date of this rule].
Implementing Standard: See IS: 2.1.2.7 for details on additional requirements and exemptions to the training requirements of this subsection.
ICAO Annex 1:2.1.2
JAR-FCL: 1.036 Subpart 4


And Section 2.1.1.2 definitions:

(1) Complex aeroplane. An aeroplane having retractable landing gear (except in seaplanes), flaps, and a controllable propeller.

Jeff B said:

Jim,
Rob is correct... There is no such thing as an "FAA required Constant Speed Prop Endorsement". The CFI may have been company trained for such a "thing" but outside of a flight school or FBO requirement, "your good to go!"

Click to expand...

Thanks Jeff, I don't blame Jim for questioning my quick answer - after all, you can get all sorts of opinions on forums and not necessarily good ones! Now Jim can sleep better knowing he is legal from a CFII.

RVPilotDotCom said:

I have time behind a CS prop as my transition training with my first RV was in a 6A with CS. I was lucky enough to catch a ride and do a little right seat PIC in the last few days in Scott Card's "fine" 9A that also sports a CS prop. So I'm pretty confident that I can do the FF without issue.

Click to expand...

Jim, glad to hear you had some basic training with a 6A with a CS prop and some right seat with Scott's CS prop eqipped 9A. You are doing all the right things and am very glad to hear that.

May your test flight be uneventful and routine - other than the big smile on your face when you taxi back.

Rob

I've seen a lot of things in the last 5 years of flight instructing, but never a "constant-speed prop endorsement". These guys are correct, no such thing for the FAA.

But, as was also stated, knowing how to use a constant-speed prop is something you may not want to figure out solo. (you already stated this wouldn't be the case).

Enjoy.

Get some training or practice

FAR's don't cover everything. Sometimes common sense kicks in. To me the intent is if you DON'T HAVE experience in something, endorsement or not, you need additional training and practice. It does not necessarily have to be from a CFI. A RV with a constant speed prop is not complex by FAR definition, but by my definition it's complex. If you never used a constant speed prop, 1st flight would no be the time to learn.

The first C/S prop / complex plane I flew was a Piper Arrow. It took me a few hours to get comfortable with the prop control. It took another few hours before it become second nature. You really don't want to have to use to much brain muscle to manipulate the prop control, which does take SOME finesse.

YOU don't want to be a test pilot and have to be thinking about, "Now do I move the prop control first or throttle first?" You should not be learning how to fly the prop on your first flight.

If you can find a complex training device or simulator to practice that might give you a level of comfort. Other wise find a plane with a controllable prop and go fly with someone, the pilot/owner a rent a plane (C182) with a CFI. Best of course would be some actual RV stick time with a C/S prop.


I learned, never to quote regs from memory:

************
Part 61
(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 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.
(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.


(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; an
(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.
************

Endorsement or not, I think you should get some experience / training if:

Never flew a RV
Never flew a stick
You're not current flying
Never used a constant speed prop



** FAR's are getting old and new to be updated to keep up with 'Complex', 'High-Perf', FADEC, EFIS. Planes with FADEC do not have controllable prop or mixture. Can you use a FADEC plane for a commercial pilot practical test, which requires a complex plane? Yes. But its not in the FAR's. The FAA has FAR guidelines to clear up the grey areas. If you are concerned call you local FSDO and confirm you are good to go with out a endorsement.

Another example, you get your private & IFR rating in a '07 C172 with Garmin 1000 EFIS, and it's the only plane you have ever flown. Can you just jumping in a 6-pack steam gauge 1978 Cessna 172 and blast off IFR/IMC. The opposite scenario is more likely. You never used a Garmin 1000. Would you go fly IFR with out practice/training on that EFIS? There is no FAR limit on flying a IFR C172, in IMC even if you never used that type of flight instruments or avionics. THAT WOULD BE DUMB.

Blue skies

RVPilotDotCom said:

I'm just about to do my first flight in a 9A with a constant speed prop. There seems to be some debate about rather I need to have a constant speed endorsement to do my first flight. Does anyone know rather this is necessary? The FAA regs seem to be some what confusing on this point as it's not a high performance engine ( O-320 in this case ) and it's obviously not a retract.

Thanks,

Click to expand...

Jim,
Best wishes on your first flight in your 9A.
And a million thanks for the excellent 8A construction website--it was helpful many times.
Mark

RVpilot.com site

Hey Jim,

Nice website you have there. And a VERY nice 8A!! Interesting it has the halon system. Was that complicated to install?

Good luck on your flight!

Thanks to all

Many thanks to all who responded for the answers, well wishes, and site compliments. Yes, as it turns out y'all are right on the money. Next good weather weekend day, I'm headed up.

Regarding the Halon system, I think I ended up spending about a day getting all the tubing routed and cable release installed. The bottle ended up behind the baggage compartment so the runs of tubing were quite long. After I sold that bird, the first thing the new owner did was rip it all out. Lesson learned. I passed on installing one in my new 9A. I guess the chance of an engine fire is so small that it's just not worth the extra weight penalty to plan for it.

Best of regards,

- Jim