Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Does a High Performance Endorsement count towards BFR
- Thread starter Go4it
- Start date
So the simple answer is no. A high performance endorsement is not a substitute for a flight review. As stated above they could have been combined and both done at the same time. Ask your cfi how much more is required for a flight review sign off.
PS. If I were doing the flight review I would not be happy until you knew, or at least knew where to look up, the answer to your own question! -
PS. If I were doing the flight review I would not be happy until you knew, or at least knew where to look up, the answer to your own question! -
DanBaier
Well Known Member
No - the HP endorsement isn't the same as a proficiency check or practical test given by an examiner (see FAR 61.56).
As others have said, it could have been done at the same time (with a little planning), but pointing to the HP endorsement as satisfying the FR won't work.
Dan
jjconstant
Well Known Member
But he did know where to look up the answer It's just not FAA approved but the references were good
It's just not FAA approved but the references were good
Skykingbob
Well Known Member
Nice
Haha....touche Jeremy!!
Haha....touche Jeremy!!
BFR
61.56(2) states that the maneuvers covered on the flight review are entirely at the discretion of the instructor. Therefore if the OP flight lasted at least one hour it COULD have been a flight review at the discretion of the instructor.
I am addressing only the flight portion, not the ground training.
61.56(2) states that the maneuvers covered on the flight review are entirely at the discretion of the instructor. Therefore if the OP flight lasted at least one hour it COULD have been a flight review at the discretion of the instructor.
I am addressing only the flight portion, not the ground training.
rmartingt
Well Known Member
Perhaps a better question... what is the real point of a so-called "high-performance" endorsement?
I ask because this requires a so-called "high performance" endorsement:
And yet this does not:
An RV-10 requires this so-called "high performance" endorsement, but the similar-handling and similar-performing RV-9A does not. What's the real difference, besides another weight and balance entry (which you also see on the non-high-performance C172) and an extra pair of CHTs and EGTs to watch?
If they wanted to link an endorsement to performance, shouldn't it have been linked to actual aircraft performance rather than engine horsepower?
(And yes, I realize it's not like it's a whole new rating to go get, and less involved than a tailwheel endorsement, but the inconsistency bugs me)
I ask because this requires a so-called "high performance" endorsement:
And yet this does not:
An RV-10 requires this so-called "high performance" endorsement, but the similar-handling and similar-performing RV-9A does not. What's the real difference, besides another weight and balance entry (which you also see on the non-high-performance C172) and an extra pair of CHTs and EGTs to watch?
If they wanted to link an endorsement to performance, shouldn't it have been linked to actual aircraft performance rather than engine horsepower?
(And yes, I realize it's not like it's a whole new rating to go get, and less involved than a tailwheel endorsement, but the inconsistency bugs me)
I agree, but otoh setting a simple one size fits all standard is a lot simpler than setting a standard (high performance or not?) for every aircraft out there.
I am old enough to be able to fly retractables with no complex endorsement in my logbook - I was grandfathered in when the FAA changed the rules. (it used to be that only one endorsement - and it was called 'high performance'- was required for either what today are called high performance or complex aircraft. I never understood the reason for the rule change.)
Edit: I do think that if you only think about normally certified aircraft - which is where the FAA's mind set usually is - then 200 HP is about right, where performance starts to exceed a 172's. Except I'd put the 200 HP fixed gear Cirrus on the other side. So it is arbitrary.
Last edited:
twisted-wrench
Active Member
What counts as HP? Is it the Data Plate, if listed, the dyno log, or the advertised number?
I'm thinking there a lot of IO-360s and IO-375s that are pumping excess of 200.
What if it is not in the aircraft/engine logs?
I'm thinking there a lot of IO-360s and IO-375s that are pumping excess of 200.
What if it is not in the aircraft/engine logs?
Fastwind67
Member
Exemptions
Although Go4IT asked if the HP Endorse "counted as my BFR" I suspect - though he has not said it - that he may have been thinking it could EXEMPT him from the need for a Flight Review under:
(d) A person who has, within the period specified in paragraph (c) of this section, passed a pilot proficiency check conducted by an examiner, an approved pilot check airman, or a U.S. Armed Force, for a pilot certificate, rating, or operating privilege need not accomplish the flight review required by this section.
If one considered the HP endorsement a "proficiency check" for an "operating privilege" and confused his CFI with "an examiner or approved pilot check airman" they might conclude themselves exempt. They would not, however, be exempt because the above would be, in my opinion, a misinterpretation of paragraph (d)
Although Go4IT asked if the HP Endorse "counted as my BFR" I suspect - though he has not said it - that he may have been thinking it could EXEMPT him from the need for a Flight Review under:
(d) A person who has, within the period specified in paragraph (c) of this section, passed a pilot proficiency check conducted by an examiner, an approved pilot check airman, or a U.S. Armed Force, for a pilot certificate, rating, or operating privilege need not accomplish the flight review required by this section.
If one considered the HP endorsement a "proficiency check" for an "operating privilege" and confused his CFI with "an examiner or approved pilot check airman" they might conclude themselves exempt. They would not, however, be exempt because the above would be, in my opinion, a misinterpretation of paragraph (d)
That would also be the FAA's opinion.
In fact, not too long ago the FAA legal department ruled that an examiner check ride for a cfi certificate did not meet the standard, either, because a cfi certificate was not a pilot certificate. 61.56 was recently ammended to allow this (cfi check ride) as a flight review substitute.
My CFI check ride was certainly more thorough and stressful than any flight review. On top of that.... you can't fail a flight review. You can sure fail a CFI rating issuance.
Having said all that.... the flight review parameters are loose. The CFI can determine any set of items to go over, at his or her discretion.
They are actually fun (for the RV crowd). By and large, I don't find the RV owners to be rusty... sluggish....out of touch with airspace rules... unaware of what is happening up there under the cowl...etc.
Now, the spam can crowd, that is another story.
So, if anyone lives around the southwest and wants to visit Sedona, Flagstaff, Prescott or even Deer Valley when it is not 181 deg. F down there.... I give RV flight reviews. And the icing on the cake is that they are free.
Have a great, and safe Sunday out there.
Having said all that.... the flight review parameters are loose. The CFI can determine any set of items to go over, at his or her discretion.
They are actually fun (for the RV crowd). By and large, I don't find the RV owners to be rusty... sluggish....out of touch with airspace rules... unaware of what is happening up there under the cowl...etc.
Now, the spam can crowd, that is another story.
So, if anyone lives around the southwest and wants to visit Sedona, Flagstaff, Prescott or even Deer Valley when it is not 181 deg. F down there.... I give RV flight reviews. And the icing on the cake is that they are free.
Have a great, and safe Sunday out there.
