7
$\begingroup$

I was having a discussion with a colleague about what aircraft qualify for logging complex time. We were discussing whether or not time flying transport-category turbojet aircraft qualified as complex according to the regulations. It's probably irrelevant at that point in a career, but my interpretation is that turbojet aircraft are not complex. 14 CFR 61.1 defines a complex aircraft as one having a retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller. It goes on to give some provisions for control computer or FADEC, but it still mentions propellor controls. In turbojet aircraft you just set the throttle, even if there are a lot of computer-controlled variables changing in the engine.

While it's not a jet, the Daher-Socata TBM 900 single-engine turboprop airplane has a single throttle quadrant and an automatically controlled propeller. It's still considered complex under the regulations even though there's no lever to adjust the prop and it's still complex. I give this example only because it has a single throttle lever and is still complex.

TBM 900 Throttle Quadrant

I'd love to get more interpretations on whether turbojet aircraft are technically complex according to the definitions of 14 CFR 61.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
11
  • $\begingroup$ I'm a bit confused by your terminology: turbojets have no propellers and most modern 'jet' engines are really turbofans, which also have no propellers. Or are you asking about turboprops? $\endgroup$
    – Pondlife
    Nov 11, 2015 at 14:49
  • $\begingroup$ Daher-Socata TBM 900 is not a turbojet (nor turbofan), it is a turboprop. And it is unusual among turbo-props with not having a propeller control. Most turboprops do have propeller pitch levers that control the desired RPM and allow feathering the propellers. $\endgroup$
    – Jan Hudec
    Nov 11, 2015 at 18:14
  • $\begingroup$ Did I say that the TBM 900 is a turbojet? $\endgroup$
    – ryan1618
    Nov 11, 2015 at 18:45
  • $\begingroup$ @RyanBurnette: Well, you consistently refer to "turbojet aircraft", and then use the TBM 900 as an example. $\endgroup$
    – Fred Larson
    Nov 11, 2015 at 19:00
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ Take one of the blank columns in your logbook and write "Turbine" in it. Put your turbine time there. When you can finally start logging that the only logging category that truly matters going forward is "turbine PIC". No one is going to ask for "complex", "high performance" or "high altitude" time once you get to that stage of your career. $\endgroup$
    – casey
    Nov 11, 2015 at 19:00

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
5
$\begingroup$

Complex ratings apply only to aircraft with propellers, so any kind of jet aircraft is by definition not complex.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I would add that all turbojets require type ratings so wouldn't be covered by the general category-class with endorsement system anyway. $\endgroup$
    – Max Power
    Aug 5 at 2:09
0
$\begingroup$

Turboprops area complex, certainly because of the gear and flaps.

Regarding the prop, of course, some do have prop levers, but many single-engine FADEC systems have electric prop governors. In the case of 2-lever systems, like the TBM and the PC-12, there is a condition lever which does indeed control the prop, even though only in certain regimes of flight.

See What does the condition lever in turboprops control?

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

It's one of those arbitrary and outdated regs from the dark days of the FAA. I bet you could log it as TAA, which is now a substitute for complex as far as the commercial certificate requirements. Again not a great regulation, they could have combined the two and said aircraft with any combination of 3 or more items of this list...(Bureaucrats and fudds, whatta ya gonna do.)

I mean why can you fly a turboprop(under 12500lb) with a standard cat and class rating but all turbo-jet/fan require a type rating? A turbo-prop is far more complicated both operationally and for points of failure. When the reg was pushed a bunch of old fudds still saw jets as magical black-ops military stuff but that prop makes them look familiar.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .