Signing off a student you havn't flown with

TWP

TWP

Well-Known Member
Is it "technically" legal to sign a student off for a private pilot checkride without having seen all his maneuvers etc? I'm not going to do it, but I am curious.

I flew with him a few months ago to do a stage check, however I am not comfortable with signing him off without flying.

FAR 61.195 only prohibits certain things, but not the practical exam specifically.
 
TWP said:
Is it "technically" legal to sign a student off for a private pilot checkride without having seen all his maneuvers etc? I'm not going to do it, but I am curious.

I flew with him a few months ago to do a stage check, however I am not comfortable with signing him off without flying.

FAR 61.195 only prohibits certain things, but not the practical exam specifically.
Click to expand...

I don't know for sure, but looking at the 8710 it says:

Instructor's Recommendation: I have personally instructed the applicant and consider this person ready to take the test.
(and then you sign)

So, nothing specific on the form about all of the maneuvers, knowledge, or etc. that I could see.
 
I signed off a student to solo after a single flight with him. I knew his previous instructor really well, and could see from his single flight that he was ready. This was just to do his 3 stop-and-goes. Nothing more.

As far as a checkride goes, I think you are right. I can't find anything that says you must see everything, but I would be careful about a checkride.
 
BrewMaster said:
I signed off a student to solo after a single flight with him. I knew his previous instructor really well, and could see from his single flight that he was ready. This was just to do his 3 stop-and-goes. Nothing more.

As far as a checkride goes, I think you are right. I can't find anything that says you must see everything, but I would be careful about a checkride.
Click to expand...

Technically the FAA and NTSB judges have found this not to be satisfactory.
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/Aviation/4634.pdf

"Respondent argues that he “made every log entry required by
the language of the regulations.” Respondent’s Brief at 5. We
disagree. The plain language of section 61.87(m) indicates that
the required logbook endorsement “must certify” that the flight
instructor has given the student instruction in the make and
model aircraft to be used for solo flight, that he has found the
student meets the flight training requirements of Part 61, and
that he has found the student competent to conduct a solo flight."

61.87 Solo requirements for student pilots.
(p) Limitations on flight instructors authorizing solo flight. No instructor may authorize a student pilot to perform a solo flight unless that instructor has—

(1) Given that student pilot training in the make and model of aircraft or a similar make and model of aircraft in which the solo flight is to be flown;

(2) Determined the student pilot is proficient in the maneuvers and procedures prescribed in this section;
 
Hmm, that makes sense, I guess a checkride is considered a solo flight for the purpose of the ride
 
Blackhawk said:
Technically the FAA and NTSB judges have found this not to be satisfactory.
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/Aviation/4634.pdf
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that applies to BrewMaster's comment. He said that he did fly with him and "and could see from his single flight that he was ready."

I don't know what BrewMaster meant, but it's certainly possible to go up with a student who is ready to solo and have the student demonstrate that "the
student meets the flight training requirements of Part 61, and that he has found the student competent to conduct a solo flight."
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
I'm not sure that applies to BrewMaster's comment. He said that he did fly with him and "and could see from his single flight that he was ready."

I don't know what BrewMaster meant, but it's certainly possible to go up with a student who is ready to solo and have the student demonstrate that "the
student meets the flight training requirements of Part 61, and that he has found the student competent to conduct a solo flight."
Click to expand...

Yet 61.87 states:
"(2) Determined the student pilot is proficient in the maneuvers and procedures prescribed in this section;"
I don't see a modifier such as "some". While the case deals with the endorsement, it seems pretty clear from the reading that the endorsement means that the training prescribed has been done and that a CFI is to ensure a student pilot can do all the maneuvers prior to signing the endorsement- in this case the training was done, but the endorsement was not correct. Most safety inspectors I know would probably take a dim view of a CFI doing three stop and goes and then signing off a student they had never flown with before.
I think there was another case involving cross country flight training and a prior Navy pilot who was the student, but can't find it now. Will check later.
 
Blackhawk said:
Yet 61.87 states:
"(2) Determined the student pilot is proficient in the maneuvers and procedures prescribed in this section;"
I don't see a modifier such as "some". While the case deals with the endorsement, it seems pretty clear from the reading that the endorsement means that the training prescribed has been done and that a CFI is to ensure a student pilot can do all the maneuvers prior to signing the endorsement- in this case the training was done, but the endorsement was not correct. Most safety inspectors I know would probably take a dim view of a CFI doing three stop and goes and then signing off a student they had never flown with before.
I think there was another case involving cross country flight training and a prior Navy pilot who was the student, but can't find it now. Will check later.
Click to expand...
If he knew the instructor that flew the maneuvers with him, he could easily "determine" if the student was proficient in them by speaking to that instructor. It does not say the student must demonstrate the maneuvers for the instructor.
 
Blackhawk said:
Yet 61.87 states:
"(2) Determined the student pilot is proficient in the maneuvers and procedures prescribed in this section;"
I don't see a modifier such as "some". While the case deals with the endorsement, it seems pretty clear from the reading that the endorsement means that the training prescribed has been done and that a CFI is to ensure a student pilot can do all the maneuvers prior to signing the endorsement- in this case the training was done, but the endorsement was not correct. Most safety inspectors I know would probably take a dim view of a CFI doing three stop and goes and then signing off a student they had never flown with before.
I think there was another case involving cross country flight training and a prior Navy pilot who was the student, but can't find it now. Will check later.
Click to expand...
Why are you talking about 3 stop and goes?

I'm not talking about shortcuts. And I disagree with amjon's comment - the FAA would not take kindly to a response, "I relied on what another CFI told me."

Compare the list of maneuvers in 61.87 with the required tasks for a practical test. DPEs manage to cover all the requirements in a checkride and determine private pilot proficiency. Why can't a good CFI manage the much shorter list of 61.87 requirements for solo in a single session?
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
Why are you talking about 3 stop and goes?

I'm not talking about shortcuts. And I disagree with amjon's comment - the FAA would not take kindly to a response, "I relied on what another CFI told me."

Compare the list of maneuvers in 61.87 with the required tasks for a practical test. DPEs manage to cover all the requirements in a checkride and determine private pilot proficiency. Why can't a good CFI manage the much shorter list of 61.87 requirements for solo in a single session?
Click to expand...

Ummm... because that's what BrewMaster wrote:
"I signed off a student to solo after a single flight with him. I knew his previous instructor really well, and could see from his single flight that he was ready. This was just to do his 3 stop-and-goes. Nothing more."
I don't disagree that a single session could cover the maneuvers. I do disagree that three stop and goes would cover it.
 
amjon said:
If he knew the instructor that flew the maneuvers with him, he could easily "determine" if the student was proficient in them by speaking to that instructor. It does not say the student must demonstrate the maneuvers for the instructor.
Click to expand...

That is not determining if the student was proficient, that is relying on someone else. The FAA is quite clear that when you make the endorsement it is you the person signing the endorsement that has made the determination and evaluated the tasks. Not to say the legal aspect of signing something, but relying on someone else to make the determination that you are legally signing. It would be like a notary not checking your ID when they notarize something but relying on someone's word that you are that person. Any lawyer would have a field day with something like that.
 
Blackhawk said:
...
I don't disagree that a single session could cover the maneuvers. I do disagree that three stop and goes would cover it.
Click to expand...

I read the "3 stop-and-goes" to be the solo flight, not the proficiency check flight with the instructor.
 
Yes, what I was referring to was that we went out, I had him show me the bare minimum of maneuvers required for solo flight. I determined from this 1 flight and speaking with his previous instructor, who I trusted, that he was proficient. I didn't feel the need to waste any of his money by having to show me the maneuvers multiple times. I was comfortable seeing them the first time.

Some people might argue that 1 flight isn't enough to comfortable enough to sign him off. All I signed him off was for local solo flight but his actual solo after our first flight was to do three stop and goes. Next flight was a dual X/C.

In other words, I never taught him the maneuvers. He had them taught and logged by his previous instructor. He just demonstrated what I deduced as competency through talking with his previous instructor and showing me the maneuvers once. I then signed him off.
 
BrewMaster said:
Yes, what I was referring to was that we went out, I had him show me the bare minimum of maneuvers required for solo flight. I determined from this 1 flight and speaking with his previous instructor, who I trusted, that he was proficient. I didn't feel the need to waste any of his money by having to show me the maneuvers multiple times. I was comfortable seeing them the first time.

Some people might argue that 1 flight isn't enough to comfortable enough to sign him off. All I signed him off was for local solo flight but his actual solo after our first flight was to do three stop and goes. Next flight was a dual X/C.

In other words, I never taught him the maneuvers. He had them taught and logged by his previous instructor. He just demonstrated what I deduced as competency through talking with his previous instructor and showing me the maneuvers once. I then signed him off.
Click to expand...

That makes sense and I agree with what you did. Now saying the student need not demonstrate the maneuvers because someone you know saw them...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top