Endorsement question, Cross Country

J

Josh

Well-Known Member
Ok, so was going to sign off another instructors student for their solo cross country.

Ya know there are two logbook endorsements required for cross country (in addition to the solo stuff required, and the student pilot cert stuff). Anyhow, as I was reviewing the plan, and getting ready to sign, I noticed the other instructor had not done the endorsement required for cross country. Here are the two examples given in AC61-65D:

6. Initial solo cross-country flight: § 61.93(c)(1)
I certify that (First name, MI, Last name) has received the required solo cross-country training. I find he/she
has met the applicable requirements of § 61.93, and is proficient to make solo cross-country flights in a (make
and model aircraft).
S/S [date] J.J. Jones 987654321CFI Exp. 12-31-00

7. Solo cross-country flight: § 61.93(c)(2)
I have reviewed the cross country planning of (First name, MI, Last name). I find the planning and
preparation to be correct to make the solo flight from (location) to (destination) via (route of flight) with
landings at (name the airports) in a (make and model aircraft) on (date). (List any applicable conditions or
limitations.)
S/S [date] J.J. Jones 987654321CFI Exp. 12-31-00


So number 6 above was not done. I was going to sign the one listed as 7 above for the flight. Thing is, student had already done one solo cross country, without having 6 above signed. The preprinted endorsement in the logbook was written very poorly, but it was basically the wording for 7 above (without any actual FAR number references - stupid "Standard" brand logbooks).

Anyhow, the student agreed with me the number 6 endorsement listed above was not to be found.

There was a logging of ground time by the other instructor, 1.6hrs that said 61.93 completed. I think logging training time, is not an endorsement.

Anyhow, this is an old time instructor, who I know is going to say what is there is good enough. I've got AC61-65D to back up my reasoning.

Anyone had a similar situation? A maybe point to other references (other than the FARs and the AC that say both are required).

Thanks. Kinda long question, but a weird situation. That other instructor is back in a couple of days, and can deal with this. I was not asked by the other instructor to do the endorsement (number 7 above) but rather was asked by the student, since the instructor was out of town. Text above (6 and 7) were copied directly from the AC.

Other comments?
 
It's certainly worth asking the other instructor. Could be a simple oversight, could be he knows something we don't, or was given scoop by the FSDO that says the ground training will suffice.

Please let us know what the deal is.

-Lostcomm
 
You defidently should NOT sign the student off for the cross country... That first solo endorsement has to be done by an intructor who gave the training to the student on all the required Ground AND Flight requirements. SO even if that ground entry in the students book is an endorsement for the ground training (which it sounds like it's not, just a record of ground taining) the flight part is still missing.

So if you would have signed him off, and he got ramped... say bye bye to your CFI!

In all reality, that first XC flight was made illegally...

You need to get a hold of the other instructor ASAP and have him correct the situation and have him make the required endorsement. Until then, no solo XCs for that student pilot.

Sounds like you made the right call! Great Job!

-Erik
 
Ok, I don't think I made the incorrect call.

Guess what I'm really kinda searching for is a good way to show the other instructor. Other instructor, has been instructing for YEARS, and kinda always says his way is right (even if it is not). Student understood the first XC was not really valid without that missing endorsement.

If there is one of those "ask the FSDO" online on a question like this, already printed somewhere, to show that yes, both are requried, I'd like to be able to show the other instructor, in black and white, what it says.
I think 61.93(d)(4) below is missing. And the 61.93(c)(2)(i) seems to indicate that it is in fact separate from the 61.93(c)(2)(ii). Anyhow, if any of y'all have access to a "Standard" brand logbook, take a look at the preprinted stuff in back, and you'll see the one the other instructor did do, is just the per flight thing.

Problem is, with this FAR wording:


61.93(c)(2) Logbook endorsement.
(i) A student pilot must have a solo cross-country endorsement from an authorized instructor that is placed in the student pilot's logbook for the specific make and model of aircraft to be flown.

(ii) For each cross-country flight, the authorized instructor who reviews the cross-country planning must make an endorsement in the person's logbook after reviewing that person's cross-country planning, as specified in paragraph (d) of this section. The endorsement must—
(A) Specify the make and model of aircraft to be flown;
(B) State that the student's preflight planning and preparation is correct and that the student is prepared to make the flight safely under the known conditions; and
(C) State that any limitations required by the student's authorized instructor are met.


61.93(d) Limitations on authorized instructors to permit solo cross-country flights. An authorized instructor may not permit a student pilot to conduct a solo cross-country flight unless that instructor has:

(1) Determined that the student's cross-country planning is correct for the flight;

(2) Reviewed the current and forecast weather conditions and has determined that the flight can be completed under VFR;

(3) Determined that the student is proficient to conduct the flight safely;

(4) Determined that the student has the appropriate solo cross-country endorsement for the make and model of aircraft to be flown; and

(5) Determined that the student's solo flight endorsement is current for the make and model aircraft to be flown.
 
a) you made the right call. however...

[ QUOTE ]

Problem is, with this FAR wording:


[/ QUOTE ]


i don't think there's anything too unclear about the wording of the FAR in this case. it simply means that the instructor who gave the cross country dual flight must give an endorsement, then ANY instructor can give an endorsement for a specific route (after reviewing planning, etc etc). am i missing the point of this whole post? even if the other instructor insists he's right, you might show him the FAR you quoted as well as AC61-65D and point out that he clearly needed to give an XC endorsement for make & model. is there a chief instructor or another instructor you can get to help you make your case?
 
Have the FAR references, and 61-65D ready to go. Showed them to the student as well, to make clear what the issue is.

[ QUOTE ]
is there a chief instructor or another instructor you can get to help you make your case?

[/ QUOTE ]
Chief instructor, well, that is the issue. He is the one who didn't make this other required endorsement.

I'm sure I could get plenty of others to back up how the regs read, including the local FSDO, and on field DPE, as well as other CFIs. But, ya know how some people just won't give an inch that anything they did (or didn't do as this case is) may have been wrong.

Thanks.
 
Remember that your responsibility is to do your job correctly. In this case it means only doing the sign-off if it is legal and proper for you to do so.

It is not necessarily your responsibility to educate or correct your chief CFI. If you are questioned about why you didn't sign-off the solo student's flight, then just explain your answer in relation to the pertinent regulations. Treat it as something that you can't do because of how you understand the regs. Don't make it about his understanding (or lack thereof). This takes it out of the realm of being confrontational between the two of you, and leaves it as your intrepretation. If handled correctly, the chief will either understand your point of view about your actions (not necessary for him to directly admit any error in this case), or he will have to dig into the FAR's to try to convince you that his intrepretation is correct. In this case one of two things will happen: he will see the error of his ways by doing his homework, or; he will state his case and try to convince you that you were wrong. If he tries to change your mind you can respond: "I think I understand your viewpoint, but I read them a little differently. I would feel more comfortable taking the more conservative interpretation of the regulations. It is my license on the line, after all."
 
Yeah Steve. That is kinda how I left it with the student. I pointed out in 61.93 where it says I can't endorse, unless... and then to the specific parts that it refers to. Student understands, and will relate that to the other instructor. If there are questions beyond that, I expect it to come to me as to why I didn't sign off. I have no problem answering that. I certainly am not going to risk myself on something something like this that read one way.

Well, I'll see how it all turns out on Monday.
 
Which, John, is likely why this guy didn't think he had to do this. Failing to keep up with what the regs say. We may all hate it, but the rules we must operate under are published, and do change from time to time.

Anyhow, this reminds me. All ends up, he did a little fiddle around with the log book, and student went on the xc a few days later. I still want to look at how he 'modified' that log to make it all sorta legal, and I'll ask the student to see it someday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top