solo endorsement question

eliteflight said:
Excellent point. 61-65E contains recommended language for such an endorsement, but I have been unable to find anything in the FARs requiring it.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't an advisory circular considered to be regulatory in nature if it references a Federal Regulation from the FARs? If I am right here then 61-65E mention of the knowledge endorsement with link to 61.87 (b) (ii) would be where it is required by regulation.



Huh? Please clarify what the phrase "thinking like this" refers to, and how it has killed many airline captains.
Click to expand...

The belittling nature of the statement implies you are quick to think less of a pilot because of their lack of experience. It is simply a poor crew attitude that has lead to the unfortunate death of many (Tenerife being one of the more popular examples).



I understand his is just opinion and I didn't argue that it was or wasn't an opinion. But it was the advice of a legal aid which for this regulation is the best advice I have come across. Being that we are all in agreement with the interpretation this seems allot more to me like we all see the regulation know what it means and just don't like it so we want to see if it is really true. (I agree it is ridiculous but I still follow it)

The advice to keep with the regulation is to add an airport to the end of your 90 day/knowledge endorsement and then for any other airports where solo activity will be covered in this exact specific scenario you gave, we were told to do what I stated above. Logically it makes sense to me, you said it yourself that it made sense to you, and there is no documentation stating otherwise that anyone has located. The conclusion to me seems to be, bite the bullet and write a 2 line endorsement for 61.87 (b) (ii) and do the flight.
 
shdw said:
Correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't an advisory circular considered to be regulatory in nature if it references a Federal Regulation from the FARs?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Especially when the AC itself says

==============================
The following examples are recommended sample endorsements for use by authorized instructors when endorsing logbooks for airmen applying for a knowledge or practical test, or when certifying accomplishment of requirements for pilot operating privileges. Each endorsement must be legible and include the instructor’s signature, date of signature, certificated flight instructor (CFI) or certificated ground instructor (CGI) certificate number, and certificate expiration date, if applicable. The purpose for this advisory circular is to provide guidance and to encourage standardization among instructors.
==============================

ACs can be regulatory, but usually there will be some kind of mandatory language.

I am not saying you shouldn't do it. Besides, since the knowledge test probably constitutes ground training, it requires some kind of endorsement under 61.51(b)(2)(4) and 61.189(a). The "endorsement" works nicely for standardization even if not technically required.
 
shdw said:
:yeahthat:

Thanks for the info on AC's.
Click to expand...
Watch out for "regulatory" - "non-regulatory" distinctions. Pretty much by definition, ACs are "non-regulatory." But very clearly, they can and often do contain information that is. They might include quotes to regs, official interpretations of regs, the gist of FAA Orders and a whole bunch of other information that is "regulatory." An AC on traffic patterns at non-towered airports might tell you to use a left pattern unless there is an indication otherwise. The AC might not be "regulatory," but the right-pattern rule it's telling you about sure is.

There's no bright line there and the distinction can be very fuzzy. Your aviation law prof wasn't wrong - just trying to simplify something than can be a bit more complicated.

On some other boards I have a signature line that includes my top 4 "Aviation Regulation Fallacies and Half-Truths." No. 1 is "The AIM is not regulatory." Same idea.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
On some other boards I have a signature line that includes my top 4 "Aviation Regulation Fallacies and Half-Truths." No. 1 is "The AIM is not regulatory." Same idea.
Click to expand...

Well if you don't mind, let us start on a case by case basis, I really don't fully understand what you mean. If you have a link, that would be wonderful since this regulation stuff can get so complicated I would love to have a firm grip on how to keep my but out of the fire. Here is the example that I was referring to above:

c. The following pre-solo requirements must be met:
(1) Before being authorized to conduct a solo flight, a student pilot must have
demonstrated satisfactory aeronautical knowledge by completion of a knowledge test (see
§ 61.87(b)).
Click to expand...

Now my understanding of ACs this would be a regulatory statement because it references a FAR and uses the term must, is that right?

We were told when reading ACs words like must and shall imply the AC is regulatory (for that section) and words like can or should would imply a non-regulatory nature. There was actually a list of a bunch of regulatory and non-regulatory words that we were given, I took this class 4 years ago and don't want to go digging around looking for my notes.
 
mojo6911 said:
I wouldn't be surprised if the FSDo, FAA legal, and DPE all have different answers.
Click to expand...

And dont forget if you talked to two different people at the FSDO, you will also get two different answers. I have done this more than once, I have no faith in them....
 
The belittling nature of the statement implies you are quick to think less of a pilot because of their lack of experience.
Click to expand...

Shdw, my comment was a frank observation, and a note of concern. If you want to take it as an insult, that is your choice.

(The rest of this post has been deleted, because I realized I was wasting my time.)
 
shdw said:
Now my understanding of ACs this would be a regulatory statement because it references a FAR and uses the term must, is that right?

We were told when reading ACs words like must and shall imply the AC is regulatory (for that section) and words like can or should would imply a non-regulatory nature.
Click to expand...
That works for all practical purposes.

My version would be that when the AC uses words like must and shall, it implies that the AC is referring to something is regulatory.

Take that one you quoted:
c. The following pre-solo requirements must be met:
(1) Before being authorized to conduct a solo flight, a student pilot must have demonstrated satisfactory aeronautical knowledge by completion of a knowledge test (see § 61.87(b)).
Click to expand...
I would say that the AC isn't regulatory but that it is telling you about something that is.

But so long as you understand the concept (it sure looks like you do) the specific way you choose to look at it probably doesn't matter, so long as it makes sense to you.
 
Just thought I would throw this out there...

You could just have the student wait until he does his solo xc's. Then he could fly into that particular airport, see his parents, and then be on his way.
 
You could just have the student wait until he does his solo xc's. Then he could fly into that particular airport, see his parents, and then be on his way.
Click to expand...

I suggested that, but he's keen on doing it sooner. We had originally planned to have his parents present for his first solo, but weather rescheduling messed up that plan. I don't want to diminish his enthusiasm, so I'm willing to oblige. I just want to be sure we have all the legal bases covered. He did like the idea, though, and may stop to have lunch with his parents on one of his solo cross-countries.
 
eliteflight said:
Shdw, my comment was a frank observation, and a note of concern. If you want to take it as an insult, that is your choice.

(The rest of this post has been deleted, because I realized I was wasting my time.)
Click to expand...

See your PM that is a better place for this.



Midlife, thanks that makes perfect sense but let me still see if I have it right. It explains a regulation and/or how to follow it to keep yourself legal which since released by the government is basically the best legal advice you can get?
 
shdw said:
Midlife, thanks that makes perfect sense but let me still see if I have it right. It explains a regulation and/or how to follow it to keep yourself legal which since released by the government is basically the best legal advice you can get?
Click to expand...
Following agency "guidance" (from the FAA or any of the other regulatory agencies) is usually an effective way to stay on the right side of the regulations.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
Following agency "guidance" (from the FAA or any of the other regulatory agencies) is usually an effective way to stay on the right side of the regulations.
Click to expand...

Words like that are why I decided being an attorney wasn't worth it, too much technical detail on wording and phrasing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top