Student pilot initial solo and 90 day endorsement

[atracnitrix]

Okay so I'm at a loss right now. My last and current flight school do this...

When giving a student pilot their initial solo endorsement, they also give them a 90 day solo endorsement as well. What is the reasoning behind this? I was under the impression that the initial solo endorsement was good for 90 days and THEN you would give a 90 day endorsement. 61.87 (n)(2) states " An endorsement in the student's logbook for the specific make and model aircraft to be flown by an authorized instructor, who gave training within the 90 days preceding the date of the flight". Other than that, that's all I could find. Thanks!!

 

[thevideographer]

They need to have the pre-solo knowledge test endorsement in their logbook, initial solo endorsement on their certificate, and initial solo endorsement in their logbook (both with aircraft make and model). AFAIK there is no need to give another endorsement until the 90 days is up after the initial. According to 61.87(p)(5), "endorsed the student pilot's logbook for the specific make and model aircraft to be flown, and that endorsement remains current for solo flight privileges, provided an authorized instructor updates the student's logbook every 90 days thereafter."

 

[Greg01]

Not to change the subject, but where in part 61 does it say an endorsement is required for the pre-solo knowledge exam?

Greg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Houston]

Not to change the subject, but where in part 61 does it say an endorsement is required for the pre-solo knowledge exam?

That is a good question. I see the requirement to give the test and correct it to 100% per 61.87(b), but it doesn't specifically say in Part 61 that an endorsement is required. However, in the old John Lynch FAQ's it does indicate an endorsement is required and there is a corresponding sample endorsement in AC 61-65E.

So, if a person were inclined to argue the point, they could make a good argument that it isn't required. However, since the endorsement is more to protect the CFI as a demonstration of having done the required training, it would be unwise to be inclined to argue the point.

I might add that in the old John Lynch FAQ's he goes on to say that the test and the endorsement is not required if the person holds a certificate above the student pilot level and is transitioning into another class of aircraft. Personally, I don't care if it isn't required. If I have a transition student there is no harm done in giving them the test and making the endorsement. As the old saying goes, "better safe than sorry".

 

[Houston]

Okay so I'm at a loss right now. My last and current flight school do this...

When giving a student pilot their initial solo endorsement, they also give them a 90 day solo endorsement as well. What is the reasoning behind this? I was under the impression that the initial solo endorsement was good for 90 days and THEN you would give a 90 day endorsement. 61.87 (n)(2) states " An endorsement in the student's logbook for the specific make and model aircraft to be flown by an authorized instructor, who gave training within the 90 days preceding the date of the flight". Other than that, that's all I could find. Thanks!!

I'm at a loss there too and your logic sounds perfect to me.

The only caveat I'd throw in there is that I'd never give an initial solo endorsement for 90 days. I put a whole list of limitations on the first endorsement. Those include wind, weather, time of day, prior coordination with the CFI, and the duration of the endorsement. If I copy the sample endorsement in the AC, the student could go away, not touch and airplane for 89 day, and then come back and attempt to solo in a strong crosswind. I don't want my signature on something like that. So, I start with a very restrictive endorsement. Then as their skills improve and their experience increases, I'll make progressively less restrictive endorsements.

 

[Greg01]

Houston,

I agree. Better to be safe than sorry and I'm all about CYA. I just thought it was interesting that 61-65E puts it in there yet it isn't legally required. Do I still do it, yes. I see it as the official documentation saying the requirement has been met. The AC is not perfect, that's for sure.

Greg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Houston]

Houston,

I agree. Better to be safe than sorry and I'm all about CYA. I just thought it was interesting that 61-65E puts it in there yet it isn't legally required. Do I still do it, yes. I see it as the official documentation saying the requirement has been met. The AC is not perfect, that's for sure.

I agree. The only thing I might work in more detail is the idea that it isn't legally required. It's more of an area that could be argued either way. Whether is is "legally required" can only be determined by an NTSB judge. I think you're wise to do it as you have been. It doesn't cost anything and it's a heck of a lot better than somehow stumbling into being a test case in court or worse.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

The AC is not perfect, that's for sure.

Nor is it intended to be. The model endorsements are what is referred to in other administrative law contexts, "safe harbor" language. They are not required but when used as instructed are considered to be legally sufficient to comply with the underlying regs. So they will sometimes have extraneous material, will sometimes make no sense grammatically. But will generally serve some useful purpose.

The pre-solo knowledge test endorsement is a perfect example. The reg doesn't require a logbook endorsement. But the AC endorsement provides accepted documentation (although not the only possible documentation) that it was given.