Written Test Results Endorsement

[Dazzler]

On the written test results, there's an endorsement to be signed to show that the applicant has been given additional training in the areas of deficiency.

Does this have to be signed if the applicant passed the test, but scored less than 100%?

I thought it only had to be signed by an instructor if the applicant failed the test, but someone I was speaking to recently thought otherwise.

 

[nosehair]

That is where you sign when the student fails the test. He needs to present the failed test with the endorsement to re-take the test.

The other endorsement you (or someone) are talking about is in 61.39(6)(iii) which requires an endorsement stating you have reviewed all deficient areas on the test prior to the checkride. This is not for a failed test, it is for the passing test which is required as 'Prerequisite for a practical test'.61.39

 

[PanJet]

The other endorsement you (or someone) are talking about is in 61.39(6)(iii) which requires an endorsement stating you have reviewed all deficient areas on the test prior to the checkride. This is not for a failed test, it is for the passing test which is required as 'Prerequisite for a practical test'.61.39

I'd like to know where this came from. The endorsement in 61.39(6)(iii) is not in itself separate from the practical test endorsement. All of the three parts fall under 61.39(6). There are not each in themselves separate endorsements from what I understand.

This issue came up at our flight school recently when one of our students went for a checkride with an examiner we don't normally use. He was upset because the student did not have a specific endorsement talking about reviewing the knowledge test deficiencies.

This endorsement doesn't even appear in AC 61-65E, which I'm sure it would if it were a required endorsement separate from the practical test endorsement.

 

[tgrayson]

The endorsement in 61.39(6)(iii) is not in itself separate from the practical test endorsement. All of the three parts fall under 61.39(6). There are not each in themselves separate endorsements from what I understand..

There is no required way to write these endorsements; the 61-65E text only contains recommendations. I usually write the 61.39 endorsement as one, but I list the textual description of each of the three requirements. Does it have to be written this way? Probably not. You could probably just reference 61.39 and be ok. I think our examiner just looks for this paragraph number and ignores the text.

One examiner told me that one school just provides a single, monolithic endorsement that contains all the required references. I expect that you could break up the 63.39 endorsement into three, if you wanted to.

But the 61.39 endorsement is necessary, in spite of it being left out of AC61-65E. The FAQ's make that clear. For some reason, the author bends over backwards to avoid admitting the FAA screwed up leaving it out of the AC. I would have thought it would be in the "E" version though. (I haven't looked...I have stickers.)

 

[PanJet]

But the 61.39 endorsement is necessary, in spite of it being left out of AC61-65E. The FAQ's make that clear. For some reason, the author bends over backwards to avoid admitting the FAA screwed up leaving it out of the AC. I would have thought it would be in the "E" version though. (I haven't looked...I have stickers.)

61.39(6) was not left out of AC61-65E as I understand. The endorsement found in 61.39(6) as a whole IS the practical test endorsement the way I see it.

61.39(6) says that you must "have AN endorsement," and then proceeds to list the requirements of that endorsement, the second requirement being "Is prepared for the practical test." I think the "an endorsement" part qualifies it as one endorsement that covers all areas specified.

I'm not saying I'm necessarily correct, and I'd like more input and clarification because this has been an issue as of recent at our flight school.

 

[nosehair]

I'm not saying I'm necessarily correct, and I'd like more input and clarification because this has been an issue as of recent at our flight school.

It is entirely the examiner's choice as to how he wants to see the endorsement.
Just like you (the instructor) have the discretion to see a particular student performance before you sign them off for solo.
The examiner can require to see a specific reference to an endorsement of each item listed in 61.39.
Also, each Designated Examiner is under supervision of a FSDO, and different FSDO's have different policies on different things,...sooo, if you instruct around the country, you are better off to make an endorsement that says you have done all things in 61.39.

 

[tgrayson]

61.39(6) says that you must "have AN endorsement," and then proceeds to list the requirements of that endorsement, the second requirement being "Is prepared for the practical test." I think the "an endorsement" part qualifies it as one endorsement that covers all areas specified.

No, it can't be the entire endorsement. For instance both the PPL and CPL sections require endorsements for the flight training and knowledge areas. In general, the examiners are looking for three endorsements.

1) Flight training
2) Aeronautical Knowledge
3) 61.39

The Examiners Handbook doesn't say to look specifically for a 61.39 endorsement, but it does say look for an endorsement that there has been training in the last 60 days and that the topics missed on the written have been discussed.

I'm not clear on exactly what you think is required. Can you provide an example of the endorsements you consider sufficient?