CFI Spin Endorsement too old?

S

scooter

Pre-Flight
Joined
Nov 24, 2006
Messages
32
Display Name
Display name:
Scooter
I started CFI training back in 2011, at which time I did the CFI spin training and received the endorsement.

I then stopped CFI training and started again a few months ago.

I'm now ready to take my CFI initial check ride.

I can find nothing in the regs that would indicate that my existing spin training is no longer valid.

Does any one have any further knowledge of this issue?

Thanks.

P.S. no one has told me the spin endorsement is no longer valid, but my CFI is unsure and hence a little nervous about it.
 
I don't think it expires, ether way you could always take a 172/152 for a few rotations with your favorite CFI, fun times.
 
Like the tailwheel endorsement there is no expiration. You received the required training. That's all that is required.
 
Mine was three years old and the FSDO wouldn't accept it. The dpe I used at another fsdo had no problem with it.
 
There's no reason they should decline it. One spin training is (for regulatory purposes) good for life. That one I would have worked up the food chain on. Did they discount any of your other flight experience for being too old? If the guys who wrote the regulations wanted to put a time limit on it, they would have (as they did for the checkride prep training requirement).
 
The examiner's excuse was he had discretion to accept any of the requirements. I disagreed and told him I will find another examiner who didn't feel the need to make up his own rules. It worked out in the end.
 
hook_dupin said:
Sounds like you should go dig into Pt 61 and figure it out.
Click to expand...

As I said in my original post, I did look for the answer but could find no mention of such endorsements no longer being valid towards the taking of a check ride.

Hence my asking the question here in case someone else knew of a reference that discusses the issue.

If you know of such a reference in the FARs please do share.

Thanks.
 
61.183 (i) states you must (1) have the endorsement and (2) demonstrate instructional proficiency... No time limit is stipulated... however, I would think if the endorsement is not recent (which would still satisfy the requirement) the examiner will want to see you have the proficiency
 
iRyan said:
The examiner's excuse was he had discretion to accept any of the requirements. I disagreed and told him I will find another examiner who didn't feel the need to make up his own rules. It worked out in the end.
Click to expand...
Someone going up for a CFI-Airplane ride should know that 61.183 gives the examiner the option to require the spin demonstration even if the spin endorsement is presented -- and that applies to both DPE's and Inspectors. That said, most examiners prefer to avoid seeing their own lunch twice, and look for any reason to avoid the demonstration. Note that if it's a retest for failing the Stall/Spin Area, the examiner has no choice but to require the spin demo.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Helpful but a regulatory reference backing it up would be more helpful.
Click to expand...

That makes it "Very helpful" up from "helpful"

mrevans77 said:
61.183 (i) states you must (1) have the endorsement and (2) demonstrate instructional proficiency... No time limit is stipulated... however, I would think if the endorsement is not recent (which would still satisfy the requirement) the examiner will want to see you have the proficiency
Click to expand...

Mr.Evans was very helpful, gold star status!
 
Ron Levy said:
Someone going up for a CFI-Airplane ride should know that 61.183 gives the examiner the option to require the spin demonstration even if the spin endorsement is presented -- and that applies to both DPE's and Inspectors. That said, most examiners prefer to avoid seeing their own lunch twice, and look for any reason to avoid the demonstration. Note that if it's a retest for failing the Stall/Spin Area, the examiner has no choice but to require the spin demo.
Click to expand...

Once again Levy beat me to it: the recency of the endorsement will have an effect on whether the examiner will request a spin demonstration on the check ride. The endorsement provides the examiner with evidence that the applicant has demonstrated an ability to recover from spins...solving the logistical issue of the applicant having to bring an aircraft that is both complex and legal to spin to the check ride.
 
Brad Z said:
Once again Levy beat me to it: the recency of the endorsement will have an effect on whether the examiner will request a spin demonstration on the check ride.
Click to expand...
I would say it may have an effect, not that it necessarily will have an effect. Some examiners may not care how old it is, and some may want the spin regardless. Ask about this when you schedule the ride. Note that most FSDO's assign initial CFI rides when they aren't doing it themselves rather than allowing you to go "venue shopping", so you probably won't have a choice about which examiner you use, and you don't want to be surprised by showing up for the ride with a non-spinnable plane and the examiner wants to spin.
 
I think the OP said his training was in 2011. He's not trying to rely on a thirty year old endorsement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top