Does private pilot exercising as sport pilot need endorsement?

Lindberg said:
Wait, so if I have PP-ASEL, and I fly under my driver's license, I don't need a tailwheel endorsement to fly a tailwheel airplane? That doesn't seem right.
Click to expand...
It isn’t. 61.31 still applies, as it’s not part of “this Subpart.”
 
MauleSkinner said:
FIFY. It is clear that the endorsement requirements don’t apply.
Click to expand...
Yes, as I pointed out in the post I was drafting as you posted this, I am persuaded that the better reading of the regulations as a whole (though not the only possible reading) is that none of the Subpart J endorsement requirements apply to recreational pilots and above, when they are exercising the privileges of their certificates under Subpart J. I also explained why I think that. Others are free to be persuaded by my views and reasoning or not. Ultimately it comes down to what the FAA and the courts think—or perhaps what the person renting you an airplane thinks.

I know that it seems blindingly obvious to many that a regulation that says “[y]ou do not have to hold any of the endorsements required by this subpart” literally means that you never, under any circumstances need to hold any of the endorsements in Subpart J. I come at this as a lawyer, and every day I deal with laws, regulations, contracts, etc. that have rules and then exceptions to otherwise categorical rules. Lawyers argue about how to interpret these rules with exceptions all the time, and courts don’t always agree on the answers. The phrase “[y]ou do not have to hold any of the endorsements required by this subpart” is directly followed by a comma and the word “but,” so the lawyer in me asks whether that “but” creates any exceptions to the phrase that proceeds it.

At the end of the day, we seem to have come to agreement on the answer to that question, but I found it to be a question worth exploring. Perhaps that is an idiosyncratic burden I bear as a result of my training and experience. Your tastes will surely differ.
 
Lindberg said:
Wait, so if I have PP-ASEL, and I fly under my driver's license, I don't need a tailwheel endorsement to fly a tailwheel airplane? That doesn't seem right.
Click to expand...
Because it isn't. You don't need to get a SP specific tail wheel endorsement as long as you have one from PP.
 
Lindberg said:
Where does it say the last part in that table?
Click to expand...
That table isn't taking away the requirements to have any endorsement, it's modifying the endorsement requirements of sport pilot certificate if you hold a recreational pilot cert or higher. It is simply saying if you have a drivers license and a PP cert, you don't need to meet the sport pilot's cert specific endorsement. Your PP tailwheel endorsement covers the sport pilot tailwheel endorsement requirement.
 
morleyz said:
That table isn't taking away the requirements to have any endorsement, it's modifying the endorsement requirements of sport pilot certificate if you hold a recreational pilot cert or higher. It is simply saying if you have a drivers license and a PP cert, you don't need to meet the sport pilot's cert specific endorsement. Your PP tailwheel endorsement covers the sport pilot tailwheel endorsement requirement.
Click to expand...
That's not what it says, though.
 
morleyz said:
Your PP tailwheel endorsement covers the sport pilot tailwheel endorsement requirement.
Click to expand...
There is actually no “sport pilot tailwheel endorsement requirement.” (Or a PP tailwheel,endorsement,” for that matter.) There is a tailwheel endorsement requirement that applies regardless of certificate level. Since it’s not a Subpart J requirement, it’s not exempted by 61.303.
 
MauleSkinner said:
There is actually no “sport pilot tailwheel endorsement requirement.” There is a tailwheel endorsement requirement that applies regardless of certificate level. Since it’s not a Subpart J requirement, it’s not exempted by 61.303.
Click to expand...
Fine then. I'm going back to @Lindberg's interpretation that says "you do not have to hold any endorsements"
 
MauleSkinner said:
Don’t forget to finish the sentence, per the reg.
Click to expand...
But that's not what it says in plane english. Right there in the table.

My point all along was that a) you still have to have the endorsements and b) you don't have to get them under each certificate. I apologize if I worded it poorly.
 
morleyz said:
But that's not what it says in plane english. Right there in the table.

My point all along was that a) you still have to have the endorsements and b) you don't have to get them under each certificate. I apologize if I worded it poorly.
Click to expand...
What it says in plain English right there in the table is that the endorsements required in Subpart J don’t apply to recreational or higher certificate holders. It makes no mention of endorsements required by other subparts. And your statement of @Lindberg ’s interpretation was contrary to the reg, because it was incomplete.
 
MauleSkinner said:
What it says in plain English right there in the table is that the endorsements required in Subpart J don’t apply to recreational or higher certificate holders. It makes no mention of endorsements required by other subparts. And your statement of @Lindberg ’s interpretation was contrary to the reg, because it was incomplete.
Click to expand...
No, what it says in the table in plain English is that you can operate any aircraft in that category and class. What it says in the reg, but not in the table, is that "[y]ou must also comply with requirements in other subparts of this part that apply to your certificate and the operation you conduct."
 
Lindberg said:
No, what it says in the table in plain English is that you can operate any aircraft in that category and class. What it says in the reg, but not in the table, is that "[y]ou must also comply with requirements in other subparts of this part that apply to your certificate and the operation you conduct."
Click to expand...
So the “endorsements” language in the table doesn’t actually exist?
 
morleyz said:
Fine then. I'm going back to @Lindberg's interpretation that says "you do not have to hold any endorsements"
Click to expand...
Perhaps the idea is that any airplane which meets the sport pilot operating limits is fair game under SP, but outside those limits you’re back to PP rules. That would imply that ANY plane within SP limits is immediately open and available to every SP pilot….

…which brings up a couple of questions:

1) If someone were to produce a LSA that met the SP limits and had retractable gear, constant speed prop and flaps, would a SP holder be legal to fly it without a complex endorsement?

2) Would a PPL holder be able to fly that same airplane exercising SP privileges without a complex endorsement, or would the fact that they have a PPL imply that they must get the complex endorsement?

IMO, a matrix of airplane configurations and cert/endorsement combinations would go a long way towards clarifying this newly created regulatory morass…
 
StraightnLevel said:
Perhaps the idea is that any airplane which meets the sport pilot operating limits is fair game under SP, but outside those limits you’re back to PP rules. That would imply that ANY plane within SP limits is immediately open and available to every SP pilot….

…which brings up a couple of questions:

1) If someone were to produce a LSA that met the SP limits and had retractable gear, constant speed prop and flaps, would a SP holder be legal to fly it without a complex endorsement?
Click to expand...
No. 61.31 applies to all certificate levels.

2) Would a PPL holder be able to fly that same airplane exercising SP privileges without a complex endorsement, or would the fact that they have a PPL imply that they must get the complex endorsement?
Click to expand...
The fact that 61.31 applies requires the complex exdorsement either way.

IMO, a matrix of airplane configurations and cert/endorsement combinations would go a long way towards clarifying this newly created regulatory morass…
Click to expand...
See 61.31.
 
MauleSkinner said:
No. 61.31 applies to all certificate levels.


The fact that 61.31 applies requires the complex exdorsement either way.


See 61.31.
Click to expand...
Of course it does. But you might as well give up. I've seen enough of the parsing that goes on in pro se court filings to know you are talking to dead air.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Of course it does. But you might as well give up. I've seen enough of the parsing that goes on in pro se court filings to know you are talking to dead air.
Click to expand...
In my best Les Nessman voice: “Dead hair?!?”

Like I mentioned previously, I recall conversations when Subpart J first came out that since there was nothing Flight Review requirement in Subpart J, Sport pilots weren’t required to have one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top