Is this normal, or kind of a jerk move?

[Matthew]

As far as the log book goes, the best way to go about neatening it up is to get another one and reproduce the original signatures and all.

I thought the OP said he's had 3 or 4 instructors altogether. Might be hard to track them all down.

 

[Henning]

That would be my option.

Henning, I think you're being too hard on this guy. The worlds greatest CFI (Cap'n Ron of course) was a new CFI once and everyone makes mistakes. This isn't a CFI telling a student "it's okay to take passengers on your solo" or "Magneto checks are for losers". It's just a guy severing ties with a student who dumped him (I hope). I can see the logic of his action...obviously I don't agree with them though for obvious reasons.

I think your being too soft on the entire industry. This guy isn't the problem, this guy is just one example of a much greater problem.Commercial flight training as it has developed in the past 40 years has lead us to a situation where we have mass gross incompetence now appearing at the airline level at the point where there is no one with proper command abilities left in the cockpit. We've got captains that can't read instruments to figure out a stall nor realize that they would not recover without the application of throttle as with 447, we've got them pulling instead of pushing when the stall warning system does work. We've got them taking off on incorrect runways and killing everyone as well as standing on the wrong rudder to compensate for pulling a running engine because you didn't know what a light meant. Matt Sailor, a buddy and CFI of mine was in the right seat on that flight into RDU, his last words on the CVR were "Wrong Foot! Wrong Foot!", there were no words after that, only noise.

The accidents are getting dumber and dumber as the planes get safer and safer. This CFI and the others the system has been training and graduating into the airlines is the root cause of of a large and increasing number of our fatalities now, not equipment failures.

That doesn't even begin to address the problems they cause in GA though which is even worse though the results don't make as impressive of a case since GA pilots are considered foolish and certain to get killed in those dangerous little planes anyway.

 

[Palmpilot]

I'm just not comfortable with assuming that an FBO is going to know the right way to correct a situation that is either rare or unprecedented. At the vary least, I would want to ask whichever examiner will be used what he/she is going to want to see.

 

[rainsux]

> I can see the logic of his action

I can see the logic of his wish to withdraw his endorsement for subsequent solo flight ... but it strikes me as unnecessary.

I do not see any logic in his actions that obliterate everything. The CFI ain't thinking
clearly, or lacks adequate impulse control ... and those matters worry me.

Of course; the flight school owner/manager may have precipitated (suckered) a
young CFI into doing their dirty-work.

Pass the popcorn.

 

[Henning]

I'm just not comfortable with assuming that an FBO is going to know the right way to correct a situation that is either rare or unprecedented. At the vary least, I would want to ask whichever examiner will be used what he/she is going to want to see.

I am very comfortable in assuming that the FBO would know this was NOT the right way to handle it and should be fully aware that what was done violated many of the regulations that they are obligated to.

Like the judge said a long time ago, ignorance is NOT a legal defense.

 

[Henning]

> I can see the logic of his action

I can see the logic of his wish to withdraw his endorsement for subsequent solo flight ... but it strikes me as unnecessary.

I do not see any logic in his actions that obliterate everything. The CFI ain't thinking
clearly, or lacks adequate impulse control ... and those matters worry me.

Of course; the flight school owner/manager may have precipitated (suckered) a
young CFI into doing their dirty-work.

Pass the popcorn.

It's hard for me to fathom a flight school owner manager doing that, they have absolutely nothing to gain. The CFI is just an idiot is my bet.

 

[N801BH]

Nope.

I guess it's not a big deal, really. I just wish he hadn't trashed up the medical and logbook in the process. It looks bad, and given the amount of time, work and money it's cost to get here I kind of take pride in them.

If you have the first instructors email address, just send a link to this thread..

 

[Captain]

I think your being too soft on the entire industry. This guy isn't the problem, this guy is just one example of a much greater problem.Commercial flight training as it has developed in the past 40 years has lead us to a situation where we have mass gross incompetence now appearing at the airline level at the point where there is no one with proper command abilities left in the cockpit. We've got captains that can't read instruments to figure out a stall nor realize that they would not recover without the application of throttle as with 447, we've got them pulling instead of pushing when the stall warning system does work. We've got them taking off on incorrect runways and killing everyone as well as standing on the wrong rudder to compensate for pulling a running engine because you didn't know what a light meant. Matt Sailor, a buddy and CFI of mine was in the right seat on that flight into RDU, his last words on the CVR were "Wrong Foot! Wrong Foot!", there were no words after that, only noise.

The accidents are getting dumber and dumber as the planes get safer and safer. This CFI and the others the system has been training and graduating into the airlines is the root cause of of a large and increasing number of our fatalities now, not equipment failures.

That doesn't even begin to address the problems they cause in GA though which is even worse though the results don't make as impressive of a case since GA pilots are considered foolish and certain to get killed in those dangerous little planes anyway.

I don't know. Maybe?

There are other things at play. There are more flights now than ever. There is more media now than ever.

Buffalo and Lexington crashes can be linked to regional pilots whose training may be suspect. But they can also be linked to low pay and rest issues (sorta the same).

Or, they could be linked to work rules. Regional airlines blow chunks. Few days off, Commuting on your days off, low pay, it all adds up and the result is what we have. Tired low paid pilots lining up on wrong runways and not thinking to advance power in a stall.

AirFrance, climbing to a stall and riding the stall into the ocean. Who knows. Maybe the chair hooked the stick. I don't know. Maybe he thought pulling back in a stall was a great idea. I don't know. Ended poorly. But was it training or a rouge idiot? I don't know.

If we suppose you are correct and the CFI's need to be purged as they are the problem then what do we do? That is an unworkable solution. Raise standards? The FAA is 'here to help' enough as it is. I'm hesitant to send them on a witch hunt. Besides, the FAA is as incompetent (or more so) than the instruction process. We have more rules than any human can possibly know. There isn't one flight that launches on any given day that the pilot couldn't be busted if enough resources were poured into finding the violation. That's a fact.

I suspect a bit of 'grumpy old man syndrom' is what you're experiencing. What we have isn't perfect...but it's not that bad. People die, but that's the way it works...nothing is perfect.

 

[Henning]

AirFrance, climbing to a stall and riding the stall into the ocean. Who knows. Maybe the chair hooked the stick. I don't know. Maybe he thought pulling back in a stall was a great idea. I don't know. Ended poorly. But was it training or a rouge idiot? I don't know.

Here you go, all the info from day one is pretty much recorded here including the data analysis of the FDR and contents of the CVR in edited and unexpurgated forms.

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29310&highlight=AF447

The read is mind boggling of what went down in the cockpit, completely boggling. How those three ended up in the front of a flag air carrier shows the depths to which the training and selection of pilots has fallen; to the point where three pros could not manage the simplest of equipment failures on a known problem system. One minor system loss was compounded by incompetence from every direction imaginable including the chief test pilot for Airbus.

As to how to fix it, the only solution I see is to restructure 141 training into a process that treats flying from a professional perspective training them to be SIC under a CRM/cockpit sterility setting flying from the right seat day one. If you want to fly for an airline, you MUST attend one of these programs. Instructors will all be ATP rated, Chief Pilot/Instructor requires 10,000 hrs with 2500 PIC in airline service.

There will also be much stricter training and testing washout standards with something like a 3 pink rule that goes through your career like points on your drivers license. You lose them over time, but if you pink 3 rides in 10 years, you are permanently finished as an airline pilot.

To move to the left seat will require the stress ride, a sim run so intense that it will break the person into their instinctive reaction type, time flash frozen or time dilation with action. You freeze or react inappropriately into your crash event, no left seat. You keep flying into your crash making the correct control inputs you make PIC if you pass the rest of the ride. This is a factor that can't be learned or trained for, this is a 'personal wiring' issue. In the days past where the military provided most of our airline pilots, this factor was already culled for in their training process as they fly planes to and through their limits in training, then they also add in a few years of mission flying, and the freeze up guys either get culled by command or mortality, either way, all the pilots the military supplied had already been culled for. Now, as with 447, we have entire cockpits of civilian trained pilots that have never been sorted for this factor and end up with all freeze reaction people in an emergency. At about 12,000' fully 2 minutes into the fall the dingus who yanked the stick back said "This is really happening isn't it?" He yanked back as normal with an Airbus from the flying videos I've seen because he didn't understand the systems of the plane or realize he was in Alternate Law where the 'yank the stick to the limiter' method is inappropriate because the limiter no longer exists.

All this is tied to our nanny state societies trying to protect us from injury as individuals while making our lives as a group increasingly hazardous. Much of the problem is also based around the precept that all life is precious and we are all created equal. This is a flat out lie that we tell to make people feel better about themselves in a society that is set up competitively rather than cooperatively.

We demand individual rights yet we we deny our individual differences. The problem is we have idiots in control who only value money. The best solutions in our society lead to the lowest price solutions since we value money most of all.

We have devised the lowest short term cost method of supplying the airline industry with pilots, therefor we get the lowest short term monetary costs. Even in the long run though monetarily it's still questionable as to the end result. Personally, I'm not seeing where it's working out all that well there either. While the total fatality accident numbers are low in total, the cost of just one is extraordinary.

 

[Clark1961]

What we have isn't perfect...but it's not that bad. People die, but that's the way it works...nothing is perfect.

Here we have the antithesis of "quality"...

 

[Henning]

Here we have the antithesis of "quality"...

Right, it's the 'cost effective solution', this is how America works since it's governed by investment bankers and the bottom line is the only thing of value. 'Quality' beyond that considered minimal to cost effectively get a job done is unnecessary and wasteful; unless we're talking about the $12,000 artisan crafted gold faucet on the tub of the master suite of their yacht or the $700 a piece case of towels that you have to send the helicopter with the stew to go get before you can sail.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'd want that fixed with a sticker over it that covers up the godawful mess he made and the endorsements put back exactly the way they were.

For a lot of reasons (including the same reasons you don't cross out by obscuring as that CFI did), you do not put stickers over other logbook entries concealing the original entry.

 

[Henning]

For a lot of reasons (including the same reasons you don't cross out by obscuring as that CFI did), you do not put stickers over other logbook entries concealing the original entry.

Exactly, how changes are to be made are spelled out and the theme that you get in those rules is "Make damned sure we can read what was being changed."

From reading the OP I did not think I would see what the pics revealed. It showed a lack of mental stability and multiple 'Dangerous Human Factors' as outlined being non compliant for further flight by the FAA.

 

[poadeleted20]

Isn't there something that says that any logbook modifications must be made with a strikethrough so you can see what's underneath?

That is the generally-accepted practice for correcting errors in legal records like a pilot logbook, but the FAA Adminstrator has never given explicit guidance about what contitutes "a manner acceptable to the Administrator" (as it says in 14 CFR 61.51) to do this.

Wouldn't putting a sticker over the modifications be the same as using white-out?

I believe so, and I think any court in the country would hold the same. IIRC, it can be a criminal offense to use whiteout to alter certain legal documents such as medical records.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm just not comfortable with assuming that an FBO is going to know the right way to correct a situation that is either rare or unprecedented. At the vary least, I would want to ask whichever examiner will be used what he/she is going to want to see.

DPE's should not be giving guidance on this -- it really should be coming from the FAA, preferably in writing.

 

[Henning]

That is the generally-accepted practice for correcting errors in legal records like a pilot logbook, but the FAA Adminstrator has never given explicit guidance about what contitutes "a manner acceptable to the Administrator" (as it says in 14 CFR 61.51) to do this.

My bet is that this situation may have never been brought up for them to have to sit down and create one.

 

[poadeleted20]

My bet is that this situation may have never been brought up for them to have to sit down and create one.

It would only take a letter to the Chief Counsel to bring it to that point, but I'm not going to write it. I know what is generally accepted in legal matters like this, so I just do it that way; I don't need the FAA to write a new regulation for me to keep it Kosher.

 

[Henning]

It would only take a letter to the Chief Counsel to bring it to that point, but I'm not going to write it. I know what is generally accepted in legal matters like this, so I just do it that way; I don't need the FAA to write a new regulation for me to keep it Kosher.

I think the FAA agrees with your view which is why they never bothered. FAA doesn't appear to write rules willy nilly, they expect us to use common sense and give us plenty of rope with which to hang ourselves.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

For a lot of reasons (including the same reasons you don't cross out by obscuring as that CFI did), you do not put stickers over other logbook entries concealing the original entry.

So, the log book is damaged and illegible and needs to be reconstructed from the available documentation.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think the FAA agrees with your view which is why they never bothered. FAA doesn't appear to write rules willy nilly, they expect us to use common sense and give us plenty of rope with which to hang ourselves.

No argument there. And with that bit in Merrell v. NTSB about it being OK for them to advance an interpretation for the first time as part of an enforcement action, they don't even need to give you the rope ahead of time, just bring it to the hanging.

 

[poadeleted20]

So, the log book is damaged and illegible and needs to be reconstructed from the available documentation.

I don't think that's what the FAA had in mind when they wrote that "lost logbook" paragraph in FAA Order 8900.2. In any event, that paragraph covers only flight experience, not endorsements. Without all the original signatures on the endorsements, there will always be issues. For example, if you lose your logbook and recreate all the flight entries, you still need to get an instructor to sign the necessary endorsements such as flight reviews, tailwheel, etc. That could be done by taking it back to the original instructor for a new signature, but if that isn't feasible, you're going to have to get a new flight review, etc. I know of no regulation or case law which says you can recreate endorsements and have then acceptable to the FAA without new signatures (as opposed to you writing in the instructor's name and certificate number).

This might also be a good argument for making copies of all your endorsements as well as all the regular pages of your logbook, since you can attest to the photocopy of the endorsement with a legible copy of the original signature being a "true copy" of the original endorsement. You can't do the same if all you have is your recreation of the original endorsement and signature in your own handwriting.

 

[Palmpilot]

I am very comfortable in assuming that the FBO would know this was NOT the right way to handle it and should be fully aware that what was done violated many of the regulations that they are obligated to.

I agree with that. My concern is whether any method chosen to remedy it satisfies the examiner who reviews the logbook.

 

[Henning]

I agree with that. My concern is whether any method chosen to remedy it satisfies the examiner who reviews the logbook.

That's why you either duplicate it undamaged or go to the FSDO and have them deal with it.

 

[DaleB]

It wasn't until this morning that I finally figured out the full extent of the screwup. The blocks he had voided were the presolo aeronautical knowledge (61.87(b)), and the presolo flight training (61.87(c)) endorsements. He never had filled out a 90 day solo (61.87(l) and (n)) endorsement. Awk!! So it was wrong up from the start! Crap. Kai copied the two presolo endorsements word for word onto the last page and signed them, along with a 90 day solo endorsement. I went to the FBO yesterday but the owner had already left and the CFI wasn't there to discuss it with him. I'll go down there again this afternoon for a chat.

 

[cleared4theoption]

It wasn't until this morning that I finally figured out the full extent of the screwup. The blocks he had voided were the presolo aeronautical knowledge (61.87(b)), and the presolo flight training (61.87(c)) endorsements. He never had filled out a 90 day solo (61.87(l) and (n)) endorsement. Awk!! So it was wrong up from the start! Crap. Kai copied the two presolo endorsements word for word onto the last page and signed them, along with a 90 day solo endorsement. I went to the FBO yesterday but the owner had already left and the CFI wasn't there to discuss it with him. I'll go down there again this afternoon for a chat.

So you are saying he never actually endorsed you to solo in your logbook...but he still let you solo? Sounds like a major but-covering to me. He scratched those out because he realized he had let you solo without an endorsement and he was covering his arse.

IMHO

 

[Matthew]

This is why some were saying you should ask for your money back - if the endorsements are gone, there's no CFI signature saying you ever received the training at all. Good luck with all this - it's a mess now but I don't think it's insurmountable.

 

[bflynn]

He had reason to believe that the student was no longer capable or safe to continue solo flight? Or, he thought taking a lesson from another instructor will make him unsafe?

He determined that the endorsements were made in error in the first place?

Late response...

He could no longer monitor the validity of the endorsement. My instructor made it clear that I could lose my solo endorsement if I showed that I wasn't safe. Even though I was safe when endorsed, it was a continous evaluation for a while.

 

[Henning]

It wasn't until this morning that I finally figured out the full extent of the screwup. The blocks he had voided were the presolo aeronautical knowledge (61.87(b)), and the presolo flight training (61.87(c)) endorsements. He never had filled out a 90 day solo (61.87(l) and (n)) endorsement. Awk!! So it was wrong up from the start! Crap. Kai copied the two presolo endorsements word for word onto the last page and signed them, along with a 90 day solo endorsement. I went to the FBO yesterday but the owner had already left and the CFI wasn't there to discuss it with him. I'll go down there again this afternoon for a chat.

Exactly! He didn't void the endorsements, HE VOIDED THE TRAINING!
How did Kai sign off the training endorsements when he didn't do the training and the prior signatures are ALL now technically voided by voiding the block that represents all the training lines combined.

They either replace your log book or refund every damn dime it represents.

 

[dukeblue219]

The blocks he had voided were the presolo aeronautical knowledge (61.87(b)), and the presolo flight training (61.87(c)) endorsements. He never had filled out a 90 day solo (61.87(l) and (n)) endorsement. Awk!! So it was wrong up from the start!

I can't recall exactly, but isn't that sufficient (the pre-solo knowledge and pre-solo flight), along with an endorsed medical? My recollection was that the 90 day logbook spaces were for additional 90 day periods, but I'm not a CFI either.

 

[DaleB]

So you are saying he never actually endorsed you to solo in your logbook...but he still let you solo? Sounds like a major but-covering to me. He scratched those out because he realized he had let you solo without an endorsement and he was covering his arse.

IMHO

He said he had, and I think he thought he had. And reading the 61.87(c) endorsement (which also mentions 61.87(d) through (k)), it does include everything in the "Solo" endorsement block except the reference to 61.87(n). I'm not a CFI, so I'm not familiar with exactly what has to be signed off for a proper and legal endorsement... I kind of rely on the guy with the CFI cert that I'm paying to know this stuff. After reading the applicable sections in the FAR, I'm still not clear on whether there was or was not a legal solo endorsement before today.

It took him about 10 minutes of thumbing through manuals at the FBO to figure out what to do to sign me off. He'd never done it before... and as it happens, it looks to me like he muffed it. I'll post again when I've talked to the owner. Should be interesting.

 

[BillTIZ]

He said he had, and I think he thought he had. And reading the 61.87(c) endorsement (which also mentions 61.87(d) through (k)), it does include everything in the "Solo" endorsement block except the reference to 61.87(n). I'm not a CFI, so I'm not familiar with exactly what has to be signed off for a proper and legal endorsement... I kind of rely on the guy with the CFI cert that I'm paying to know this stuff. After reading the applicable sections in the FAR, I'm still not clear on whether there was or was not a legal solo endorsement before today.

It took him about 10 minutes of thumbing through manuals at the FBO to figure out what to do to sign me off. He'd never done it before... and as it happens, it looks to me like he muffed it. I'll post again when I've talked to the owner. Should be interesting.

He signed your student certificate/medical for solo in type (make/model) aircraft. You were 1/2 good, he failed to make the proper logbook endorsement. He failed and the Chief CFI of the operation needs to correct him. Any CFI worth his salt should have his own personal copy of AC91-65E that has all the endorsements. Most FBO / Flight clubs want copies of those endorsements in your training folder.

Another concern not mentioned, if you had an incident that damaged the aircraft, the insurance company would be justified in denying the claim.

 

[hopmedic]

This is my (non-pilot) take:
This problem involves more than just your logbook. He also defaced your medical, and writing "VOID" on it would raise the question (to me, at least) if the entire certificate was void. So you have not just a logbook to "repair". I think the first thing I'd do (after getting new CFI's story in writing, of course) is get a replacement medical certificate. Not being a pilot, but having looked at the FAA website, I believe you can do this - correct me if I'm wrong.

Next, I'd get a new logbook, and I would print out the aforementioned regulations and such, and take them to the old CFI. I would show him the regs, and ask him to aid you in reconstructing the logbook, and ask him to reimburse you for the expense of the new logbook given that he vandalized your old one, which is your private property, as well as sign the endorsement on your medical. Make sure you follow whatever requirements there are for replacing logbooks.

If he goes along with all this, great. Problem solved. No worries, no hard feelings. Should he be disagreeable, get up and walk out the door. Go to the FSDO. Don't tell him you're going to do so - no need to fuel his fire. But you have a problem that needs solved, and if he isn't going to solve it, then you need to go to the people who can.

My personal opinion is that he doesn't need to remove the endorsement - he just needs to let the flight school know that they shouldn't rent the plane to you anymore, since you are no longer his student, right? I also think that the massive amount of scribbling that he did to obliterate any sign that his name was ever on your paperwork shows malice, although I would say that I don't know him or what his demeanor was at the time he did this. Good on you for not seeking revenge. Hope it all works out for the best.

 

[Henning]

He signed your student certificate/medical for solo in type (make/model) aircraft. You were 1/2 good, he failed to make the proper logbook endorsement. He failed and the Chief CFI of the operation needs to correct him. Any CFI worth his salt should have his own personal copy of AC91-65E that has all the endorsements. Most FBO / Flight clubs want copies of those endorsements in your training folder.

Another concern not mentioned, if you had an incident that damaged the aircraft, the insurance company would be justified in denying the claim.

You should have left it unmentioned because it is completely and totally untrue. Insurance laws don't allow for that.

 

[BillTIZ]

You should have left it unmentioned because it is completely and totally untrue. Insurance laws don't allow for that.

Interestingly, every insurance claim for the flying club that I am involved with, they have always asked for pilot data to include current medical, endorsements, last flight review, etc. every endorsement that is required to fly that aircraft.

So you are saying they cannot deny coverage for an unqualified pilot.
The endorsements are what makes you qualified?

 

[gtmule]

Edit: I attached images of what was done.

I'm not a CFI, but it looks like he WAS good to me, he HAD a pre-solo knowledge, a pre-solo training and a student pilot cert endorsement.

I'd definitely get a new medical/student cert on the way, since yours is now "void" or at least could look that way to a DPE, ramp check guy, local cop, etc.

 

[Henning]

Interestingly, every insurance claim for the flying club that I am involved with, they have always asked for pilot data to include current medical, endorsements, last flight review, etc. every endorsement that is required to fly that aircraft.

So you are saying they cannot deny coverage for an unqualified pilot.
The endorsements are what makes you qualified?

If when you applied for your insurance all the information was valid and you were not perpetrating a fraud, your insurance will be in force. The insurance company is not the FAA, they will see the scribble scratch and other endorsement for what it is. The log still has the line items and signatures. Unlike the FAA if the insurance company wants to deny a claim over this they have a jury of your piers to answer to. Insurance companies hate going in front a jury with a shaky denial, if there is no fraud involved they lose. When they lose on these types of cases it's a matter known as 'Bad Faith', they not only pay compensatory claims, they pay Punitive Damages as well.

Besides that, a denial will only open up the flight school to pay the bill since it would be caused by the illegal act of his employee.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Interestingly, every insurance claim for the flying club that I am involved with, they have always asked for pilot data to include current medical, endorsements, last flight review, etc. every endorsement that is required to fly that aircraft.

So you are saying they cannot deny coverage for an unqualified pilot.
The endorsements are what makes you qualified?

http://www.avemco.com/Articles/ART0006-2010.pdf

 

[poadeleted20]

It wasn't until this morning that I finally figured out the full extent of the screwup. The blocks he had voided were the presolo aeronautical knowledge (61.87(b)), and the presolo flight training (61.87(c)) endorsements. He never had filled out a 90 day solo (61.87(l) and (n)) endorsement. Awk!! So it was wrong up from the start! Crap.

Not only a jerk, but a sloppy jerk. Good thing you're now getting your training somewhere else.

Kai copied the two presolo endorsements word for word onto the last page and signed them, along with a 90 day solo endorsement.

That covers you from today, but not for solos before today.

I went to the FBO yesterday but the owner had already left and the CFI wasn't there to discuss it with him. I'll go down there again this afternoon for a chat.

Keep at it.

 

[poadeleted20]

He could no longer monitor the validity of the endorsement.

There is no regulatory requirement to "monitor the validity of the endorsement" after you give it, nor any regulatory or advisory basis on which to revoke an endorsement once given merely on the basis of being unable to continue to supervise the endorsee's flying. Does this instructor believe that he is killed, his endorsements are no longer valid because he is no longer around to supervise the endorsee?

My instructor made it clear that I could lose my solo endorsement if I showed that I wasn't safe. Even though I was safe when endorsed, it was a continous evaluation for a while.

That is certainly the instructor's perogative, but not merely on the basis of no longer being the endorsee's active instructor. One thing that every instructor is supposed to understand is that once you give an endorsement, the deed is done, and the endorsee may do anything authorized by that endorsement without any further permission from you -- so make darn sure your trainee is worthy of that endorsement before you give it.

 

[poadeleted20]

Exactly! He didn't void the endorsements, HE VOIDED THE TRAINING!

Not unless he also scratched out the log entries for all that flight and ground training, and the OP didn't say anything suggesting that.