Regs on solo

[PAustin]

Scenario - Student pilot with 17 hours solo in Decathlon and Citabria and 17 hours dual. Student wants to fly a single seat homebuilt to build more time on the cheap. To the instructors out there, what are your thoughts.

I've read where a pilot can get checked to fly a single seat aircraft if his checkout was done in a like aircraft. Can a student get the same checkout?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dr. O]

You have to have your CFI to sign you off (a requirement) for that plane

gl

 

[PAustin]

One CFI said because he's a student he can not sign him of for a single seat aircraft.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bobmrg]

Any ten-foot poles around?

Bob Gardner

 

[tonycondon]

We solo student pilots in single seat gliders all the time.

 

[PAustin]

Hey Tony! Long time my friend... What's the regs for powered aircraft? Paul Austin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bqmassey]

From 61.87, before solo, a student pilot must have:

(2) Demonstrated satisfactory proficiency and safety, as judged by an authorized instructor, on the maneuvers and procedures required by this section in the make and model of aircraft or similar make and model of aircraft to be flown.

I'm not going to put myself in a situation where I have to convince the FAA or judge that two aircraft are, in fact, similar.

Entirely regardless of regulation, there is no way a student could talk me into endorsing them to solo in a model of airplane I haven't given him/her dual in.

 

[PAustin]

So even though the aircraft that dual had been given in had nearly identical performance and flight specs as the single seat, you would not sign off on it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[poadeleted20]

From 61.87, before solo, a student pilot must have:

(2) Demonstrated satisfactory proficiency and safety, as judged by an authorized instructor, on the maneuvers and procedures required by this section in the make and model of aircraft or similar make and model of aircraft to be flown.

I'm not going to put myself in a situation where I have to convince the FAA or judge that two aircraft are, in fact, similar.

Entirely regardless of regulation, there is no way a student could talk me into endorsing them to solo in a model of airplane I haven't given him/her dual in.

I'm with Brandon. Unless there was a 2-seat trainer version of the same plane (like the USAF has single-seat F-16A's and two-seat F-16B's for training pilots to fly those single-seat F-16A's), I wouldn't be party to such an operation even if it was technically legal.

So even though the aircraft that dual had been given in had nearly identical performance and flight specs as the single seat, you would not sign off on it?

That's correct -- I would not. Only if the training was in the same plane with two seats versus one (like the F-16B example above, or the P-51's with a second seat squeezed in for training purposes). I'm not giving someone training in, say, a taildragger STC'd Grumman AA-1 and then signing them off for solo in an RV-3, even if some folks recommend the AA-1 as a good trainer for an RV-series plane. OTOH, given what it says about their similarities here, I might do the training in an RV-4 for solo in an RV-3, but since I don't do tailwheel training, that's purely academic.

 

[ClimbnSink]

As Tony pointed out done in sailplanes all the time. Part of the pussification of aviation is the checkout for every tiny new thing. Now if it some light homebuilt and the student is training in regular GA stuff I could see making them wait.

 

[PAustin]

I'm with Brandon. Unless there was a 2-seat trainer version of the same plane (like the USAF has single-seat F-16A's and two-seat F-16B's for training pilots to fly those single-seat F-16A's), I wouldn't be party to such an operation even if it was technically legal.
That's correct -- I would not. Only if the training was in the same plane with two seats versus one (like the F-16B example above, or the P-51's with a second seat squeezed in for training purposes). I'm not giving someone training in, say, a taildragger STC'd Grumman AA-1 and then signing them off for solo in an RV-3, even if some folks recommend the AA-1 as a good trainer for an RV-series plane. OTOH, given what it says about their similarities here, I might do the training in an RV-4 for solo in an RV-3, but since I don't do tailwheel training, that's purely academic.

I completely understand the AA-1 to RV3 but, I'm talking Champ to Bowers Flybaby. Both have almost identical takeoff, approach and stall speeds. They handle in the air very much the same as well.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[poadeleted20]

I completely understand the AA-1 to RV3 but, I'm talking Champ to Bowers Flybaby. Both have almost identical takeoff, approach and stall speeds. They handle in the air very much the same as well.

I've told you what I'd do (or rather, not do), but you do what you want -- it's your CFI ticket at risk, not mine. But before you do, can you compare things like wing loading, power loading, stick force per g, pitch moments, roll stability, roll coupling, and the like between those two planes? How about landing and ground handling characteristics, including cg in relation to main wheel location (both height above and distance aft), coupling, track, wheel base, and thrust line above wheel line? If not, then how would you explain to an FAA Inspector investigating your student's accident that the two types are sufficiently similar for the purposes of 14 CFR 61.87(c)(2)? I don't think just saying "They handle in the air very much the same" is going to sell that position effectively.

 

[PAustin]

I've told you what I'd do (or rather, not do), but you do what you want -- it's your CFI ticket at risk, not mine. But before you do, can you compare things like wing loading, power loading, stick force per g, pitch moments, roll stability, roll coupling, and the like between those two planes? How about landing and ground handling characteristics, including cg in relation to main wheel location (both height above and distance aft), coupling, track, wheel base, and thrust line above wheel line? If not, then how would you explain to an FAA Inspector investigating your student's accident that the two types are sufficiently similar for the purposes of 14 CFR 61.87(c)(2)? I don't think just saying "They handle in the air very much the same" is going to sell that position effectively.

Wow Ron, I think you are WAY over thinking this. I have hundreds of hours in both aircraft mentioned. In fact when I'm not flying Pitts, Bonanzas and C210's and other stuff, you'll find me most the time in J3 Cubs, Champs and sometimes a Decathlon where real flying in my opinion is done.

I respect your opinions and am no way trying to convince you or anyone else of doing what you don't feel comfortable in doing. I was simply asking for advice of others. Thanks..



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LDJones]

I've told you what I'd do (or rather, not do), but you do what you want -- it's your CFI ticket at risk, not mine. But before you do, can you compare things like wing loading, power loading, stick force per g, pitch moments, roll stability, roll coupling, and the like between those two planes? How about landing and ground handling characteristics, including cg in relation to main wheel location (both height above and distance aft), coupling, track, wheel base, and thrust line above wheel line? If not, then how would you explain to an FAA Inspector investigating your student's accident that the two types are sufficiently similar for the purposes of 14 CFR 61.87(c)(2)? I don't think just saying "They handle in the air very much the same" is going to sell that position effectively.

The regs say similar, not identical. If I flew both aircraft and I was comfortable in their similarity, I'd probably sign it off...just as I was signed off in single-seat gliders based on my performance in a similar two-place.

 

[poadeleted20]

Wow Ron, I think you are WAY over thinking this.

Perhaps. But I just don't see any reason to take this risk without being able to bury an inquiring Inspector in aerodynamic facts to the point his/her eyes glaze over and s/he says, "Well, it's pretty clear you know far better than I how similar those planes are." OTOH, I don't think telling him/her:

I have hundreds of hours in both aircraft mentioned.

...would be sufficient to avoid trouble for me if my student ground-looped that single-seater.

I respect your opinions and am no way trying to convince you or anyone else of doing what you don't feel comfortable in doing. I was simply asking for advise of others.

And you have it.

Thanks..

You're welcome.

 

[Gucci Pilot]

Any ten-foot poles around?

Bob Gardner

Agreed. If I were a CFI this is something I would walk away from.

like the USAF has single-seat F-16A's and two-seat F-16B's for training pilots to fly those single-seat F-16A's

Little fun fact. A-10 pilots are trained in a single seat. Their first flight in the jet is solo!

 

[dans2992]

Scenario - Student pilot with 17 hours solo in Decathlon and Citabria and 17 hours dual. Student wants to fly a single seat homebuilt to build more time on the cheap. To the instructors out there, what are your thoughts.

I've read where a pilot can get checked to fly a single seat aircraft if his checkout was done in a like aircraft. Can a student get the same checkout?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As a student, why is he concerned about "building time"? Why not get his ticket, THEN build time?

 

[PAustin]

I think it's because the aircraft is available and with the fall weather, it would provide some great flying time. I agree, get your ticket then just fly it, but.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tonycondon]

Hey Tony! Long time my friend... What's the regs for powered aircraft? Paul Austin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Regs are the same. Glad to see your having fun in the flybaby. I never flew Matt's open cockpit, I'm sure its a blast.

 

[poadeleted20]

Little fun fact. A-10 pilots are trained in a single seat. Their first flight in the jet is solo!

...but they get a bunch of time in a full flight simulator first and there's an instructor in another A-10 on their wing.

 

[Gucci Pilot]

...but they get a bunch of time in a full flight simulator first and there's an instructor in another A-10 on their wing.

If you consider 3 sims a "bunch" and a non-motion cockpit trainer a "full flight simulator." Wingman isn't gonna stop him from bending a jet.

 

[dans2992]

If you consider 3 sims a "bunch" and a non-motion cockpit trainer a "full flight simulator." Wingman isn't gonna stop him from bending a jet.

I would think flying formation during your first flight in type would up the stress level and add risk, not remove it.

Live video and telemetry feed from the cockpit would probably be more helpful.

 

[Seanaldinho]

My second or third solo flight was in a single place glider

Flew the same, pull back trees get smaller... push forward trees get bigger...

The biggest difference will be sight picture, and I didn't get a go around.

 

[BillTIZ]

Our primary trainer is an SGS 2-33A. 2 seats, L/d 23. Stall very low 40s dependent if dual or solo. Best glide and normal airspeed and approach speed 55-60.

After solo, SGS 1-26D, single seat, L/d 23 stall slow 40, best speed about 55 approach 55 touch down about 45. You but is a lot close to the ground when in the aircraft. We require an open book test, preflight and cockpit review. Chair flying, how's it going to react, more pitch sensitive, expect PIO on takeoff, keep your arm rested on your leg and fly with the wrist. Kick them out of the nest. Instructor watches the takeoff, student stays with view from the field. Instructor watches the landing and coaches if needed. Normally not needed. Big ear to ear grin on student lasts the rest of the day.

But that is glider flying. I would not put a 2-33 student into a slippery glass LS-4. If we wer instructing in a Grob 103 and had a single seat Grob 102. Sure they would probably be cleared to go solo in the 102. But not in a 104 Speed Astir.

So, what has the student recieved dual instruction in, and how much different from that is the single seat aircraft. It does make a difference.

 

[LDJones]

So, what has the student recieved dual instruction in, and how much different from that is the single seat aircraft. It does make a difference.

Hence the FAA's requirement for "similar" characteristics. Those guys think of everything!

 

[JeffDG]

If you consider 3 sims a "bunch" and a non-motion cockpit trainer a "full flight simulator." Wingman isn't gonna stop him from bending a jet.

Meh, A-10's easy. Just point straight down and depress the "Fire" switch. Should have enough recoil to hover.

 

[RussR]

While it seems possibly technically legal depending on the specifics, I am stuck (as is my way) with comparing pros and cons - for this question, AS THE CFI, since that's how it was asked. I don't think this really has any "pussification" to it, it's a purely straightforward risk assessment, risk vs. reward.

Cons for the CFI if something goes wrong:
- Trying to convince the FAA they are "similar"
- Loss of ticket, job, pay, etc.
- Liability/lawsuit/etc.

Pros for the CFI if everything goes right:
-

Okay, I can't think of any. It's solo time, so the CFI isn't seeing any money as a result, and there is apparently a perfectly good airplane the student can already solo.

Any time you have a potential risk but NO reward, IMO there's no point to taking that risk.

 

[poadeleted20]

Hence the FAA's requirement for "similar" characteristics. Those guys think of everything!

The question is how similar is similar enough. My thinking is that the question will only come up if you student prangs, but if that happens, you'd better have a very good and well documented argument on that point, and to me, comparing a production plane to some E-AB aircraft seems a rather hard case to make without a lot of numbers besides stall speeds to back up your position.

 

[ClimbnSink]

What if they are the same NACA airfoil? Weight, speed, and power are close. The CFI has hundreds of hours in both. Our sissy attitudes is what is killing GA.

 

[LDJones]

The question is how similar is similar enough. My thinking is that the question will only come up if you student prangs, but if that happens, you'd better have a very good and well documented argument on that point, and to me, comparing a production plane to some E-AB aircraft seems a rather hard case to make without a lot of numbers besides stall speeds to back up your position.

"Similar" seems broad enough to cover the situation here. If I make the determination their similar enough in a particular situation, I'll be comfortable making that case to the FAA. There are a lot of judgment calls in instructing. A first solo is a big one. I would never allow a first solo in a similar single-seater. But after having demonstrated solo proficiency on several flights, I'd be comfortable adding a single-seater if I've flown it and deem it similar in flight characteristics. That's obviously an individual choice we each have to make.

 

[bqmassey]

So even though the aircraft that dual had been given in had nearly identical performance and flight specs as the single seat, you would not sign off on it?

As others have said, there's a lot more to an airplane than V-speeds. And beyond the flying characteristics, there are likely different avionics, different systems, different emergency procedures, and the law of primacy to contend with. To put it simply, I would not want my student soloing in an aircraft that he doesn't already have experience and familiarity with.

Our sissy attitudes is what is killing GA.

What a ridiculous assertion. "Sissy attitudes" is your personal vendetta, and everyone's pet peeve is, to them, "what's killing GA".

I don't think this really has any "pussification" to it, it's a purely straightforward risk assessment, risk vs. reward.

That's exactly my position as well. It's just such a poor risk/reward ratio.

What is at risk? A lot, potentially; your ticket, his life.

Whats the reward? The student pilot gets to use my solo endorsement like a private pilot certificate, in order to "build time" in an aircraft he can't take a checkride in.

I shouldn't say I'd never do it, I suppose with certain extenuating circumstances I would, but the "reward" would need to be more significant than the student getting to experience the fall colors in the plane of his preference, rather than the plane he knows. It would have to be a situation where the student has a legitimate need to fly that aircraft in pursuit of his certificate.

 

[nosehair]

The "similarity" question is completely and totally the call of the CFI.
Never mind convincing the FAA, it is the responsibility of the CFI to insure that the 2 different airplanes are so similar, in feel, sound, control touch, speeds, systems, etc, that the knows the student is as capable in either airplane.
Capable of handling the airplane without killing himself or others.

I mean, you know, thit's what a solo endorsement is.