Soloing a Student in an Experimental

karkay8

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
9
Location
Indiana
Display Name

Display name:
FlightofTwo
There seems to be an argument about this, so I thought I'd ask you guys: One of our instructors soloed a guy in a C-172, meaning of course his student certificate is signed off and he has a solo endorsement in his logbook. He now wants to be signed off in another airplane-his own experimental with N numbers. It is too small for two people with his size. Since he's already been signed off to solo, must someone actually fly with him in his experimental as well and sign that off on the back of his certificate too, or because it's experimental can he just solo it, or can a CFI observe him flying and sign it off without getting in the airplane?
 
solo for student pilots in single seat aircraft is possible, we do it all the time in gliders. its not very common in power but technically legal. The instructor, in order to be satisified the student can safely solo, should give them dual in an aircraft that is very similar, then a thorough cockpit familiarization checkout would be in order. I would have to really trust the student and have a fair amount of time myself in the single seater to want to do this.
 
It's a two-seat experimental, it's just that his size is such that we'd have to find a tiny CFI to be able to get in there with him. But it IS legal to sign off a student in a 2-seat experimental for solo without flying in it with him? The matter of being comfortable doing so is of course another topic of conversation, but I wanted to be sure of the legalities of it first.
 
You would want to take a look at 61.87(c) Like Tony said, the CFI must give training in a "similar make and model of an aircraft to be flown."
 
Hmmmn. AC 61-65D: I have given MR/Ms._____the instruction required by FAR 61.87(m). He/She ihas met the requirements of FAR 61.87(m) and is competent to make safe solo flights in a (make and model aircraft).

How'm I gonna do this without him (1) soloing first illegally with me observing him from the ground, or (2) my being in the a/c to observe....

Not this CFI. This student can wait until he's a PVT ASEL, and do it on his own ticket. Sorry.
 
To restate my question a bit, I'm not asking what's required to solo a regular student, or if it would be smart to solo someone without having flown that plane with them, but if it is legal for someone with a student pilot certificate to solo an experimental aircraft. Does anyone know the regs for experimental aircraft? Is a sign-off still required or can a person fly an experimental without the sign-off? If the sign-off is required, then I presume that 61.87(c) comes into effect for experimental as well? Or is that a faulty assumption? In an experimental, is the CFI required to fly IN the plane with the person to determine them capable of solo? Anyone know where it says so or not?

Nobody here is being shady or unsafe; I didn't want to type out the entire story because it takes too much effort and nobody would care much anyway, but I assure you, nobody is trying to 'get away with' anything or do anything stupid or dangerous. The 'student pilot' is quite familiar with the aircraft. The question is just to help determine the legality of everything so that nobody does anything against the FARs, and so they can find a way to follow the appropriate legal path. Quite a few pretty seasoned CFIs are a little stumped on finding the answers.

Thanks for any help!
 
There's nothing illegal about it. However, if there is a problem the CFI will get a 709 ride. Reread the statement in my 7:15 p.m. post. How are you going to attest to this without having given him flight training IN the aircraft? Got a level 6 Van's RV7 simulator?

You didn't like the answer, I see. But that's the reality. Keep asking until you get the answer you wanted.

The license to be PIC in a new-to-you-aircraft comes AFTER you have a license. The student is flying on YOUR CFI ticket. Let him become a PVT ASEL in the 172. Then he may do as he pleases.

This is all being driven by $$s. But consider this: the guy crashes, the CFI gets a 709 ride, the estate cites CFI's obvious negligence given that the CFI was awarded a 709 ride.

Keep asking. Someone will eventuallly tell you what you want to hear. No it's not illegal. But it's careless and reckless 91.13 on the CFI's part....unless of course you have a level 6 sim for that experimental. And, just how do you get around item #1 in the 7:15 p.m. post? Watching him fly first- means he solos w/o the endosement while you try to determine if you're going to give him the endorsement.

See a problem here?
 
Last edited:
Or, you get a really tiny CFI to take him up in it and give him a "pre-solo" check in it, and then you sign him off based on the standardized check he was given. Certainly that's a more attractive option than sending him up cold.
 
Your assumptions about me are not correct, Dr. Bruce, but having lurked on internet aviation forums long enough, I understand why you might automatically think what you do. That's why I was careful to try to explain that nobody is trying to do anything unsafe or sketchy, without writing a dissertation on the background.

I'm not looking for "my" answer, I'm looking for the correct answer, which seems to be "yes it's legal, but it's stupid". That's all I wanted to know, with the small caveat that it would be handy to be able to provide the FAR that states it's legal (I already know the FAR for the "it's stupid" part.) Unless it is another of those 'rules' where it's legal simply because it is never expressly forbidden?

My position with the instructor was that whether it was legal or not, it wasn't going to happen, but that I didn't even know if it was legal. For my own learning benefit, I'd like to be able to see why it's legal, and as I said, I already know why it's not bright.

Thanks for the info.
 
Last edited:
Just curious: Is this a case of a transitioning ultralight pilot with a bazillion hours in that very airplane when it was a fat ultralight, before it was registered as an E-LSA?

Rich
 
That would be 61.87(c)2: Prior to conducting a solo flight, 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.

This all dances on the head of a pin. How similar is the experimental to the C172? Wing loading? Stall charcteristics? Porpoise characteristics?

I still don't see how
karkay8 said:
or can a CFI observe him flying and sign it off without getting in the airplane?
you can witness him flying without having him solo first, without the endorsement, so that you can see if he can have the endorsement. I suppose if he survives you can sign him off. It he doesn't, you call your insuror. If you lose the argument that the Exp is "similar" to this certificated design (pretty dissimilar right there!) then you as CFI acted outside the FARs are not insured. Pretty nasty.

Some things are not proscribed against by FAR. They are made administratively impossible by the AC's or liability!

I did NOT mean to dress you down, but I was faced with this very issue in my community. The guy had built a BEAUTIFUL RV7, which stalls VERY DIFFERENTLY from a 172 ( alittle shake and you're looking at soybeans) and the thirdwheel is in the right place. He's about 280 pounds. He insisted on saving the $$s by flying his own airplane after solo. I walked away. The guy would not take no for an answer; but fortunately the CFI community together said, "NO". Thankfully, he did not attempt to solo the RV 7 on his own. He's going to finish in the 172.
 
Last edited:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the only legal difference between "experimental" vs. "certified" aircraft made in aspects such as aircraft inspections/certification/etc?

I don't think there is any legal difference made between "experimental" and "certified" in the realm of training/logging/experience requirements/etc.

If a logging/training/experience rule applies to a "certified" aircraft, it applies in the same manner to an "experimental" aircraft.

Am I right or wrong?
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the only legal difference between "experimental" vs. "certified" aircraft made in aspects such as aircraft inspections/certification/etc?

I don't think there is any legal difference made between "experimental" and "certified" in the realm of training/logging/experience requirements/etc.

If a logging/training/experience rule applies to a "certified" aircraft, it applies in the same manner to an "experimental" aircraft.

Am I right or wrong?
You're generally correct, Chris. The ugly part is when you get to if it's a "weight shift" or a traditional with all four control surfaces; some of the trikes are wing warpers, etc.
 
First, the Experimental status of this aircraft has no bearing whatsoever on the matter -- you won't find anything in the Student Pilot Subpart of Part 61 making exceptions for Experimental aircraft.

Second, if the airplane has two seats, it's hard to argue that you have to do the required training in another airplane. Yes, the FAA has accepted (and Van's actually recommends) doing pre-solo training in a Grumman Yankee (the original AA-1 "slick-wing" type) before soloing someone in a single-seat RV, because the flight/handling characteristics are sufficiently similar. The process is just as Tony described in Post #2, above. But I think the hunt for a midget instructor would be the first choice, because I have never heard of a case where the FAA accepted a "similar aircraft" signoff when the plane being soloed was a 2-seater.

Nevertheless, I see no legal reason why it could not be done that way as long as the plane in which the training for the signoff was sufficiently similar to the plane being soloed (a rather subjective determination). However, I find it difficult to believe that a C-172 could be sufficiently similar to a 2-seat Experimental which can't carry both the trainee and the instructor due to weight or size limitations. Therefore, you'd have to find some plane other than that 172 which the instructor feels is sufficiently similar in flight/handling to the Experimental to be soloed and can carry both trainee and instructor. Also, the instructor might want to make that determination with the thought of an FAA second-guessing in the back of his mind, so some experience in that Experimental aircraft make/model would probably be necessary.

In any event, you can't observe the student from the ground in order to make the "OK to solo" determination -- the first solo cannot precede the endorsements in the log and on the certificate. See 61.87(a) and 61.87(n).
 
Here's the main problem as I see it for many experimentals, they are not even close to similar in flying characteristics to a 172. You neglected to mention which experimental it is. Dude should find a CFI who is physacly small enough and willing to fly this experimental (that may pose another problem), or wait till they have their PPL. While experimentals vary and some are quite docile, most of the ones I have flown probably shouldn't be flown by a 12hr, fresh solo student pilot.
 
Back
Top