Think we need new endorsements?

[ajstoner21]

I am just trying to spark a discussion/debate.

We have several endorsements now such as high performance, high altitude, tail wheel, and complex.

Do you think think there should be any additional endorsements?

(Yes, I know some of you think some of these existing endorsements may be dumb).

 

[Bob Noel]

glass vs steam gauges

 

[Richard]

I am not opposed to a logbook endorsement for TAA, ie, glass.

 

[jesse]

I don't think there is a need for a glass endorsement. In VFR You should be able to fly the damn things by just looking out the window anyways.

Yes they may be quite different for IFR - but not really and a little common sense helps out there.

Haven't seen much for accidents because of people not knowing how to run a G1000. Don't regulate a problem that doesn't exist...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I am not opposed to a logbook endorsement for TAA, ie, glass.

IMO it should be the other way around, and only required for instrument. You want to fly instruments on steam gauges, you better have either trained on steam or earned a "traditional instrument" endorsement.

VFR, I think anyone can figure out how to read an airspeed indicator and an altimeter.

IFR, I found that I could fly glass right away but it took ~45 minutes to get to the point where I didn't have to think about the tapes any more.

IFR going from glass to steam - Well, after basically having the entire picture fed to you, you need to learn how to create that picture in your mind the way people who trained for their IR on steam did.

I don't think there will ever be an endorsement for glass. Glass is the new reality. That's why we have a tailwheel endorsement, and not a tricycle gear endorsement. (That, and tailwheel is harder than tri-gear, just like how steam is harder than glass.)

 

[ajstoner21]

IMO it should be the other way around, and only required for instrument. You want to fly instruments on steam gauges, you better have either trained on steam or earned a "traditional instrument" endorsement.

VFR, I think anyone can figure out how to read an airspeed indicator and an altimeter.

IFR, I found that I could fly glass right away but it took ~45 minutes to get to the point where I didn't have to think about the tapes any more.

IFR going from glass to steam - Well, after basically having the entire picture fed to you, you need to learn how to create that picture in your mind the way people who trained for their IR on steam did.

I don't think there will ever be an endorsement for glass. Glass is the new reality. That's why we have a tailwheel endorsement, and not a tricycle gear endorsement. (That, and tailwheel is harder than tri-gear, just like how steam is harder than glass.)

I fully agree with you, as far as going from Glass to Steam on IFR.

 

[denverpilot]

Haven't seen much for accidents because of people not knowing how to run a G1000. Don't regulate a problem that doesn't exist...

Other than mis-using, forgetting to use it, or becoming fixated on it... Those seem to be real stats that have only begun to climb up out of the noise floor.

The CAP guys in AZ who plowed headlong into the only mountain anywhere near their flight plan at night, probably should'a used the terrain avoidance map feature their T182T was equipped with.

'Course I was more than a little surprised that a number of the Garmin hand-helds would have hollered "Terrain!" but the G1000 stays silent on the topic.

I agree with you that no endorsement is required, but for a different reason... Those guys *did* have to have a separate G1000 check-out under CAP rules. Proof positive that such a check-out won't save a pilot who doesn't stay proficient on every feature in the unit and knows when to use them.

 

[MBDiagMan]

I think there should be an SUV endorsement required. Where I live, huge SUV's like Suburbans plus the crew cab, long bed trucks are everywhere now and many people have no business driving them. I see alot of them that must be driven by someone who just traded a Honda Civic or something. They can't park them without taking up two parking places and ending up right next to you where they bang their huge doors against your car.

It's a free country and folks can drive anything they want, but if they can't handle it properly, they shouldn't be driving it.

Rant over.
Doc

 

[EdFred]

Ya'll all looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

What's next? An endorsement that allows us to drink a bottle of water when flying?

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

More regulations? Coming from those who are regulated? Sorry, I'm out.

 

[Ted]

No endorsements.

Remember, insurance ends up regulating training much more than the FAA.

As far as the glass vs. steam: Going from a basic /U with two CDIs and old Nav/Coms to a /G with a 530, HSI, etc. can be significantly different, too. One is wise to get some time familiarizing one's self with a particular set of instruments prior to flight into IMC (or in general).

 

[steingar]

No, we need new pilots.

 

[Everskyward]

Are insurance companies demanding specific glass panel training yet? I think this is where you're going to see it first if there is a problem. Also, glass is not generic the way most steam gauges are. Just because you know how to use one brand doesn't mean you are going to be able to jump in and successfully use another. It might not matter so much VFR but would be more important IFR. It's not so much that the displays are hard to interpret but that you need to use the proper buttonology for operation which is different for each system.

 

[Telemakhos]

No endorsements.

Remember, insurance ends up regulating training much more than the FAA.

Sort of. There is no law that mandates flying with insurance, and I know several guys who don't have it.
While I agree with you in principle (because I think you're arguing a "less is more vis a vis regulation" position), I think that there is merit to some of the endorsements-- specifically tailwheel and high altitude. They serve to protect passengers, who have an expectation of competency implied by the pilot certificate.
With type ratings, endorsements are implied... but there are plenty of piston singles that are a handful... and maybe it's not a bad idea that a pilot needs to take some additional training to carry passengers in his ground-loop happy Stearman.
That having been said, the high performance endorsement is bs, as is the complex endorsement. Just hold more right rudder and follow the checklist: there's your endorsement.

 

[azure]

I think there should be an SUV endorsement required. Where I live, huge SUV's like Suburbans plus the crew cab, long bed trucks are everywhere now and many people have no business driving them.

I think there should be an endorsement to pump self-serve fuel. I was at a station yesterday and the idiot in front of me (and upwind from me) was pumping gas the whole time with the engine running. The attendant didn't say a thing to him and I had to step on the other side of the island to get a break from breathing his fumes. It was the worst, but by no means the only stupid fueling act I've seen recently. Grrrr.

ObOT: No, I don't think we need any new aviation endorsements. We have too much regulation already.

 

[Telemakhos]

I think there should be an endorsement to pump self-serve fuel.

Simple fix for that problem: Move to New Jersey.

 

[Telemakhos]

Simple fix for that problem: Move to New Jersey.

I forgot to add: Insert joke about "skilled labor in New Jersey" here.
I regret the omission.

 

[Ted]

Sort of. There is no law that mandates flying with insurance, and I know several guys who don't have it.

Yes, but that makes up the minority. And those people are also the sort who I think wouldn't care about silly things like currency or endorsements in their flying (know several of those...).

While I agree with you in principle (because I think you're arguing a "less is more vis a vis regulation" position), I think that there is merit to some of the endorsements-- specifically tailwheel and high altitude. They serve to protect passengers, who have an expectation of competency implied by the pilot certificate.

That's the reason why people are required to get a pilot's certificate. The endorsements are really jokes.

Example: Not long ago, someone with more money than brains bought an old Cessna 310 (probably an A model). No multi rating, and then took off in the thing to head home. Then crashed it. Gee, wonder why.

Responsible pilots seek out training on aircraft prior to flight. Irresponsible ones won't, and endorsements, insurance, etc. won't stop them.

With type ratings, endorsements are implied... but there are plenty of piston singles that are a handful... and maybe it's not a bad idea that a pilot needs to take some additional training to carry passengers in his ground-loop happy Stearman.

The pilot does require additional training prior to just hopping in a Stearman and flying it, though, at least if it's an insured plane. And I can't think of anyone who'd let someone else without training just hop in their Stearman and fly it. I won't even let most people with training hop in my Aztec and fly it.

That having been said, the high performance endorsement is bs, as is the complex endorsement. Just hold more right rudder and follow the checklist: there's your endorsement.

Exactly. And the tailwheel endorsement is also a joke - because most people who get it admit they need significantly more training prior to feeling comfortable soloing a tailwheel.

 

[RyanShort1]

Exactly. And the tailwheel endorsement is also a joke - because most people who get it admit they need significantly more training prior to feeling comfortable soloing a tailwheel.

Well, that is an instructor problem, not an endorsement problem. If instructors are signing them off before they are at least safe, then that is an issue! That's not a reason to get rid of the endorsement. If anything, it should mandate a minimum number of hours, takeoffs, and landings with an instructor...

Ryan

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Well, that is an instructor problem, not an endorsement problem. If instructors are signing them off before they are at least safe, then that is an issue! That's not a reason to get rid of the endorsement. If anything, it should mandate a minimum number of hours, takeoffs, and landings with an instructor...

Ryan

I logged about two hours as a brand new student before my first solo which was in a Cessna 120. But I probably had more C-120 landings under my belt than the instructor did before I started "instruction"...

On the other hand, when I got retreaded, I spent about 8 hours pounding out 50+ landings in a stupid 150...

Hours and or # of landings really don't mean much. It's how well the individual is equiped to handle the aircraft.

And the endorsement doesn't mean much either. Even after the Cessna 150 instruction and all my tailwheel hours from years (and years, and years) ago I was in no way prepared to land my brothers Pitts from the front seat...

Oh - I vote no on the original question. More meaningless paperwork.

 

[EdFred]

Well, that is an instructor problem, not an endorsement problem. If instructors are signing them off before they are at least safe, then that is an issue! That's not a reason to get rid of the endorsement. If anything, it should mandate a minimum number of hours, takeoffs, and landings with an instructor...

Ryan

Ugh. No. Some people are just better sticks that others. It should be a case to case basis as it is now.

 

[RyanShort1]

Just for the record, I wasn't completely serious there... just saying that it would be a logical FAA response if what I quoted was really true.

I'm all for it remaining an endorsement at the CFI's discretion.

Ryan

 

[Ted]

Well, that is an instructor problem, not an endorsement problem. If instructors are signing them off before they are at least safe, then that is an issue!

There is a different between safe and comfortable. And that's pretty normal. Were you really completely comfortable for your first solo? Probably not. If you were, then you were either overconfident or you had way too much time prior to your first solo. If you're sending people up who are 100% confident, then you're either letting them get overconfident, or wasting their money as an instructor.

This goes beyond tailwheel. The first time I solo a new plane that's a step up, it always increases my nerves a bit. Especially since the planes I solo tend to be the property of friends, so I want to make sure I take good care of their babies. In more than one case, I fly the planes better than the owners.

That's not a reason to get rid of the endorsement. If anything, it should mandate a minimum number of hours, takeoffs, and landings with an instructor...

No, that is definitely the wrong way to go about it. Everyone learns differently, and some people are just better than others. It is a very good thing that there are no minimum hour, T/O and landing, etc. requirements.

As I said, insurance really ends up providing more than enough restrictions to keep people who are trying to fly properly from banging metal.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Exactly. And the instrument rating and seaplane class are also a joke - because most people who get it admit they need significantly more training prior to feeling comfortable soloing an airplane.

Modified to make a point. I really don't see a difference, independent examination notwithstanding.

I also believe there should be additional endorsements for CFIs who want to teach in certain classes beyond obtaining the class "rating" on their commercial certificate.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The CAP guys in AZ who plowed headlong into the only mountain anywhere near their flight plan at night, probably should'a used the terrain avoidance map feature their T182T was equipped with.

'Course I was more than a little surprised that a number of the Garmin hand-helds would have hollered "Terrain!" but the G1000 stays silent on the topic.

It does, just as soon as you pay Garmin $10K for the TAWS upgrade.

I think there should be an SUV endorsement required. Where I live, huge SUV's like Suburbans plus the crew cab, long bed trucks are everywhere now and many people have no business driving them.

Amen. I've wanted this for a long time. I'd draw the line somewhere in between the baby SUV's (Rav4 type of thing) and minivans, and the large SUV's and full-size vans. Overall, SUV drivers do the stupidest things on the road, and I say that as someone with around a million miles of driving experience. Current rules allow you to drive nearly anything as long as it's 26,000 pounds or less.

Sort of. There is no law that mandates flying with insurance, and I know several guys who don't have it.

Yup. There was a guy who crashed a nice new Columbia 400 at Sauk or Dells a few years ago, no insurance, shrugged it off and just bought another one. I wish I had that kind of money.

That having been said, the high performance endorsement is bs, as is the complex endorsement. Just hold more right rudder and follow the checklist: there's your endorsement.

A really good CFI will give you MUCH more than that, though.

I think there should be an endorsement to pump self-serve fuel.

I know you were talking about cars, but this is one thing that I will be teaching my students when I get my CFI. There are several things like this that aren't on the PTS but are important. I think some of the fuel starvation accidents are at least partially a result of people who are unfamiliar with fueling airplanes themselves pushing on to the bigger airport with linemen and trucks and running out on the way. So, I'll be sure that my students are comfortable fueling anywhere.

That's the reason why people are required to get a pilot's certificate. The endorsements are really jokes.

Not really - If they didn't exist, we'd have to teach everyone who got their private pilot certificate about that stuff, and some of it, especially high altitude, is information that very few people will ever use. And then Nick will have more to rant about.

IMO, again, a good CFI can make the endorsements into excellent learning experiences, and make it really worthwhile for their student.

The pilot does require additional training prior to just hopping in a Stearman and flying it, though, at least if it's an insured plane.

That's just it, though... Insurance isn't required, and there's still a fair number of people who don't have it.

Exactly. And the tailwheel endorsement is also a joke - because most people who get it admit they need significantly more training prior to feeling comfortable soloing a tailwheel.

Again, the fault of the CFI providing incomplete training.

 

[Ted]

Modified to make a point. I really don't see a difference, independent examination notwithstanding.

Instrument rating is definitely not a joke. Unfortunately, most instructors make the commercial pretty much a joke.

I also believe there should be additional endorsements for CFIs who want to teach in certain classes beyond obtaining the class "rating" on their commercial certificate.

I agree, but that's probably in there because getting the additions put on would prove relatively onerous.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

There is a different between safe and comfortable. And that's pretty normal. Were you really completely comfortable for your first solo? Probably not.

If you didn't feel entirely comfortable on your first flight after the private pilot certificate, does that mean that the private pilot certificate is a joke, unnecessary, and should be done away with?

As I said, insurance really ends up providing more than enough restrictions to keep people who are trying to fly properly from banging metal.

Only if the plane's actually insured. The FAA's job is to at least attempt to ensure that people have a certain level of training appropriate to the aircraft being flown. I think they do an OK job of that, and frankly, they do it without over-regulating us too much. If you look at the multitude of things that are legal yet unsafe, that becomes more clear. Yeah, the FAR/AIM is pretty thick, but the realm of things not covered in the FAR/AIM (and thus legal) is much larger.

 

[EdFred]

Modified to make a point. I really don't see a difference, independent examination notwithstanding.

I also believe there should be additional endorsements for CFIs who want to teach in certain classes beyond obtaining the class "rating" on their commercial certificate.

Disagree on the seaplane addition, except that I think it could be an endorsement rather than a rating. I thought it was the easiest flying there was. Now we can talk about it being difficult to land in certain places with a seaplane, but hell, we can land in difficult places with a land plane.

 

[Ted]

If you didn't feel entirely comfortable on your first flight after the private pilot certificate, does that mean that the private pilot certificate is a joke, unnecessary, and should be done away with?

No, and that wasn't the point.

Only if the plane's actually insured. The FAA's job is to at least attempt to ensure that people have a certain level of training appropriate to the aircraft being flown. I think they do an OK job of that, and frankly, they do it without over-regulating us too much. If you look at the multitude of things that are legal yet unsafe, that becomes more clear. Yeah, the FAR/AIM is pretty thick, but the realm of things not covered in the FAR/AIM (and thus legal) is much larger.

The FAA sets a minimum bar to have minimal restrictions. This is a good thing, because there are some people really don't actually need any instruction to be able to fly new aircraft. Think about it - every airplane had a first pilot who'd never flown it before and had to do all the learning for him or herself.

Additional policing (insurance companies, aircraft owners, etc.) end up bringing on more restrictions to make sure people receive more training.

I'm not saying do away with high performance, complex, and tailwheel endorsements. But the reality is that those will be included with any appropriate transition to a new aircraft. When I started flying the Mooney, I had already done my complex endorsement (because it was fun). If I hadn't, I still would have gotten it in the process of my transition training. Even if the insurance hadn't required it, the owner would have.

And there's still nothing that's stopping me from going out and buying a DC-3 and flying it home, despite lacking the type rating or a tailwheel endorsement, if I were of that inclination.

 

[Steve Foley]

Exactly. And the tailwheel endorsement is also a joke - because most people who get it admit they need significantly more training prior to feeling comfortable soloing a tailwheel.

Many students feel they need significantly more training prior to feeling comfortable soloing a Skyhawk.

The instructor is in a better position to evaluate the competency of the student than the student is.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

And there's still nothing that's stopping me from going out and buying a DC-3 and flying it home, despite lacking the type rating or a tailwheel endorsement, if I were of that inclination.

True - But you would risk your certificate. Those who don't even care about the certificate, well, they're out there and endorsements, ratings, insurance and all that obviously don't matter to them. There's nothing stopping you from buying a brand-new Freightliner and driving it home either...

I agree 100% with the remainder of your post.

 

[MBDiagMan]

Yes, there are some pilots out there that don't give a tinker's damn about licenses, approved training or any of that kind of thing. I used to work for a guy who flew a helicopter regularly with no license of any kind. I would like to think that this is a very slim minority, but I have no idea what the numbers would be.

Doc

 

[dmccormack]

Again, the fault of the CFI providing incomplete training.

In some cases, but in most cases an endorsement is yet another license to learn.

 

[Bobcat1]

Yes, there are some pilots out there that don't give a tinker's damn about licenses, approved training or any of that kind of thing. I used to work for a guy who flew a helicopter regularly with no license of any kind. I would like to think that this is a very slim minority, but I have no idea what the numbers would be.

Doc

There are more out there than you'd think.

 

[Ted]

There are more out there than you'd think.

And those are typically the same ones going around without insurance, etc.

 

[ziege]

There is no point in insurance if you don't have the certificate. It's nothing but a waste of money to pay for a policy that won't pay out if you ding.



Government licensing of pilots has merit - the government should know about you so you can be used during war (police action, peace, whatever the word of the day is), same as a doctor or a radio operator. Your "license" is a good way for the government to maintain those records.

The endorsement concept is a joke. It serves exactly two purposes: 1) To allow a procedural finding of blame after an accident (in other words, "we don't know what happened really but we can't find this paperwork so we'll blame the pilot"), and 2) to give a marginal amount of extra work to flight instructors (marginal because most of the training would happen even without endorsements). Not one life has been saved by an endorsement, not one accident prevented, not one outcome changed, ever, in the history of flight.

As for the original question...say what you want about cattle, at least they don't sit around discussing designs for better cattle prods.

 

[EdFred]

There is no point in insurance if you don't have the certificate. It's nothing but a waste of money to pay for a policy that won't pay out if you ding.



Government licensing of pilots has merit - the government should know about you so you can be used during war (police action, peace, whatever the word of the day is), same as a doctor or a radio operator. Your "license" is a good way for the government to maintain those records.

The endorsement concept is a joke. It serves exactly two purposes: 1) To allow a procedural finding of blame after an accident (in other words, "we don't know what happened really but we can't find this paperwork so we'll blame the pilot"), and 2) to give a marginal amount of extra work to flight instructors (marginal because most of the training would happen even without endorsements). Not one life has been saved by an endorsement, not one accident prevented, not one outcome changed, ever, in the history of flight.

As for the original question...say what you want about cattle, at least they don't sit around discussing designs for better cattle prods.

You can not prove that statement.

 

[ziege]

You can not prove that statement.

Yeah?

So by what mechanism is some boilerplate written in a logbook going to affect the physical world? Claiming that they will is to attribute magical properties to them - quite extraordinary.

We are left with a corrolary of occam's razor:Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Writing in a book directly affecting the physical world would be extraordinary. Where's the proof that writing in a book has ever done so? Much less saved a life.

Without evidence for a thing, we must assume the absence. That's logic, it's cool.

 

[EdFred]

Hard to legally give an endorsement without the training.

Endorsement = training.

Substitute a for b

Not one life has been saved by training....

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.


Plus you were the one making the claim. Let's see the proof.

 

[ajstoner21]

Yes, there are some pilots out there that don't give a tinker's damn about licenses, approved training or any of that kind of thing. I used to work for a guy who flew a helicopter regularly with no license of any kind. I would like to think that this is a very slim minority, but I have no idea what the numbers would be.

Doc

I don't know how serious he was, but I was at a safety seminar once, and the gentleman presenting to us said that one of the safety goals for Alaska was to get at least half of the pilots up there certificated.

I was up in my local tower one day, and they think there are a number of people based on the field with out a license, but they operate otherwise, legally (clearances and such). They said it isnt their job to police them to make sure they are current flight review and licensed and stuff.

Its probably more common than we would like to believe.


It is my opinion, that insurance is playing such a huge role, because most students are renters. Anyone renting out a plane is going to have insurance, and they will want to protect their planes. So, if the FAA requirements dont qualify you to rent a plane based on most insurance requirements, it presents a problem. One of the reasons that a CFI may be onboard for the long cross country flight for initial multi-engine commercial cert, is because insurance made it hard for students to rent a multi engine plane solo. Thats now the case for even single engine. (A very recent change...). Because insurance is not required to fly, it doesnt really matter if you own your plane and are willing to lose it. But, its the renting community where insurance really plays a role, i THINK.

Other than requiring something for IFR when going from Glass to Steam (Glass really does almost everything for you, while steam does nothing...), I am fine with the current endorsements. At least with my current experience level.