Written endorsements

[jesse]

I gave a student this morning an endorsement to take the private pilot written. He used a home study course, which I reviewed, and I also had him show me several practice tests.

I gave him the following endorsement:

I certify I have reviewed the home study curriculum of (John A. Doe). I have determined he is prepared for the private pilot airplane written test.
/s/ 5-8-2012 Jesse Angell XXXXXXCFI Exp. 04-2013

That endorsement is word-for-word out of AC 61-65E Page 17 item 70:

70. Review of a home study curriculum: section 61.35(a)(1).
I certify I have reviewed the home study curriculum of (First name, MI, Last name). I have determined he/she is prepared for the (name the knowledge test).
/s/ [date] J. J. Jones 987654321CFI Exp. 12-31-05

My student then later called me and informed me that they would not accept the endorsement. I asked to speak with whomever had said that -- who was the official practitioner of the test. He told me that the endorsement wasn't acceptable because it didn't reference 61.105. I asked him if he was familiar with AC 61-65E..He wasn't. Anyways....I ended up sending another endorsement referenceing 61.35(a)(1) which was accepted.

There are two endorsements shown in 61-65E. One strongly implies that you provided all the required ground training whereas another states you reviewed the home study curriculum. I suspect most instructors just always use the first one and don't even understand/read what they're actually endorsing.

I find it interesting that the endorsement recommended by AC 61-65E is not acceptable to Lasergrade. It had all the right verbiage I know of no regulation requiring that one reference the regulation in an endorsement. It's all about the verbiage.

Anyways. Rant over

 

[dell30rb]

Some of this stuff is so ridiculous. I ran into a similar issue, which the DPE let slide, though she made it known that it was incorrect and if an FAA inspector happened to be present for my check ride, it would be bad news.

 

[HerrGruyere]

I took ground school at a community college and fly at a different place. I receive very little ground at the actual airport. I had the option of possibly having the instructor at the community college endorse me, but I'd rather have my CFI at the airport give me the endorsement. I'm wary that the final I took for CC is different than the FAA written and I don't want to be endorsed and go take it only to fail or do much worse.

I also didn't want to run into an issue like the OP.

 

[Dave Theisen]

I work at school that does Laser Grade. Next time I am at the airport I'll ask some of the proctors about that and see what they say. Could be policy or could be that individual.

 

[poadeleted20]

I find it interesting that the endorsement recommended by AC 61-65E is not acceptable to Lasergrade. It had all the right verbiage I know of no regulation requiring that one reference the regulation in an endorsement. It's all about the verbiage.

Yup. If you read the case law, you'll see that failing to reference the regulation is something they generally find unacceptable in endorsements, even though AC's on their face provide acceptable means for complying with the regs.

In any event, I make it a personal practice to reference the regs in every endorsement I give, and PIC's stickers always do, too. I think the FIRC's also teach that as a "best practice."

 

[tonycondon]

none of my students have told me that the test taking place even looked at their endorsement.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

none of my students have told me that the test taking place even looked at their endorsement.

+1

Same here. Jesse, that situation seems silly (not to mention frustrating). AC 61-65E has the endorsements and thus should be acceptable to the proctor administering the knowledge test.

 

[jesse]

Yup. If you read the case law, you'll see that failing to reference the regulation is something they generally find unacceptable in endorsements, even though AC's on their face provide acceptable means for complying with the regs.

Any chance you could provide me with a reference to such case law?

 

[poadeleted20]

Any chance you could provide me with a reference to such case law?

You can start with Administrator v. Couillard, but also read Reno.

 

[Jim Logajan]

You can start with Administrator v. Couillard, but also read Reno.

Those relate to logbook endorsements. A written endorsement for taking the written is another animal.

 

[poadeleted20]

Those relate to logbook endorsements. A written endorsement for taking the written is another animal.

Not exactly. While it's not specified explicitly in 61.35, it is specified elsewhere as being a logbook endorsement, e.g., in 61.103 for PP:

(d) Receive a logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor who:
(1) Conducted the training or reviewed the person's home study on the aeronautical knowledge areas listed in Sec. 61.105(b) of this part that apply to the aircraft rating sought; and
(2) Certified that the person is prepared for the required knowledge test.

... which is referenced in 61.35:

(a) An applicant for a knowledge test must have:
(1) Received an endorsement, if required by this part, from an authorized instructor certifying that the applicant accomplished the appropriate ground-training or a home-study course required by this part for the certificate or rating sought and is prepared for the knowledge test;

...61.103 being in "this part" (Part 61).

 

[Jim Logajan]

Not exactly. While it's not specified explicitly in 61.35, it is specified elsewhere as being a logbook endorsement, e.g., in 61.109 for PP:
... which is referenced in 61.35:
...61.109 being in "this part" (Part 61).

You mean 61.103, not 61.109.

I got endorsed by a computer proxy to take the written.

 

[poadeleted20]

You mean 61.103, not 61.109.

Yes, I did. Fixed. Thanks for sharp eyes.

I got endorsed by a computer proxy to take the written.

Technically, you should stick that in your logbook, but apparently they don't always worry about that. Either way, I'll bet it referenced the regs by number.

 

[jason]

You can start with Administrator v. Couillard, but also read Reno.

Um, so you're saying that somebody that simply wrote "Ok to solo" in a student's logbook and somebody that plain and simply didn't provide solo endorsements are examples that show that a reference to the regs is clearly preferred (if not required)?

Neither of those cases used proper endorsements. How is copying the verbiage straight out of the AC not considered sufficient? Sorry, Ron, I just don't see how those two cases apply to this discussion.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Technically, you should stick that in your logbook, but apparently they don't always worry about that. Either way, I'll bet it referenced the regs by number.

Fortunately I printed it out as a PDF file, allowing me to reprint it anytime I need it. (It was computer generated after all.)

For Jesse and others who are curious, here is a copy-and-paste of the relevant text Gleim uses:

Dr. Irvin N. Gleim certifies that the above individual has prepared for the FAA Private Pilot-Airplane knowledge test [covering topics specified in CFR 61.105(b)(1) through (13)] using the Gleim Online Ground School course.

The Gleim Online Ground School course has ascertained that the above individual has satisfactorily completed this online ground school, which includes all airplane-related questions in the FAA Private Pilot test bank of questions. Thus, I have determined that (s)he is prepared for the Private Pilot-Airplane knowledge test.
​

They call it a "Sign-Off Form" and it contains an image of Dr. Gleim's signature and this note on the legality of the document:

The Gleim Ground School course and this sign-off form have been approved by the FAA (AFS-800). Your CATS or Lasergrade personnel must call their executive office with any questions.

​

 

[poadeleted20]

Neither of those cases used proper endorsements. How is copying the verbiage straight out of the AC not considered sufficient?

It should be sufficient, but apparently it may not be.

 

[Tristar]

I consider it a safety on my part to always include an FAR in it but it seriously is lazergrade's problem. They are one of the biggest PITA companies to deal with. We are conditioned to be paranoid as proctors. They came by and did an audit on us a few months ago and because I had forgotten to have a customer sign out, they threatened to suspend me. Not all of the numbers even line up in their manual in comparison to the program and we've had to call and clarify. So it's nothing Jesse did, he did everything exactly as he's supposed to as it's written in 61.65. Lazergrade just isn't fun to deal with and we have to do our best not to make them mad or Lincoln won't have a testing center at all.

Consider us lenient. Milliard wouldn't let me take in my jacket, the back of my calculator, made me roll up my sleeves to check for answers, and was very snotty when I told them they didn't have to use my social security number. "Don't tell me what I need and don't need to put!" 'scuse me for pointing out facts.

 

[Ted]

When I took the FOI, the LaserGrade examiner wanted to see my endorsement for it, and wouldn't let me take it until I had an endorsement.

Yeah. For my FOI.

 

[gismo]

I took ground school at a community college and fly at a different place. I receive very little ground at the actual airport. I had the option of possibly having the instructor at the community college endorse me, but I'd rather have my CFI at the airport give me the endorsement. I'm wary that the final I took for CC is different than the FAA written and I don't want to be endorsed and go take it only to fail or do much worse.

I also didn't want to run into an issue like the OP.

Nothing says you can't get the endorsement from the CC instructor and then add to your knowledge by working with your CFI prior to taking the written test as long as you take the test within 2 years of the CC instructor's signoff.

 

[vintage cessna]

Um, so you're saying that somebody that simply wrote "Ok to solo" in a student's logbook and somebody that plain and simply didn't provide solo endorsements are examples that show that a reference to the regs is clearly preferred (if not required)?

Neither of those cases used proper endorsements. How is copying the verbiage straight out of the AC not considered sufficient? Sorry, Ron, I just don't see how those two cases apply to this discussion.

The two cases cited obviously don't apply, one case, the student pilot didn't even have an endorsement.

 

[poadeleted20]

The two cases cited obviously don't apply, one case, the student pilot didn't even have an endorsement.

Well, you feel free to write your next endorsement without regulatory reference...oh, wait, that's right -- you're not a CFI.

 

[skyflyer8]

I set up a CATS FAA & FCC testing center at Jet Air Group in Green Bay and am the test center supervisor. CATS and Lasergrade don't make the rules, the FAA does. And all the rules are strict -- they take things pretty seriously! (I can't even let you use your own pencil.) It became obvious how serious all this stuff is when it took around a year and mounds of paperwork to get us certified.

Proctors have to refer to the most current FAA test authorization matrix document when determining if an applicant is eligible for a test. Take a look at that document to see what we proctors see on our end:

http://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/airmen/media/testing_matrix.pdf

In case you are looking for lengthy reading material, the rest of the rules are in FAA Order 8080.6E.

Sounds like some of you have had bad experiences or know someone who did. I would call CATS or Lasergrade directly with any questions about why a proctor didn't accept a certain authorization or insisted there should be one when there wasn't supposed to be. CATS and Lasergrade can help make sure everyone is properly trained and follows the right procedures next time.

 

[jesse]

I set up a CATS FAA & FCC testing center at Jet Air Group in Green Bay and am the test center supervisor. CATS and Lasergrade don't make the rules, the FAA does. And all the rules are strict -- they take things pretty seriously! (I can't even let you use your own pencil.) It became obvious how serious all this stuff is when it took around a year and mounds of paperwork to get us certified.

Proctors have to refer to the most current FAA test authorization matrix document when determining if an applicant is eligible for a test. Take a look at that document to see what we proctors see on our end:

http://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/airmen/media/testing_matrix.pdf

In case you are looking for lengthy reading material, the rest of the rules are in FAA Order 8080.6E.

Sounds like some of you have had bad experiences or know someone who did. I would call CATS or Lasergrade directly with any questions about why a proctor didn't accept a certain authorization or insisted there should be one when there wasn't supposed to be. CATS and Lasergrade can help make sure everyone is properly trained and follows the right procedures next time.

Thanks Kate. That document seems to confirm that my endorsement was acceptable as written.

 

[jesse]

Milliard wouldn't let me take in my jacket, the back of my calculator, made me roll up my sleeves to check for answers, and was very snotty when I told them they didn't have to use my social security number. "Don't tell me what I need and don't need to put!" 'scuse me for pointing out facts.

Millard is the only flight school in the region I've ever told someone they should avoid. I've never seen a school with such a ****-poor attitude. Whoever the lady is there that answers the phone is extremely rude to people calling in and acts like she's doing you an incredible favor by even answering the phone. I do know someone that did put her in her place over the phone once.

They go through instructors like my dog goes through tennis balls.....and..I'll stop now

 

[CMTowner]

I took ground school at a community college and fly at a different place. I receive very little ground at the actual airport. I had the option of possibly having the instructor at the community college endorse me, but I'd rather have my CFI at the airport give me the endorsement. I'm wary that the final I took for CC is different than the FAA written and I don't want to be endorsed and go take it only to fail or do much worse.

I also didn't want to run into an issue like the OP.

I went through a community college to take my PP ground school. The instructor there was also the DPE at my local flight school. Our final grade came from the score that we got off the written test, which I thought was very fitting.

 

[HerrGruyere]

Ah, that makes more sense!

 

[Dr. O]

This whole discussion is just another proof that the decline and fall of GA is complete and finished... When FAA procedure requires a Philadelphia Lawyer to write (and decipher) a simple CFI endorsement to approve the student on to the next phase of testing, well - it's all over folks...

 

[midlifeflyer]

This whole discussion is just another proof that the decline and fall of GA is complete and finished... When FAA procedure requires a Philadelphia Lawyer to write (and decipher) a simple CFI endorsement to approve the student on to the next phase of testing, well - it's all over folks...

Although there are regs that are a bit vague, most discussions of this type are a comprehension and assumption problem, the assumption being that the FAR are complex, vague and unclear.

The analysis tends to go like this:

• Sign at supermarket says, "Shirts and shoes required."
• Assumption: Supermarket signs are complex, vague and unclear.
• Result: "Do they mean in the store, on the street, in one's house? My those supermarket signs sure are complex, vague and unclear."

 

[Steve Foley]

Sign at supermarket says, "Shirts and shoes required."
Result: "Do they mean in the store, on the street, in one's house? My those supermarket signs sure are complex, vague and unclear."

Nope. If the sign says "Help Wanted", it means that they are seeking employees.

If it says "Help Required", it means they are urgently seeking employees.

If it says "Shirts and Shoes Required", it means they are urgently seeking shirts and shows.

 

[kimberlyanne546]

I gave a student this morning an endorsement to take the private pilot written. He used a home study course, which I reviewed, and I also had him show me several practice tests.

I gave him the following endorsement:



That endorsement is word-for-word out of AC 61-65E Page 17 item 70:


My student then later called me and informed me that they would not accept the endorsement. I asked to speak with whomever had said that -- who was the official practitioner of the test. He told me that the endorsement wasn't acceptable because it didn't reference 61.105. I asked him if he was familiar with AC 61-65E..He wasn't. Anyways....I ended up sending another endorsement referenceing 61.35(a)(1) which was accepted.

There are two endorsements shown in 61-65E. One strongly implies that you provided all the required ground training whereas another states you reviewed the home study curriculum. I suspect most instructors just always use the first one and don't even understand/read what they're actually endorsing.

I find it interesting that the endorsement recommended by AC 61-65E is not acceptable to Lasergrade. It had all the right verbiage I know of no regulation requiring that one reference the regulation in an endorsement. It's all about the verbiage.

Anyways. Rant over

My home study course printed out an endorsement for me. I didn't even bother my CFI about anything.

 

[ebetancourt]

Although there are regs that are a bit vague, most discussions of this type are a comprehension and assumption problem, the assumption being that the FAR are complex, vague and unclear.
[/LIST]

Decipher this one for me: 61.93(e)(9) Use of radios for VFR navigation and two-way communication, except that a student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate must only receive and log flight training on the use of radios installed in the aircraft to be flown;

So a recreational or private pilot must receive flight training in the use of radios not installed in the aircraft? I find this clear as mud, but I'm sure it's just my comprehension problem.

 

[denverpilot]

I always liked "End Construction". It's a protest sign right? Prepositions like "of" are apparently expensive to print.

 

[poadeleted20]

Decipher this one for me: 61.93(e)(9) Use of radios for VFR navigation and two-way communication, except that a student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate must only receive and log flight training on the use of radios installed in the aircraft to be flown;

So a recreational or private pilot must receive flight training in the use of radios not installed in the aircraft? I find this clear as mud, but I'm sure it's just my comprehension problem.

Since Sport Pilots are not required to have any radio training, this paragraph is waived for solo XC by Student Sport Pilots if they don't have any radios in the plane. If they do, they must be trained on them before solo XC. OTOH, Student Pilots seeking a PP or RP must have the radio training before solo XC -- even if they don't have a radio in the plane (i.e., they'll have to get some training in a radio-equipped plane before solo XC regardless of whether the plane in which they'll go solo XC has radios or not).

 

[ebetancourt]

Since Sport Pilots are not required to have any radio training, this paragraph is waived for solo XC by Student Sport Pilots if they don't have any radios in the plane. If they do, they must be trained on them before solo XC. OTOH, Student Pilots seeking a PP or RP must have the radio training before solo XC -- even if they don't have a radio in the plane (i.e., they'll have to get some training in a radio-equipped plane before solo XC regardless of whether the plane in which they'll go solo XC has radios or not).

I suspect you are correct of course, but my point was/is that the reg is a little unclear. What does a radio for navigation consist of? Is a portable GPS ok? Do you have to find an airplane with VOR? NDB? And if the student is going to go X-Ctry in the airplane, what benefit is there to training in another? I understand the requirement, don't even disagree. But the requirement here as written, is dumb. The regs are not clear, and a logical reading of the words as written is not enough. Sorry, I think that is ridiculous.

 

[poadeleted20]

I suspect you are correct of course, but my point was/is that the reg is a little unclear.

I agree, but short of creating a separate Subpart and certificate for Student Sport Pilots, I'm not sure how it could be worded better, although I suspect AFS-810 would be happy to entertain suggestions.

What does a radio for navigation consist of?

One which allows completion of the PP/RP Navigation Systems and Radar Services practical test task:

B. TASK: NAVIGATION SYSTEMS AND RADAR SERVICES
(ASEL and ASES)
REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-3, AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25; Navigation
Equipment Operation Manuals, AIM.​

Objective.

To determine that the applicant:​

1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to navigation systems
and radar services.
2. Demonstrates the ability to use an airborne electronic navigation system.

3. Locates the airplane's position using the navigation system.

4. Intercepts and tracks a given course, radial or bearing, as

appropriate.
5. Recognizes and describes the indication of station passage, if
appropriate.
6. Recognizes signal loss and takes appropriate action.
7. Uses proper communication procedures when utilizing radar
services.
8. Maintains the appropriate altitude, ±200 feet (60 meters) and ​

headings ±15°​

​

So, it would have to allow you to determine position, select a course, determine deviation from the course, and signal station passage. A VOR with CDI (typically external, but internal like the KX-125 would also work), ADF with bearing indicator, or GPS with either internal or external course deviation indication should do.​

Is a portable GPS ok?

I've looked through the PTS and FAA Orders 8900.1 for inspectors and 8900.2 for examiners, and it is not clear in those documents. The relevant regulation (61.45(b)) and the PTS say the applicant must provide an aircraft which can do all the required tasks:​

(b) Required equipment (other than controls).
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, an aircraft used for a practical test must have--
(i) The equipment for each area of operation required for the practical test;...

This section further requires that the aircraft must:
...
3. be capable of performing all AREAS OF OPERATION appropriate to the rating sought and have no operating limitations, which prohibit its use in any of the AREAS OF OPERATION, required for the practical test

That suggests but does not specify that the radios must be installed. My experience suggests it's a call made by the examiner involved, so if you want to use a handheld for either the comm or nav radio tasks, you should discuss this with the examiner well in advance of the ride.​

Do you have to find an airplane with VOR? NDB?

The PTS does not specify the type of radio nav gear to be used, only that you have a nav radio which allows you to do what that task requires.

And if the student is going to go X-Ctry in the airplane, what benefit is there to training in another?

You'd have to ask whoever wrote that rule, and he's long since retired.

I understand the requirement, don't even disagree. But the requirement here as written, is dumb. The regs are not clear, and a logical reading of the words as written is not enough. Sorry, I think that is ridiculous.

Can't help with that other than to suggest writing to AFS-810 and telling them what you think, or to go further and submit a petition for rulemaking per Part 11 of the FAR's recommending changes to that reg which would address your concerns.
​