...

This is a "better safe than sorry," in which I would say yes: ensure you have an appropriate 61.87(n) or 61.87(p) endorsement. If you read the regulations carefully, it's an endorsement for solo flight, whereas the checkride scenario has you acting as PIC with an occupant, which isn't solo flight. But there are plenty of DPEs who regard it as a necessary endorsement to act as PIC, and so will reject you for the checkride.
 
What is the level of effort in having your CFI provide an updated (and current) solo endorsement as well as taking the opportunity for your CFI to give your entire logbook with all endorsements one last look over prior to your checkride?

What is the level of effort if your DPE rejects you because of a non-current solo endorsement? How do you want the DPE to perceive you in terms of preparation and following of rules?

Ultimately your choice how you want to proceed.
 
Can you legally operate as PIC without the endorsement? The DPE is not performing CFI duties.
 
StraightnLevel said:
Yes, and a refusal to perform a checkride based on something that is not a requirement will result in an immediate call to the FSDO. Nobody involved in the process wants that to happen.
Click to expand...
Maybe nobody wants it to happen, but the FAA can’t mandate who a DPE does or doesn’t continue to do business with.
 
Regardless of whether it is legally required or not, I would recommend getting a fresh sign-off. My CFI and I both failed to notice that my 90 day solo authorization had expired the previous day but my DPE allowed me to go find my CFI and have her sign me a fresh one right then, dated the day before when we'd last flown together. That said, why would you need an extra flight for the solo sign off? If your instructor is comfortable with giving you the ultimate solo sign off (checkride endorsement), why would there be an issue with getting a new solo sign off?

As far as legally, I have no clue. I don't believe it is listed in the things required to be eligible for a checkride, but I think it seems to be generally regarded as necessary from all the prep materials I've seen, so I would hesitate to assume that it isn't needed.
 
StraightnLevel said:
Is a current solo endorsement required for the PPL checkride?

I don't see that as a requirement if all of the prescriptive flight times have been met, but I'd hate to get caught out by something this mundane. Honestly, I don't see the point in going back to get a new endorsement for just a few days....but is it going to be a problem if I don't?
Click to expand...

This power point presentation from the FAA indicates the answer is, no ... https://www.faasafety.gov/files/eve...19665/FAA_DPE_AIRMN_CERT_INFO_FEB_2023_v2.pdf
 
I think we are missing something important here, SkyChaser mentioned it.

When I went for my check ride, I needed an endorsement from my CFI that I was ready. That was 2.4 hours tach time, and included everything the DPE normally required applicates to do.

The check ride was nearly an hour less, but among other things, the engine out landing accomplished the short field requirement by hitting the numbers, full flaps, and 10 above stall.

The DPE did look for that endorsement, to see who it was, and complimented me on choice of instructors. He had only failed one of his students, the rest he described as over achievers.

As others above have said, do not go to the DPE with any hint of a visible fail in your log, especially the last page or two. You lose his fee, and are required to refly with your instructor to remedy the failure. In your case, schedule him and have him make the required entry, still not free, and now reschedule and wait for the DPE.


Further, if the DPE noticed that your arrival was without a valid solo endorsement, he can advise you that if you attempt to fly from his home field, he will have you cited for flying without the solo endorsement. That will go to the FAA, and you will have repercussions that may delay flying at all, for many days/weeks/months.

Gamblers make poor pilots, and that is what you are proposing to do.
 
The closest thing I know of which covers this specifically is in FAA Order 8900.1. In conducting a private checkride,
E. Solo Flight Endorsement. The applicant’s logbook must contain the appropriate solo flight endorsement(s).​
Yes, it kind of begs the question, "what is appropriate?"

But we can probably justify the requirement with 61.31(d)
(d) Aircraft category, class, and type ratings: Limitations on operating an aircraft as the pilot in command. To serve as the pilot in command of an aircraft, a person must -​
(1) Hold the appropriate category, class, and type rating (if a class or type rating is required) for the aircraft to be flown; or​
(2) Have received training required by this part that is appropriate to the pilot certification level, aircraft category, class, and type rating (if a class or type rating is required) for the aircraft to be flown, and have received an endorsement for solo flight in that aircraft from an authorized instructor.​
 
StraightnLevel said:
Yes, and a refusal to perform a checkride based on something that is not a requirement will result in an immediate call to the FSDO. Nobody involved in the process wants that to happen.


Back to the original question: What do the regs require?
Click to expand...

Why not just call the FSDO ahead of time and ask the question? Be proactive and get the authoritative answer ahead of time.

Elsewise, you’re asking SGOTI for their opinion.
 
midlifeflyer said:
All 61.47 says is (1) the examiner is not PIC unless they agree to be and (2) the applicant is not prohibited from carrying the examiner as a passenger. Not sure how that answers the inconsistency between "still current" and "not required."
Click to expand...

I read it as the endorsement isn’t required, unless the student has to fly somewhere else after failing or discontinuing the practical.
 
StraightnLevel said:
Yes, and a refusal to perform a checkride based on something that is not a requirement will result in an immediate call to the FSDO. Nobody involved in the process wants that to happen.
Click to expand...
There's a problem with that. There are non-specified requirements which examiners are instructed to do by their local FSDO (the FSDO vertical realignment made some good changes, but it's not perfect). If it's one of those, the one who least wants that to happen is the applicant.
 
TCABM said:
I read it as the endorsement isn’t required, unless the student has to fly somewhere else after failing or discontinuing the practical.
Click to expand...
Where does it say anything about endorsements being required or not? If you accept that the student is PIC, aren't we back at 61.31 requiring solo endorsement for acting as PIC?
 
SkyChaser said:
Regardless of whether it is legally required or not, I would recommend getting a fresh sign-off. My CFI and I both failed to notice that my 90 day solo authorization had expired the previous day but my DPE allowed me to go find my CFI and have her sign me a fresh one right then, dated the day before when we'd last flown together. That said, why would you need an extra flight for the solo sign off? If your instructor is comfortable with giving you the ultimate solo sign off (checkride endorsement), why would there be an issue with getting a new solo sign off?

As far as legally, I have no clue. I don't believe it is listed in the things required to be eligible for a checkride, but I think it seems to be generally regarded as necessary from all the prep materials I've seen, so I would hesitate to assume that it isn't needed.
Click to expand...
I agree. In my case, having the solo endorsement was a requirement as I was flying to the DPE's airport for the checkride. Also, I needed a Class B endorsement since the airport was on the other side of the Bravo. That came in handy when I mentioned I was clear into the Bravo and the DPE went looking for that. :cool:
 
midlifeflyer said:
Where does it say anything about endorsements being required or not? If you accept that the student is PIC, aren't we back at 61.31 requiring solo endorsement for acting as PIC?
Click to expand...

That’s actually a good question; I was thinking in terms of 61.87 and 61.89. But since the student pilot certificate does not have an associated category, class, or type rating, I think I stand corrected as the solo endorsement is what provides the category/class authorized to operate as PIC.
 
StraightnLevel said:
Right - or if you are flying to a distant airport to begin the exam.

Reading FAA regs is like reading poorly translated Japanese audio equipment instructions from the 1980s. Plenty of effort was spent to compose them, but the net result is often obtuse at best.
Click to expand...

See post 28 as I missed something.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Where does it say anything about endorsements being required or not? If you accept that the student is PIC, aren't we back at 61.31 requiring solo endorsement for acting as PIC?
Click to expand...
A solo endorsement is required for a student pilot to fly solo. A practical test is not a solo flight.

61.31 (i)(2) waives the requirement for a category and class rating (i.e. private, commercial, or ATP) when taking a practical test being given by an examiner.
 
The student isn't solo on a checkride. A solo endorsement is irrelevant.
midlifeflyer said:
Where does it say anything about endorsements being required or not? If you accept that the student is PIC, aren't we back at 61.31 requiring solo endorsement for acting as PIC?
Click to expand...
That does not apply to a practical test. 61.31(l)
 
StraightnLevel said:
Yes, but the checkride is not a solo flight.

Put another way, the ACS lists qualification requirements in excruciating detail (and it's a great reference). It does not include a current solo endorsement as a requirement (at least not that I have found). Why not?
Click to expand...

Dunno, I wasn’t privy to writing that document. As I mentioned, you could proactively call the FSDO and get the answer from an authoritative source.
 
TCABM said:
Dunno, I wasn’t privy to writing that document. As I mentioned, you could proactively call the FSDO and get the answer from an authoritative source.
Click to expand...
I never use a FSDO as an authoritative source. Even without different FSDOs, what the ASI manning the phone the day you call says may be different than what the agent another day says. There have been a number of problems about that. It's definitely better now, but it still happens. I don't know the status but there were recently three FSDOs convinced that there is a new required checkride endorsement and instructed all the DPEs they supervised to look for it. I've spoken with DPEs in other districts who went WTF?
 
StraightnLevel said:
Is a current solo endorsement required for the PPL checkride?

I don't see that as a requirement if all of the prescriptive flight times have been met, but I'd hate to get caught out by something this mundane. Honestly, I don't see the point in going back to get a new endorsement for just a few days....but is it going to be a problem if I don't?
Click to expand...
1. What did your CFI say?
1a. Why is it even a problem getting a new endorsement? If I've signed someone off for a checkride, I sure must be comfortable enough to sign them off for solo.
2. Why not just call the DPE and ask?
 
Why roll the dice, debate rule nuances, or talk about hypotheticals? Get signed off
 
I make sure their solo endorsement is current, yes, for the checkride.
 
I also make sure someone has more than exactly 5 solo and 5 solo XC hours.. why risk it or make the DPE question it?
 
TCABM said:
you could proactively call the FSDO and get the answer from an authoritative source.
Click to expand...
Then you can call another FSDO and get a different answer from another authoritative source.

If you're going to call anybody, call the DPE. He might be right, he might be wrong, but he knows what he'll accept and what he won't.

If you don't like the DPE's answer then you have to decide which is easier; changing the DPE's mind or getting an updated endorsement.

My opinion, which means absolutely nothing, is that you need to be able to show the solo endorsements under which all of your logged solo time was flown.
 
StraightnLevel said:
Yes, and a refusal to perform a checkride based on something that is not a requirement will result in an immediate call to the FSDO. Nobody involved in the process wants that to happen.
Click to expand...
Threatening the DPE with a call to the FSDO is certain to have undesirable results, whether you're correct or not.
 
OB342 briefly discussed this briefly and orthagonally on ep 342 @ Airventure. I’m about a cocktail in, so the time mark is somewhere in the first half of the show. Info in the show notes.

open.spotify.com

Opposing Bases: Air Traffic Talk

Podcast · [object Object] · RH and AG are two experienced air traffic controllers and pilots that host a weekly show answering listener questions, breaking down complex aviation topics, and relating their experiences to everyday occurrences in the national airspace system. The hosts and...
open.spotify.com open.spotify.com
 
In plain language, “simple scenario, all things being equal,” the student pilot applicant is not technically required to possess a “current” solo endorsement for the purpose of the Private Pilot practical test.

If the student pilot applicant flies solo to the evaluator’s location (somewhat common for my applicants) the solo endorsement is, of course, required for that operation. Same goes for flying “home” in case a Notice of Disapproval is issued.

14 CFR 61.47 provides a means for an otherwise non-certificated/rated pilot to act as PIC for the duration of the flight portion of the practical test; the evaluator is not a flight crewmember and is therefore a passenger; the applicant is not flying solo, therefore a solo endorsement is not required.

As a practical matter it’s a little uncommon to find a well-prepared Private Pilot applicant to present themselves for the practical test with an out-of-date solo endorsement, but it’s possible.
 
Lindberg said:
Threatening the DPE with a call to the FSDO is certain to have undesirable results, whether you're correct or not.
Click to expand...

I encourage my applicants to get the FSDO involved any time there’s a disagreement on a matter of procedure, regulations, eligibility, etc. Everything should be done in the “sunlight” and I welcome the opportunity to improve my understanding on those matters. No repercussions, no adjustment to my impartiality. I mean that quite sincerely.

That said - haven’t had any takers after some unknown hundreds of practical tests and administrative events since 2019.
 
Having a current solo endorsement is a double hedge. First, you can go work on what you fail on the check ride immediately afterward. Second, you can have the conversation with the examiner about what has to be in your logbook in order to fly with absolutely no doubt that you have what you need to fly with the examiner that day.

It’s also a third hedge if your examiner shows up wearing a parachute.

I would just get re-endorsed. It’s a pain but a minor one relative to many of the things you’ll have to do before kicking tires and lighting fires on flights after you pass the check ride.
 
iamtheari said:
I would just get re-endorsed. It’s a pain
Click to expand...
Is it really though? I asked before but the OP didn't clarify why it was such a hassle. If I had a student who I'd signed off for a checkride, I would have no hesitation in signing another solo endorsement. Just see me next time I'm at the airport, or heck, I'll email or text you an endorsement - or if you're using an online logbook I'll just go in and do it now. Be done in what, a minute?

Now if the hassle is because the CFI moved on and is out of contact flying for Botswana Air or something like that, okay, but there's no discussion of the "why" it's a hassle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top