Can CFI-SP give endorsements

Greg Bockelman said:
And it isn't just the PIC that needs the PC. It also applies to the SIC.
Click to expand...
How do you get there? 61.58 says it applies to PIC, not SIC, and 61.55(b) doesn't require a proficiency check as such (though the familiarization in 61.55(b)(1) would likely, in practice, be verified through some kind of test). What am I missing?
 
jmaynard said:
How do you get there? 61.58 says it applies to PIC, not SIC, and 61.55(b) doesn't require a proficiency check as such (though the familiarization in 61.55(b)(1) would likely, in practice, be verified through some kind of test). What am I missing?
Click to expand...

It is a Part 121 thing. 121.441 to be specific.
 
An acquaintance of mine here in Chicagoland heard back from the DuPage FSDO.

They said IF the CFI-SP is experienced in the light sport aircraft as per the regs and using a Light Sport aircraft, then it is permissible to endorse a tailwheel checkout. Looking in the FAR/AIM. So, it is permissible to give the ride. In addition, that tailwheel endorsement would then include aircraft over the 1375 lb LSA weight limitation. So if the Private Pilot would have access to, let's say, a Cessna 195 he would be authorized to fly it. The flight instructor would not be authorized if the Private pilot came to him with a Cessna 195 though, because it is more than 1375 lbs.
 
What it seems to me based on that decision is that a CFI is a CFI is a CFI - and as long as they are rated in the aircraft they can teach in it and give any endorsement or review that can be accomplished in the aircraft they are rated for.
 
TMetzinger said:
What it seems to me based on that decision is that a CFI is a CFI is a CFI - and as long as they are rated in the aircraft they can teach in it and give any endorsement or review that can be accomplished in the aircraft they are rated for.
Click to expand...

So can a CFIG give a tailwheel endorsement in a glider that's good for a Cessna 195 to a PPL (glider & airplane)?

Edit: I found the answer to my own question in the FARs. The endorsement applies to "tailwheel airplanes" so gliders don't count nor do they require the endorsement.
 
TMetzinger said:
What it seems to me based on that decision is that a CFI is a CFI is a CFI - and as long as they are rated in the aircraft they can teach in it and give any endorsement or review that can be accomplished in the aircraft they are rated for.
Click to expand...
That would be correct...a CFI can give instruction in any aircraft for which they are qualified, and provide logbook endorsements where required in those aircraft.

The endorsements are then good for other aircraft requiring that same endorsement...tailwheel, flight review, etc. Another case would be High Performance and Complex endorsements in a Saratoga (RG) from a CFI without Multi-engine instructor privileges...that endorsement, and a multiengine rating in an Aeronca Lancer (neither High Performance nor Complex) allow you to fly a 58 Baron that is both High Performance and Complex.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
And it isn't just the PIC that needs the PC. It also applies to the SIC.
Click to expand...
Not to take Barney's side, but...:rolleyes:

An SIC for a 747 flown under Part 91 doesn't require a proficiency check...61.55 applies:
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may serve as a second-in-command of an aircraft type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or in operations requiring a second-in-command unless that person has within the previous 12 calendar months: (1) Become familiar with the following information for the specific type aircraft for which second-in-command privileges are requested—
(i) Operational procedures applicable to the powerplant, equipment, and systems.
(ii) Performance specifications and limitations.
(iii) Normal, abnormal, and emergency operating procedures.
(iv) Flight manual.
(v) Placards and markings.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, performed and logged pilot time in the type of aircraft or in a flight simulator that represents the type of aircraft for which second-in-command privileges are requested, which includes—
(i) Three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop as the sole manipulator of the flight controls;
(ii) Engine-out procedures and maneuvering with an engine out while executing the duties of pilot in command; and
(iii) Crew resource management training.
Click to expand...


...oh yeah, and a current flight review :D
 
MauleSkinner said:
Not to take Barney's side, but...:rolleyes:

An SIC for a 747 flown under Part 91 doesn't require a proficiency check...61.55 applies:



...oh yeah, and a current flight review :D
Click to expand...

I bet there aren't too many of those in captivity. :smile:
 
MauleSkinner said:
Not to take Barney's side, but...:rolleyes:

An SIC for a 747 flown under Part 91 doesn't require a proficiency check...61.55 applies:
Click to expand...
See Part 125, including 125.1 for why you can't operate a 747 under Part 91, and 125.283 for the annual SIC proficiency check requirement.
 
Ron Levy said:
See Part 125, including 125.1 for why you can't operate a 747 under Part 91, and 125.283 for the annual SIC proficiency check requirement.
Click to expand...

You can operate a B747 under part 91 if deviation authority is issued.


§ 119.23 Operators engaged in passenger-carrying operations, cargo operations, or both with airplanes when common carriage is not involved.

(a) Each person who conducts operations when common carriage is not involved with airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of 20 seats or more, excluding each crewmember seat, or a payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more, shall, unless deviation authority is issued—
(1) Comply with the certification and operations specifications requirements of part 125 of this chapter;
(2) Conduct its operations with those airplanes in accordance with the requirements of part 125 of this chapter; and
(3) Be issued operations specifications in accordance with those requirements.
 
Ron Levy said:
See Part 125, including 125.1 for why you can't operate a 747 under Part 91, and 125.283 for the annual SIC proficiency check requirement.
Click to expand...

Unless the aircraft is being operated under part 91 for training, ferrying, positioning, or maintenance purposes.
§ 125.1 Applicability.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of this section, this part prescribes rules governing the operations of U.S.-registered civil airplanes which have a seating configuration of 20 or more passengers or a maximum payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more when common carriage is not involved.
(b) The rules of this part do not apply to the operations of airplanes specified in paragraph (a) of this section, when—
(1) They are required to be operated under part 121, 129, 135, or 137 of this chapter;
(2) They have been issued restricted, limited, or provisional airworthiness certificates, special flight permits, or experimental certificates;
(3) They are being operated by a part 125 certificate holder without carrying passengers or cargo under part 91 for training, ferrying, positioning, or maintenance purposes;
 
Ron Levy said:
Deviation authority, no passengers -- c'mon, R&W -- get real.
Click to expand...

Doesn't say that. Deviation authority can be issued for different reasons.

Let's say you buy your own 747 to use for a research project. You're going to fly at altitude with several thousand pounds of gear in the back (maybe looking for "global warming") Under this you would request a "deviation" from part 125 to operate under part 91. And under part 91 no SIC proficiency check.

Try reading the regs.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
You can't get a ME rating in a Lancer -- props don't feather.
Click to expand...

Well, if you substitute the Lancer with a Partenavia, the original point still stands: Get your HP/complex in a 182RG, your tailwheel in a Cub, and your multi in the Partenavia (not HP, complex, or tailwheel), you can fly a Beech 18. Endorsements are not category/class specific.
 
This is close but not quite the same.

I am starting my CFI SP training and my instructor does not have a TW endorsement. He says he cannot instruct me in the Taylorcraft because he is not rated in it. He is not really instructing me to fly the Taylorcraft though, only instructional instruction. Why would it matter if he wasn't rated in it? I will not be getting an endorsement or rating only an OK that I am ready to take the test. If we did everything in a nosewheel airplane I would still have nothing that covered the TW part.

Dan
 
stingray said:
This is close but not quite the same.

I am starting my CFI SP training and my instructor does not have a TW endorsement. He says he cannot instruct me in the Taylorcraft because he is not rated in it. He is not really instructing me to fly the Taylorcraft though, only instructional instruction. Why would it matter if he wasn't rated in it? I will not be getting an endorsement or rating only an OK that I am ready to take the test. If we did everything in a nosewheel airplane I would still have nothing that covered the TW part.

Dan
Click to expand...

AFaIK, if the instructor has at least a PPL he could as this only requires that he rated in category and class, but if he's a CFI-SP he must have "make and model" privileges".

FAR said:
61.415 What are the limits of a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating?
Click to expand...
FAR said:
If you hold a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating, you are subject to the following limits:
(a) You may not provide ground or flight training in any aircraft for which you do not hold:
(1) A sport pilot certificate with applicable category and class privileges and make and model privileges or a pilot certificate with the applicable category and class rating; and...
Click to expand...
 
stingray said:
I am starting my CFI SP training and my instructor does not have a TW endorsement. He says he cannot instruct me in the Taylorcraft because he is not rated in it.
Click to expand...
Actually, he is "rated," since he has an ASEL rating, but he can't act as PIC because he doesn't have the TW endorsement. In addition, Flight Standards says he's not an "authorized instructor" for the sort of training you want since he doesn't have that endorsement, although Chief Counsel has never spoken on the subject. Feel free to write to the Chief Counsel for an official interpretation on the issue, but you'll have to wait four months for the answer. In the meantime, your instructor is following the best guidance available on the matter.
 
gismo said:
AFaIK, if the instructor has at least a PPL he could as this only requires that he rated in category and class, but if he's a CFI-SP he must have "make and model" privileges".
Click to expand...
The requirement for a 61.31 TW endorsement to act as PIC is not limited to Standard category aircraft -- it applies to LSA's, too. Thus, according to Flight Standards, he needs a TW endorsement to act as PIC and give anything other than instrument training (assuming he holds a CFI-IA rating, too).
 
stingray said:
He is a CFII.
Click to expand...
If he holds the CFI-IA rating, he can give you instrument training, including training for CFI-IA, without the TW endorsement. However, he cannot, according to Flight Standards, train you for CFI-SP or CFI-ASE in your T-crate.
 
Ron Levy said:
The requirement for a 61.31 TW endorsement to act as PIC is not limited to Standard category aircraft -- it applies to LSA's, too. Thus, according to Flight Standards, he needs a TW endorsement to act as PIC and give anything other than instrument training (assuming he holds a CFI-IA rating, too).
Click to expand...

I thought Dan's question was about training for a CFI-SP, why would Dan's CFI need to be PIC for that?
 
gismo said:
I thought Dan's question was about training for a CFI-SP, why would Dan's CFI need to be PIC for that?
Click to expand...

That's what I was getting at Lance. Ron's explanation was exactly what my CFI said. My response was exactly what you said.

I think it is a general rule and as Ron said I can ask councel for a ruling but I would be done by the time I got it.

Dan
 
gismo said:
I thought Dan's question was about training for a CFI-SP, why would Dan's CFI need to be PIC for that?
Click to expand...
He doesn't, but he does have to be an "authorized instructor" to give creditable training and endorse Dan for the practical test IAW 61.183(g), and that means having the TW endorsement to be an authorized instructor who can give that 61.183(g) endorsement in a TW airplane (whether it's Standard or LS category).
 
Ron Levy said:
He doesn't, but he does have to be an "authorized instructor" to give creditable training and endorse Dan for the practical test IAW 61.183(g), and that means having the TW endorsement to be an authorized instructor who can give that 61.183(g) endorsement in a TW airplane (whether it's Standard or LS category).
Click to expand...

That makes too much sense to be an actual FAR.
 
Ron Levy said:
He doesn't, but he does have to be an "authorized instructor" to give creditable training and endorse Dan for the practical test IAW 61.183(g), and that means having the TW endorsement to be an authorized instructor who can give that 61.183(g) endorsement in a TW airplane (whether it's Standard or LS category).
Click to expand...
Since the OP is looking for a CFI-SP, the section that applies is 61.405(b)(1)...but that's just a nitpick.
 
jmaynard said:
Since the OP is looking for a CFI-SP, the section that applies is 61.405(b)(1)...but that's just a nitpick.
Click to expand...
Nitty or not, it's a valid point. However, the requirement for "a logbook endorsement from the authorized instructor who provided you with flight training on the areas of operation" is essentially the same, and that "authorized instructor" will have to be TW-qualified if that training is in a TW airplane, LS or otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top