Flying Without a License

[1RTK1]

We have a guy at our field that is going on 8 years as a student pilot. He flys well, gets his 90 day sign off and medical but can’t get around to taking the test. Johnny, not his name, better hurry up he’s 75...

 

[ETres]

I flew locally without a cert for about a year after my CFI signed me off for solo flight to a couple of area airports. He soon after took a commercial job and was never available for training. I flew my C-172 3-4 days a week - put about 75 hours in my logbook while blissfully unaware that a CFI was supposed to sign me off every 90 days. He certainly never told me, which isn't surprising since he had me fly a SOLO night XC, which ISN'T part of the protocol (I flew it and didn't know any better). I finally found another CFI with whom to finish, and he was shocked to see the solo night XC in my logbook, not to mention all the solo hours I'd logged.

 

[Salty]

I flew locally without a cert for about a year after my CFI signed me off for solo flight to a couple of area airports. He soon after took a commercial job and was never available for training. I flew my C-172 3-4 days a week - put about 75 hours in my logbook while blissfully unaware that a CFI was supposed to sign me off every 90 days. He certainly never told me, which isn't surprising since he had me fly a SOLO night XC, which ISN'T part of the protocol (I flew it and didn't know any better). I finally found another CFI with whom to finish, and he was shocked to see the solo night XC in my logbook, not to mention all the solo hours I'd logged.

Did your DPE give you any hassle?

 

[ETres]

Did your DPE give you any hassle?

He expressed surprise at the number of hours I'd logged, started to ask a question, then blinked and shook his a head a little. We chatted for a bit (not about the logbook), then began the oral exam.

 

[Clip4]

Just curious what the group thinks.

An acquaintance of mine started his PPL training about a year ago. Shortly after soloing, knew he was hooked on flying, and just went ahead and bought a C-150 to complete his training. I'd say he bought it sometime during the late spring-early summer of 2018. Well, it's been 8-9-10 months since purchasing the plane, and he's out flying quite regularly. Thing is, he doesn't have his PPL yet. I asked him a couple days ago, half jokingly, if he has his certificate yet, expecting him to chuckle and say yes. He said no. I asked him what the heck he's doing out flying solo all over the place without a cert. He said he's signed off for several airports and he just goes to those airports over and over for now, and that he was thinking about going ahead and getting the certificate sometime in the near future, which is the same thing he said 6 months ago. Basically, he's just cruising around solo semi-locally, for some indefinite period of time, until he decides to pop for the certificate.

I get that it's required for his CFI to sign him off to fly to certain places solo for the purpose of training and getting the required hours as we all did, but it seems a bit disingenuous to decide to take a hiatus from training and just go fly for close to a year without having achieved an airman's certificate.

This may be a normal thing and no biggie to some, I'm not even sure how much I even care, but it struck me as odd, and thus, I wondered what the good folks of PoA think.

His solo endorsement is only good for 90 days. He then must fly with a CFI to get another 90 days.

 

[topgun260]

It didn't work out well for this guy and his passenger. "the National Transportation Safety Board says the Beech B100 collided with trees"

Or this guy. “He said he learned to fly via the YouTube,”

 

[OkieFlyer]

A lot of good opinions here.

It's really not any of my business, but I do care about the guy. To be brutally honest, he's a know-it-all and a blowhard, who has a tendency to believe that he knows more than he does. I think he has a dangerous attitude and seems very over-confident at this point in his flying, however, he also seems to handle a plane pretty good, so I can't decide if I should stick my nose in his business, or just let it ride. That's the motivation for my OP. We aren't best buds or anything, but we are close enough for me to care about whether he's settling into a dangerous groove.

'Preciate all the comments.

 

[OkieFlyer]

Oh, did I mention he's an insurance agent? I'm guessing that aspect of it is not a problem for him.

 

[Palmpilot]

...he had me fly a SOLO night XC, which ISN'T part of the protocol (I flew it and didn't know any better)....

My understanding is that there is no regulation that prevents a CFI from signing a student off for a solo night flight.

 

[Kelvin]

He hasn't been anywhere near Texas lately has he? Sounds like @SixPapaCharlie's new buddy...

A lot of good opinions here.

It's really not any of my business, but I do care about the guy. To be brutally honest, he's a know-it-all and a blowhard, who has a tendency to believe that he knows more than he does. I think he has a dangerous attitude and seems very over-confident at this point in his flying, however, he also seems to handle a plane pretty good, so I can't decide if I should stick my nose in his business, or just let it ride. That's the motivation for my OP. We aren't best buds or anything, but we are close enough for me to care about whether he's settling into a dangerous groove.

'Preciate all the comments.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

To be brutally honest, he's a know-it-all and a blowhard, who has a tendency to believe that he knows more than he does... ...We aren't best buds or anything, but we are close enough for me to care about whether he's settling into a dangerous groove.

Sounds like he settled into a dangerous groove long before he ever set foot on an airport.

Oh, did I mention he's an insurance agent? I'm guessing that aspect of it is not a problem for him.

An agent is not an underwriter. I'd suspect the only advantage being an agent does is saves him the agent's portion of the rate. Or he paid cash for the plane and is flying without coverage.

 

[ETres]

My understanding is that there is no regulation that prevents a CFI from signing a student off for a solo night flight.

I'd say you're correct, but his intention was for me to do so in order to fulfill the training protocol - and a night solo XC ain't part of it. As such, my next CFI had us do a night duel XC, although I'd already done the solo.

 

[mryan75]

There was a guy at my field who did this, but always had a 90-day and never flouted the rules. He simply wanted to fly by himself locally, and getting the cert would have made very little difference in terms of what he did.

If I knew of someone who was flouting the rules, I'd report them in a heartbeat. Maybe the guy has his 90-day's. In which case, no problem. If he's not doing that I'd report him.

 

[Stan Cooper]

When did the 90 day signoff thing start?

I don't remember anything like that when I was a student in 1964. My student license was issued on 2-19-64, and I was signed off for solo in C-150s on 3-7-64. By 9-11-64 I had 38.5 hours and took my private check ride, so by the time my check ride was over I had logged 40 hours. There were no signoffs between solo and my check ride except for getting checked out in C-172s (8-4-64) and signed off for solo cross-country (8-2-64).

That's over six months between my solo signoff and my check ride.

EDIT - It looks like the 90 day signoff is spelled out in § 61.87(n) according to AC 61-65F, Certification: Pilots and Flight and Ground Instructors 2-25-2016. "The solo endorsement required by § 61.87(n) is required every 90 days for the student to be afforded continuing solo privileges."

 

[Ventucky Red]

Overheard years ago at N57 from a gentleman sitting on one of the airport picnic tables... while I was waiting for my instructor to finish his coffee; something one did not want to interrupt.. "I visited Germany a few times in 44 and 45... they thought I was good to fly then without a license, I am sure as sun setting in the west good enough to fly now..." Now, if he would have finished that statement with "dangnabit" it would have made my day.

 

[zaitcev]

I knew of a guy which has since passed, not in a plane, that never had a license and flew all over the country for about 15 years. No medical no student license no bfr, nothing. Although he did do annuals on his plane yearly I was told.

Flying without a cert is different from the endless student loophole. We all knew people like that. Usually they come from families who owned land, but not always. I knew one who even went legal when he went to work for Bendix-King. He was one of those mythical students who logged the exact legal minimum of 20/40 before checkride. He was flying like Sully, which is not surprising if you start at 12.

 

[azure]

For those guys that are doing this legally, they still need to get a new solo endorsement every 90 days. Which means some review training at least every 90 days. Which, in a strange way, means that the long-time solo student may actually be more proficient (within his limited sphere of tasks) than the certified pilot who passed his checkride 40 years ago and has only flown with an instructor once every 2 years.

However, as a CFI, I don't see myself repeatedly endorsing someone for solo flight if they're obviously not intending to make progress toward the checkride. I think I gave a third solo endorsement to one pilot once, and that was only because the plane had been down for maintenance for a while and the existing endorsement expired just a bit before the checkride.

This.

I think I had a second solo endorsement the summer I was working towards my PPL, but that was shortly before the checkride. I was definitely procrastinating because of nerves, and in the process I logged about 130 hours solo, including 7 solo XCs, all over the space of 3 months. Today I think my CFI should have put his foot down and told me to get the checkride over and done with, as I was easily ready a month or two before I took it.

But I have no problem with student pilots who are legally flying solo with signoffs every 90 days. And I agree that as long as their instructor is making them do some dual in order to get re-signed off (as he is supposed to), they may well be more proficient than someone whose only dual for the last 10 years was during BFRs.

 

[strangebird]

Since y'all refer to having a license to fly,except cowman. None you actually have a pilots license, there is no such thing as a pilots license, look at what what's in your wallet and I do not mean the Capital One card,
C

 

[Juliet Hotel]

Since y'all refer to having a license to fly,except cowman. None you actually have a pilots license, there is no such thing as a pilots license, look at what what's in your wallet and I do not mean the Capital One card,
C

Feel better now?

 

[Palmpilot]

Since y'all refer to having a license to fly,except cowman. None you actually have a pilots license, there is no such thing as a pilots license, look at what what's in your wallet and I do not mean the Capital One card,
C

We've heard that a million times, but no one has ever given a reason why we should care what people call it.

 

[Shepherd]

The guy who used to live across the street commuted by air, (almost) daily between Stormville\Dutchess and Albany for well over 30 years. Never had a civilian cert (and probably no medical).
He was an old WWII Marauder pilot, multiple tours.
He didn't see the need for all the government fuss and bother or involvement.
The day he retired he put his PA-18 up for sale, and as far as I know, never got in any airplane again.

 

[Shepherd]

When did the 90 day signoff thing start?

I don't remember anything like that when I was a student in 1964. My student license was issued on 2-19-64, and I was signed off for solo in C-150s on 3-7-64. By 9-11-64 I had 38.5 hours and took my private check ride, so by the time my check ride was over I had logged 40 hours. There were no signoffs between solo and my check ride except for getting checked out in C-172s (8-4-64) and signed off for solo cross-country (8-2-64).

That's over six months between my solo signoff and my check ride.

EDIT - It looks like the 90 day signoff is spelled out in § 61.87(n) according to AC 61-65F, Certification: Pilots and Flight and Ground Instructors 2-25-2016. "The solo endorsement required by § 61.87(n) is required every 90 days for the student to be afforded continuing solo privileges."

Hmmmm. You are correct. I don't see anything in my original logbook about a 90 day sign-off, and I flew a lot of hours because I was too young to take my check ride. Just for fun, I went back and looked at my Dad's logbook, and there is nothing in his logbook, either.
It must be something that was implemented after 1965.

UPDATE: I still have my original "Regulations and Flight Standards For Pilots" all 243 pages of it (compare that to your current FAR/AIM.) If there is anything in there about currency sign-offs of any kind, I can't find it.

 

[EdFred]

We've heard that a million times, but no one has ever given a reason why we should care what people call it.

I'm going to start referring to it as a banana, because, well, why not?

 

[OkieFlyer]

I'm going to start referring to it as a banana, because, well, why not?

Good call, Ed.

This just in: everybody and their dog has been corrected for using the term "license," and still nobody gives a flyin' flip!

 

[timwinters]

We've heard that a million times, but no one has ever given a reason why we should care what people call it.

I'll bet you ask to be given a BFR also, don't you?

 

[Stan Cooper]

Since y'all refer to having a license to fly,except cowman. None you actually have a pilots license, there is no such thing as a pilots license, look at what what's in your wallet and I do not mean the Capital One card,
C

How pedantic. If the FAA can call it a license, we should also be able to.
https://www.faa.gov/pilots/become/

Become a Pilot

What is the first step to becoming a pilot?

Decide what you want to fly. FAA's rules for getting a pilot's license (certificate) differ depending on the type of aircraft you fly. You can choose among airplanes, gyroplanes, helicopters, gliders, balloons, or airships. If you are interested in flying ultralight vehicles, you don't need a pilot's license.

You should also think about what type of flying you want to do. There are several different types of pilot's licenses, from student pilot all the way up to airline transport pilot. The information below describes the eligibility, training, experience, and testing requirements for Student Pilots, Recreational Pilots and Private Pilots.

 

[Stan Cooper]

Hmmmm. You are correct. I don't see anything in my original logbook about a 90 day sign-off, and I flew a lot of hours because I was too young to take my check ride. Just for fun, I went back and looked at my Dad's logbook, and there is nothing in his logbook, either.
It must be something that was implemented after 1965.

UPDATE: I still have my original "Regulations and Flight Standards For Pilots" all 243 pages of it (compare that to your current FAR/AIM.) If there is anything in there about currency sign-offs of any kind, I can't find it.

Shepherd, apparently, the 90 day recurring solo endorsement requirement happened in 1997.

From the Federal Register, Friday April 4, 1997, page 16260 discussing §61.87(n):

"The FAA also concurs with AOPA’s objection to the requirement that certificates be endorsed every 90 days. The final rule has therefore been revised to only require additional 90-day solo endorsements to be recorded in the logbook."

 

[PPC1052]

How pedantic. If the FAA can call it a license, we should also be able to.
https://www.faa.gov/pilots/become/

Yep. And as I have said before, the term "license" means permission. It's the intangible right that is memorialized by the written certificate. Although, as Tim has pointed out (correctly), the term license is also an acceptable term for the written document. So, when people say "pilot's license," they can be absolutely correct in that they have been granted permission by the FAA, as evidenced by the certificate that is in their wallet, to be even more pedantic.

 

[Shepherd]

Shepherd, apparently, the 90 day recurring solo endorsement requirement happened in 1997.
From the Federal Register, Friday April 4, 1997, page 16260 discussing §61.87(n):

"The FAA also concurs with AOPA’s objection to the requirement that certificates be endorsed every 90 days. The final rule has therefore been revised to only require additional 90-day solo endorsements to be recorded in the logbook."

Stan, Thanks for finding that info.
Life, and flying, certainly was easier back in the mid-1960s.
The regulations portion of my "Regulations and Flight Standards" book is only 63 pages long. The rest of the book is "Questions and Answers for the Written Exam", and things related to actual flying, weather, Morse code, (had to have it to get a radio in your plane), hand signals and Fundamental flight maneuvers, with a lot of pictures.
The oral exam came right out of the book, because Charlie, the guy who gave me my oral, written, and check rides, made notes about my answers in the margins.
It's also interesting to note that back then you executed a 360 degree turn around a point before entry into the traffic pattern. I had forgotten that.

 

[RussR]

Shepherd, apparently, the 90 day recurring solo endorsement requirement happened in 1997.

From the Federal Register, Friday April 4, 1997, page 16260 discussing §61.87(n):

"The FAA also concurs with AOPA’s objection to the requirement that certificates be endorsed every 90 days. The final rule has therefore been revised to only require additional 90-day solo endorsements to be recorded in the logbook."

It had to have been before that, and that was some kind of proposed change to the rule (maybe requiring the endorsements to be on the actual certificate, which AOPA objected to, the logbook being sufficient).

My first logbook was bought in 1993 and has pre-printed "Solo (each additional 90-day period)" entries (with a couple of them signed by my instructor in 1994).

 

[Stan Cooper]

It had to have been before that, and that was some kind of proposed change to the rule (maybe requiring the endorsements to be on the actual certificate, which AOPA objected to, the logbook being sufficient).

My first logbook was bought in 1993 and has phangere-printed "Solo (each additional 90-day period)" entries (with a couple of them signed by my instructor in 1994).

Thanks for that; it's entirely possible that just represented a change from putting the endorsement on the certificate to just entering in the log. I know my endorsements were actually written on the back of my student certificate.

Researching things like this is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

 

[Skymac]

Happens all the time. Let him be. Some folks just take longer and have their own priorities. I’m a CFI and have a guy that’s working at a snails pace. I think it’s best when everyone just minds to their own routine.

 

[Ghery]

Shepherd, apparently, the 90 day recurring solo endorsement requirement happened in 1997.

From the Federal Register, Friday April 4, 1997, page 16260 discussing §61.87(n):

"The FAA also concurs with AOPA’s objection to the requirement that certificates be endorsed every 90 days. The final rule has therefore been revised to only require additional 90-day solo endorsements to be recorded in the logbook."

Well, that pre-dates my starting lessons in 2000, so the 90 day signoff has always been a requirement "in my experience". Now, that statement doesn't mean that it wasn't a requirement prior to April 4, 1997, only that it only be required in logbooks. Was it a requirement requiring a signoff somewhere else prior to that?

 

[Stan Cooper]

Well, that pre-dates my starting lessons in 2000, so the 90 day signoff has always been a requirement "in my experience". Now, that statement doesn't mean that it wasn't a requirement prior to April 4, 1997, only that it only be required in logbooks. Was it a requirement requiring a signoff somewhere else prior to that?

Apparently, the recurring 90 day solo endorsement had to be written on the student certificate according to the 1997 Federal Register notice. Since it was not a requirement in 1964 but was a requirement in 1993 (per the printed spaces for the 90 day recurring endorsements in a 1993 logbook), it must have happened sometime in that 30 year intervening period.