Student got signed off by instructor that hasn't flown with in a year...

D

Derek Guiliano

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
May 12, 2017
Messages
27
Display Name
Display name:
CFIDerek
So, this is a wierd situation I haven't come across. It's certainly nother I would ever do.

Student pilot, who I have confidence is a good stick, hasn't flown since October last year. Wants to fly the plane he owns. Another instructor (not me) that he hasn't flown with in a year gives him a 90 day additional endorsement without flying with him.

I don't see anywhere that he can not do that, but seriously, am I crazy for being kind of upset about this?

I own a quarter share of the plane in question, had planned on going up with this student to ensure he can fly it properly, and am worried that if something were to happen, and the insurance finds that he is flying on a solo endorsement from an instructor he hasn't flown with in a year and hasn't flown since October himself, that if something were to happen, the insurance is just going to say 'nope, not today, have fun with your wrecked a$@ plane'.

I'm not crazy in thinking this, right? Not to mention that CFI could very well put all of his certs in jeopardy doing this.
 
Derek Guiliano said:
Student pilot, who I have confidence is a good stick, hasn't flown since October last year. Wants to fly the plane he owns. Another instructor (not me) that he hasn't flown with in a year gives him a 90 day additional endorsement without flying with him.
Click to expand...

You are not involved. Why the anxiety?
 
Because I have a vested interest in the plane being part owner of the aircraft the student flies.
 
I'm not trying to control who takes the plane out. First time owning and aircraft and I want to make sure it's on the level. I've also never seen a CFI just sign a student off like that so.

I also came here asking a valid question, no reason to be a dick.
 
Derek Guiliano said:
I'm not trying to control who takes the plane out. First time owning and aircraft and I want to make sure it's on the level. I've also never seen a CFI just sign a student off like that so.

I also came here asking a valid question, no reason to be a dick.
Click to expand...

It seems like that is the case here sometimes, but it isn't. We all give each other ****, if it didn't happen, I would worry. Welcome to POA, stick around and you will get your opportunity to stick it to @citizen5000
 
Derek Guiliano said:
I'm not trying to control who takes the plane out. First time owning and aircraft and I want to make sure it's on the level. I've also never seen a CFI just sign a student off like that so.

I also came here asking a valid question, no reason to be a dick.
Click to expand...
It is VERY difficult to infer intent from a text forum post, so don't assume someone is being a jerk. I didn't read it that way. I'd be more concerned with your co-owner's judgement in not wanting to have a little dual before taking up the plane, maybe you should talk to him about your concerns.
 
I think what Mike Smith said is correct. If something happens and I were the CFI that signed him off, I might be concerned about some grief from the FAA, I would also worry about subrogration from your insurance, however I doubt that is likely.

Seems like my biggest concern would be being out of a plane and someone getting hurt. I would likely express my concerns and offer to fly with him.

Jim
 
Since you own part of the aircraft, is there an agreement among owners regarding currency to fly? That would have been the easiest way to deal with it.
 
Ok, sorry. Lol. Thanks guys. I do feel better.

Appreciate it. Sorry, anxiety is a bit high due to first time ownership. I'm trying to convince him to go up with at least myself, seeing as I am going to be finishing up his training anyway. A short flight just demonstrating stalls, slow flight, and a normal landing shouldn't be too much to ask for.

Thanks for the answers either way. Appreciate it.
 
I just went down the path recently as a CFI.

I called my local FSDO for their opinion on the correct procedure and followed it as I understood it.

A friend whose instructor has stopped instructing (the instructor is also a friend) needed a solo sign off to continue learning because his 90 days had expired. He flies a single place experimental amateur built gyroplane.

I gave him my pre-solo test and we corrected his incorrect answers and I put it in his file and entered the hour of ground instruction in his log book.

We went out in a two place EAB gyroplane and had him perform the maneuvers and procedures required by FAR 61.87.

Satisfied I gave him a 90 day endorsement with wind and location limitations.

The way I and the representative at my local FSDO interpret the regulations I need to see that he can fly and I can’t just take another instructors word for it based on somewhat unclear log book endorsements.

This procedure was also emphasized by the DPE who gave me my CFI practical test after I passed the test.

I would not want to count on the insurance company feeling that a solo signoff without the above procedures was legal based on the information I have from the representative of the FSDO and two instructor mentors. I am not trying to pretend that I know what an insurance company will do; only that I understand the trepidation of the original poster.
 
Thanks Vance, I appreciate it. Been instructing for 4 years and this is the first time I've seen a situation like this. Appreciate the feedback guys.
 
Derek Guiliano said:
So, this is a wierd situation I haven't come across. It's certainly nother I would ever do.

Student pilot, who I have confidence is a good stick, hasn't flown since October last year. Wants to fly the plane he owns. Another instructor (not me) that he hasn't flown with in a year gives him a 90 day additional endorsement without flying with him.

I don't see anywhere that he can not do that, but seriously, am I crazy for being kind of upset about this?

I own a quarter share of the plane in question, had planned on going up with this student to ensure he can fly it properly, and am worried that if something were to happen, and the insurance finds that he is flying on a solo endorsement from an instructor he hasn't flown with in a year and hasn't flown since October himself, that if something were to happen, the insurance is just going to say 'nope, not today, have fun with your wrecked a$@ plane'.

I'm not crazy in thinking this, right? Not to mention that CFI could very well put all of his certs in jeopardy doing this.
Click to expand...

Not crazy, but I think it unlikely that they would deny coverage. The student was legal, so what would be the basis to deny coverage? Of course, I have not read your policy, (and I am probably not licensed in your state) so I can't give any reasonable opinion on this. If there were some other requirement that is violated, they could maybe deny coverage. But if the only issue is that the CFI signed off without flying with him, I am not sure there would be an issue. Now, they might want to subrogate against that CFI. . . .
 
Derek Guiliano said:
So, this is a wierd situation I haven't come across. It's certainly nother I would ever do.

Student pilot, who I have confidence is a good stick, hasn't flown since October last year. Wants to fly the plane he owns. Another instructor (not me) that he hasn't flown with in a year gives him a 90 day additional endorsement without flying with him.

I don't see anywhere that he can not do that, but seriously, am I crazy for being kind of upset about this?

I own a quarter share of the plane in question, had planned on going up with this student to ensure he can fly it properly, and am worried that if something were to happen, and the insurance finds that he is flying on a solo endorsement from an instructor he hasn't flown with in a year and hasn't flown since October himself, that if something were to happen, the insurance is just going to say 'nope, not today, have fun with your wrecked a$@ plane'.

I'm not crazy in thinking this, right? Not to mention that CFI could very well put all of his certs in jeopardy doing this.
Click to expand...

You own 1/4, talk to the other 2 owners an put an end to it.
 
Derek Guiliano said:
I'm not trying to control who takes the plane out. First time owning and aircraft and I want to make sure it's on the level. I've also never seen a CFI just sign a student off like that so.

I also came here asking a valid question, no reason to be a dick.
Click to expand...

Don't worry @citizen5000 sees the situation as a win-win for you. If your partner is flying a Cirrus everything will be fine because they are such a superior airplane they fly themselves. And if you don't own a Cirrus, well then your partner's inevitable crash will allow you to correct that grevious error. :cool: :D
 
Mike Smith said:
It seems like that is the case here sometimes, but it isn't. We all give each other ****, if it didn't happen, I would worry. Welcome to POA, stick around and you will get your opportunity to stick it to @citizen5000
Click to expand...

Hey. What did I say? The big problem is Derek shares ownership with someone he doesn't trust. That problem will never entirely go away as long as he has partners IMHO.

C'mon GRG. We both know the Cirrus is unbeatable. :)
 
How did you get insurance to cover a student? If it does cover the student and he is properly endorsed I don't see how there's an issue regarding flying your plane.

Having an issue with the instructor endorsing under the circumstances is understandable, but not really any of your business, if legal.
 
citizen5000 said:
Hey. What did I say? The big problem is Derek shares ownership with someone he doesn't trust. That problem will never entirely go away as long as he has partners IMHO.
Click to expand...

I don't think anything that was too out of line. He just missed the part where you were saying it in jest.
 
Yeah I misunderstood that. Lol. Sorry.

And Cirrus. Pfft. Lol
 
Salty said:
How did you get insurance to cover a student? If it does cover the student and he is properly endorsed I don't see how there's an issue regarding flying your plane.

Having an issue with the instructor endorsing under the circumstances is understandable, but not really any of your business, if legal.
Click to expand...

I feel "IF" is the operative word there.

According to the representative of the local FSDO I spoke to it is not a legal sign off without doing the steps in 61.87.

In my opinion if the FARs were clear the FAA would not need legal interpretations.
 
Vance Breese said:
I feel "IF" is the operative word there.

According to the representative of the local FSDO I spoke to it is not a legal sign off without doing the steps in 61.87.

In my opinion if the FARs were clear the FAA would not need legal interpretations.
Click to expand...
61.87 (n) 2 does not seem to specify that it be flight training.

An endorsement in the student's logbook for the specific make and model aircraft to be flown by an authorized instructor, who gave the training within the 90 days preceding the date of the flight.
Click to expand...
 
Salty said:
61.87 (n) 2 does not seem to specify that it be flight training.
Click to expand...
The word "training" in 61.87 only seems to be used in conjunction with "flight training". The ground stuff is simply "demonstrate satisfactory knowlege".
 
If I hadn't flown in 7 months (as a 100hr TT PP), I'd grab an instructor, at least for a 30 minute around the patch practice. Actually, my ownership group requires an every six month flight with a club instructor anyway. they are less than a BFR, but designed to keep someone from grabbing the keys 23 months after they last thought about flying and bending an airplane or human.
 
And this is part of the reason pilots continue to die and I would not be partners with a student pilot. Never mind the CFI, I question the judgement of a student who wants to jump into an AC with out the CFI present after a 7 month layoff.
 
I know my son's instructor (the only one he ever had) gave him one or two 90 day endorsements without flying with him. But he had been flying regularly and they had been in regular contact as he progressed through his solo cross country's.

You yourself said you thought he was a good stick. A year gap does sound long though, so I'd question the judgement of the other CFI.

If the insurance issue really bothers you, go up with him and if you are satisfied with his performance, give him your own 90 day endorsement.
 
Salty said:
61.87 (n) 2 does not seem to specify that it be flight training.
Click to expand...

My interpretation of FAR 61.87 in its entirety is divergent from yours.

In my opinion that is why the FAA has a legal department.

That is part of why I contact the FSDO on a regular basis.

That is a part of why I put great value on my CFI Mentors.

I love being a CFI and want to continue teaching as long as I am able.

I do my best to follow the rules.

I feel FAR 61.87 is a good rule as I interpret it.
 
Do
Vance Breese said:
My interpretation of FAR 61.87 in its entirety is divergent from yours.

In my opinion that is why the FAA has a legal department.

That is part of why I contact the FSDO on a regular basis.

That is a part of why I put great value on my CFI Mentors.

I love being a CFI and want to continue teaching as long as I am able.

I do my best to follow the rules.

I feel FAR 61.87 is a good rule as I interpret it.
Click to expand...
I prefer your interpretation. Further, I would not trust the judgement of an instructor that would do that sign off even if it were legal.
 
Thanks all. I really appreciate the thoughts on this. It's helped me see even more clear the issue that lies before me. Thank you.
 
Yeah, the CFI needs to have a little talk with the FSDO. His actions appear to be contrary to the regulations and it was at the very least irresponsible.
 
Mike Smith said:
Don't worry, whats done is legal. The insurance will pay.
Click to expand...

That. I'd imagine it'd be just looking for the endorsement and checking the dates on the part of the solo endorsement and the insurance. I'd wager the insurance would pay out.




My only hicup (perhaps FAA wise, not insurance wise) is this

(p) Limitations on flight instructors authorizing solo flight. No instructor may authorize a student pilot to perform a solo flight unless that instructor has—
(2) Determined the student pilot is proficient in the maneuvers and procedures prescribed in this section;
Click to expand...

That might be hard to do without flying with him.



That said, y'all sold him a share in this thing, ether let him do his thing, or buy him out.
 
Last edited:
Don't lean too much on the FSDO in any gray area - you ask the same question at multiple FSDOs, you'll get multiple answers. It's cool you don't want him dead and/or your airplane wrecked, but if the insurance company accepted him, and they haven't imposed any limitations beyond the FAA written rules, it's probably all good.
 
Derek Guiliano said:
I also came here asking a valid question, no reason to be a dick.
Click to expand...
You'll get that here, don't take it personal.
Derek Guiliano said:
Ok, sorry. Lol. Thanks guys. I do feel better.

Appreciate it. Sorry, anxiety is a bit high due to first time ownership. I'm trying to convince him to go up with at least myself, seeing as I am going to be finishing up his training anyway. A short flight just demonstrating stalls, slow flight, and a normal landing shouldn't be too much to ask for.

Thanks for the answers either way. Appreciate it.
Click to expand...
Have you expressed your concern with the CFI in question? If I had partial ownership in this aircraft, I'd be feeling the same way you are and I'd put my foot down that he is not to fly it until he's had a proper currency flight.

In the end, if something were to occur, the Feds will come back to the CFI who endorsed him. Not only is he hurting himself, but he's doing a disservice to the student.
 
If a CFI can determine a student is proficient when they haven't flown with them for 6 months, good for them.

Limitations on flight instructors authorizing solo flight. No instructor may authorize a student pilot to perform a solo flight unless that instructor has -

(1) Given that student pilot training in the make and model of aircraft or a similar make and model of aircraft in which the solo flight is to be flown;

(2) Determined the student pilot is proficient in the maneuvers and procedures prescribed in this section;

(3) Determined the student pilot is proficient in the make and model of aircraft to be flown; and

(4) Endorsed the student pilot's logbook for the specific make and model aircraft to be flown, and that endorsement remains current for solo flight privileges, provided an authorized instructor updates the student's logbook every 90 days thereafter.
 
There ya go...you can't look at one reg and pretend none of the others apply.:cool:
 
Thanks Clip, I was looking for that part of the reg.
Some will say that only applies to the initial solo endorsement, but I cannot find where it says that.
I just see any solo authorization.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top