Todd,
I can't give you any computer links, but the AOPA I called and talked to ,
and the FAA I have called and spoken to as well. These were all personal
conversations, I do not know if those people would like their names on the
net or not, so I won't put their names here. heck I don't think I got the
name of the AOPA rep I spoke to anyway! HAHA As to the FAA, let's just say
reps from an FSDO and in the light sport program. If you get on the phone I
am sure you will get alot of different answers as well.
Since AOPA had to get his FAR and open up the book and read what I was
telling him I was having the problem with I don't think it would be
addressed on their website. After he read the rule he told me you can not
fly the plane until you have a sport pilot certificate. That was his take.
But by all means , I like your common sense approach to it! If you are a CFI
please give me the endorsement so I won't have to fool with it!

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
...
"W P Dixon" wrote:

"If you hold a sport pilot certificate and you seek to
operate a light-sport aircraft that has a VH greater than 87
knots CAS you must-

The wording right there is what is the holdup, see the sport pilot
certificate, that means someone who already is a sport pilot , not a
student.

I completely agree. Therefore, since the student does not
hold a sport pilot certificate, this rule does not apply.

A student would be seeking to obtain a sport pilot certificate, or
it should say a student sport pilot. But using the words sport pilot
certificate does not include students

Agreed. So it's irrelevant.

, or so say half the FAA and AOPA.

Can you give me some links? I won't deny that there's a lot
of dispute over the meaning of FAR's but I haven't run into
this dispute. It doesn't seem to me that the language is
any problem, but I'd like to see the comments of someone who
does.

It's kind of like saying you could not fly a C150 unless you had a
private pilot certificate,...no mention of a student pilot there. It's
weird
wording for sure.

It doesn't say that. I'll give you an example for other
signoffs. You can't launch a glider behind a towplane, or
fly a taildragger without a signoff. The rules read as
follows:

"no person may act as pilot in command of a glider .."

and

"no person may act as pilot in command of a tailwheel
airplane .... "

See the difference? A student pilot who is solo is acting
as PIC. The student must have the signoff. The rule we are
discussing is not written that way, so IMHO, he does not
need the signoff until he gets his license. Of course, I
don't see any prohibition in the existing language from
giving him the signoff, so I see two different ways that
your concern should go away. You don't need it, but if you
think you do, go ahead and get it. You will need it
ultimately, so make sure you get it eventually.





Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
. ..
"W P Dixon" wrote:

To sum it up,....before a sport pilot can operate a fixed wing
aircraft
that cruises 87 knots or more he must have ground and flight training
and
recieve an endorsement.

True.

The rule regarding this endorsement specifically
states a certificated sport pilot can get this endorsement.

True, but it does *not* say a student pilot cannot get it.
It says nothing about when it can be given or to whom.

The exact wording of 61.327 is:
"If you hold a sport pilot certificate and you seek to
operate a light-sport aircraft that has a VH greater than 87
knots CAS you must-
(a) Receive and log ground and flight training from an
authorized instructor in an aircraft that has a VH greater
than 87 knots CAS"

FAR 61.315 on SP privileges, just says that in order for a
certificated SP to exercise the privilege of flying a
light-sport aircraft that has a VH greater than 87 knots CAS
he must first have the 61.327 endorsement. This applies to
certificated sport pilots only. It certainly does not
prohibit the endorsement from being given to a student
pilot. The student must always have the make and model
signoffs to solo. I haven't given the 87 knot signoff, but
I'd have no problem giving it to a student pilot if I
thought he was qualified.

So you have one rule saying a sport pilot can train in the same
aircraft
that the other rule says he can't until after he is a "sport pilot".

No you don't. There's nothing in either rule saying a
student pilot can't get the endorsement. For that matter, I
don't see anything saying he has to have the signoff to
train or solo in a 87 knots SLA (although I'd recommend it
before solo and certainly before the practical test
signoff.).

It's
causing as much confusion as the retracts on seaplanes, if not more just
because alot of us(me included) have already been flying aircraft that
cruise at or more than 87 knots.

Where is the confusion coming from? Can you point me to
it?. I frequent some Sport Pilot groups and haven't seen
it discussed (although I might have missed it).


Do not spin this aircraft. If the aircraft does enter a spin it will
return to earth without further attention on the part of the aeronaut.

(first handbook issued with the Curtis-Wright flyer)


Do not spin this aircraft. If the aircraft does enter a spin it will
return to earth without further attention on the part of the aeronaut.

(first handbook issued with the Curtis-Wright flyer)