FAA

Thanks Jim and Judy.

I was aware that FARs (you win Todd) could be incorporated into
authorization letters by reference. I was not aware that
the FAA was more stringent these days, although it does not surprise me.

Incidentally, lest anyone think that I don't support safety issues that are
usually well stated here, I must add that I do.
My purpose with this thread was to define the limits of regulation and the
beginning of common sense.
I don't think that anyone should ever lose their life in a glider and I
support any efforts to reduce the possibility.

As a long time power pilot and a not-so-long-time glider pilot, I enjoy the
byplay on this forum and hope it continues.
We can always learn something new.

Thanks again.

Allan


"Judy Ruprecht" wrote in message
...
At 04:06 20 August 2003, Adp wrote:
Judy, I've already said my mea culpas.

Yes, I saw that, Allan - thanks! (I only wish I'd come
up with the AC 21.17-2 cite before Todd. Ain't he clever?)

Please tell me how 14 CFR 91.205, which requires a
standard airworthiness certificate, can apply to experimental
aircraft.

Well, 91.319(a)-(d) outline basic operating limitations
for aircraft issued Experimental airworthiness certificates
and 91.319(e) provides for unspecified 'additional
limitations.' As Jim Phoenix mentioned, the aircraft
was issued its airworthiness certificate when FAA policy/procedure
guidance encouraged inspectors to include 'Instruments
and equipment listed in FAR 91.205' in the Operating
Limitations for individual aircraft. Many (most?) inspectors
also slapped on a 'Day VFR Only' limitation, although
at present, 91.319(d)(2) allows some leeway.

In reality, the VFR instrumentation/equipment listed
in 91.205(b) isn't a very demanding. Given a gear handle
with 'up' and 'down' placards as standard equipment,
the only extraneous item (compared to my POH) is the
compass.

It seems to me, though, that irrespective of how any
glider may end up subject to 91.205(c) and/or (d) -
for night flying and IFR, respectively - these are
far more stringent requirements than many/most gliders'
POH contemplate.

Finally on the topic of Experimental gliders, there
used to be some wide variances in the limitations issued
by various FSDO offices, particularly in terms of the
'proficiency areas' within which the aircraft are permitted
to operate. Thanks to Jim Short's determined efforts,
this important certification issue has steadily improved
in the last 10 years. Jim's 2002 piece 'Glider Importing
and Sample Program Letter,' posted on the Government
News section of SSA's website, is - or should be -
required reading for current and prospective owners
of Experimental gliders!

Judy

We recently went throught the requirements for a "transition pilot" argument
at our club. The CFIs all agreed (including our DPE) that the transition
pilot is not a student pilot. The club's board did not agree with the CFIs.
The FSDO and insurance company settled it quickly as they agreed with the
instructors. The instructors who did not already understand the reasons for
limiting the solo endorsement quickly learned they needed to add the
limitation lest the transition pilot be flying on the CFIs certificate
indefinitely.

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
...
You seem to think the student pilot restrictions do not apply to this
private - glider.
Correct. They do not apply.
Does this mean they can take passengers as well?
No. 61.31(d)(3) provides for a "solo" endorsement only.
Do they need a 90-day endorsement or does this "solo" endorsement
count forever?
It counts forever. The instructor has the right, but not
the obligation to limit the duration of his endorsement.


Perhaps more succinctly, my point is just that one either
believes one thing or the other.

Either you think

1) a private-glider pilot with 61.31(d)(3) can
fly ASEL (in this case) with the only restriction being it must be solo,

or

2) that pilot must meet all the requirements just like a student
ASEL pilot.


It makes no sense to me that sections of "student" regs can
be mixed and matched at will.

If you believe 1, then the pilot needs a flight review, needs
no medical, and can have no limitations other than the 61.31(d)(3),
straight out of the reg, which says "solo".

If you believe 2, then the pilot isn't a student pilot, but all
of the sections applying to student pilots apply, including
needing a medical, NOT needing a flight review, following
limitations, and needing the various endorsements.

I can believe arguments towards either 1 or 2, but I
don't believe mixing the two makes any sense. Either
the pilot is exercising the privileges of the glider - private
with a 61.31(d)(3) endorsement, or the pilot is
treated exactly like a student (but is not a student pilot).

Instructor limitations and medicals are specifically
addressed in the regs as applying to student pilots. If
one believes 1, then the pilot isn't a student, so how can
one carve up the regs to apply these regs but not the others?

I believe there are very convincing arguments for either
side, but I also believe that taking bits and pieces of
each makes little sense...

You seem to think the student pilot restrictions do not apply to this
private - glider.
Correct. They do not apply.
Does this mean they can take passengers as well?
No. 61.31(d)(3) provides for a "solo" endorsement only.
Do they need a 90-day endorsement or does this "solo" endorsement
count forever?
It counts forever. The instructor has the right, but not
the obligation to limit the duration of his endorsement.


Perhaps more succinctly, my point is just that one either
believes one thing or the other.

Either you think

1) a private-glider pilot with 61.31(d)(3) can
fly ASEL (in this case) with the only restriction being it must be solo,

or

2) that pilot must meet all the requirements just like a student
ASEL pilot.


It makes no sense to me that sections of "student" regs can
be mixed and matched at will.

If you believe 1, then the pilot needs a flight review, needs
no medical, and can have no limitations other than the 61.31(d)(3),
straight out of the reg, which says "solo".

If you believe 2, then the pilot isn't a student pilot, but all
of the sections applying to student pilots apply, including
needing a medical, NOT needing a flight review, following
limitations, and needing the various endorsements.

I can believe arguments towards either 1 or 2, but I
don't believe mixing the two makes any sense. Either
the pilot is exercising the privileges of the glider - private
with a 61.31(d)(3) endorsement, or the pilot is
treated exactly like a student (but is not a student pilot).

Instructor limitations and medicals are specifically
addressed in the regs as applying to student pilots. If
one believes 1, then the pilot isn't a student, so how can
one carve up the regs to apply these regs but not the others?

I believe there are very convincing arguments for either
side, but I also believe that taking bits and pieces of
each makes little sense...

"Paul Lynch" wrote
We recently went throught the requirements for a "transition pilot" argument
at our club. The CFIs all agreed (including our DPE) that the transition
pilot is not a student pilot. The club's board did not agree with the CFIs.
The FSDO and insurance company settled it quickly as they agreed with the
instructors. The instructors who did not already understand the reasons for
limiting the solo endorsement quickly learned they needed to add the
limitation lest the transition pilot be flying on the CFIs certificate
indefinitely.

And on what basis is the transition pilot required to comply with the
limitation on the solo endorsement?

Chapter and verse, please.

Michael

This particular chapter and verse comes from the secret handshake that CFIs
get when they become CFIs.

Actually the use of limitations is entirely up to the instructor. AC61-65
has "recommended endorsements," some of which use the phrase "subject to the
following conditions." If you look at the AC, the recommended endorsement
for a transition pilot is #35...

"35. To act as PIC of an aircraft in solo operations when the pilot who
does not hold an appropriate category/class rating: § 61.31(d)(3)
I certify that (First name, MI, Last name) has received the training as
required by § 61.31(d)(3) to serve as a PIC in a (category and class of
aircraft). I have determined that he/she is prepared to serve as PIC in that
(make and model of aircraft). "

Note that the transition pilot is not a student pilot. Also note that
unlike the student pilot endorsement (under 61.87), there is no stated
expiration in the regs. Therefore a licensed airplane pilot with an solo
endorsement in gliders could fly a single seat glider for the rest of their
life without ever getting a checkride. Should that pilot have an accident,
he or she is "flying on the instructors certificate." A smart instructor
adds a time limit to protect themself from such an occurrence.

Similarly, you will often see restrictions put on the student solo pilot
endorsement limiting the student pilot to fly in winds under X knots or in
less than X cross-wind. Experienced instructors are not cavalier with the
endorsements. They are betting all their assets (house, car, retirement,
stock portfolio) everytime they endorse a pilot's logbook.

Sorry I can't provide a more detailed chapter and verse. The more you fly,
the more you learn that the FARs (CFRs to be technically correct) are only a
small part of flying an aircraft.

Paul

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"Paul Lynch" wrote
We recently went throught the requirements for a "transition pilot"
argument
at our club. The CFIs all agreed (including our DPE) that the
transition
pilot is not a student pilot. The club's board did not agree with the
CFIs.
The FSDO and insurance company settled it quickly as they agreed with
the
instructors. The instructors who did not already understand the reasons
for
limiting the solo endorsement quickly learned they needed to add the
limitation lest the transition pilot be flying on the CFIs certificate
indefinitely.

And on what basis is the transition pilot required to comply with the
limitation on the solo endorsement?

Chapter and verse, please.

Michael

At 23:42 20 August 2003, Michael wrote, quoting Paul
Lynch:

(without a CFI-imposed limitation over & above FAR
minimum requirements)... the transition pilot (could)
be flying on the CFIs certificate indefinitely.

I know what you mean, but I'm the only one who'll be
operating 'ON' my CFI certificate, thank you very much
- particularly when it's in my back pocket.

(to which 'Micael' responded) And on what basis is
the transition pilot required to comply with the limitation
on the solo endorsement?

Chapter and verse, please.

Opinion only, since I know of no FAR directly on point
here. Still...

... under 61.31(d)(2), such an endorsement can be construed
as the CFI defining the 'supervision' he or she will
provide. (No supervision, no solo privileges.)

... under 91.103, required preflight action, the PIC
is required to 'become familiar with all available
information concerning that flight.' Logically (and
legally, one hopes) written CFI-imposed limitations
regarding x-winds, practice area, x-c routes and/or
time limitations would be considered pertinent.

... (hang on - this is sort of an indirect proof) 61.195(d)(iii)
prohibits a CFI from endorsing a student pilot certificate
or logbook for solo flight unless the CFI has 'determined
that the student pilot is prepared to conduct the flight
safely under known circumstances, subject to any limitations
listed in the student's logbook that the instructor
considers necessary for the safety of the flight.'
Nothing in this section or elsewhere in the FARs prohibits
the CFI from applying the same professional standards
to a transition pilot who is not the holder of a student
pilot certificate.

Judy

At 18:48 21 August 2003, Michael wrote to Paul:

So I repeat my question - what makes you think the
transition pilot is required to comply with any
additional limitations, such as expiration date, crosswind
limitation, etc?

Yeah, so? What makes you think the holder of a student
pilot certificate is required to bide by any of the
CFI-imposed limitations outlined in and required by
61.195(d)(iii)?

It's anarchy out here... and oftentimes, common sense
can and should apply.

Judy

The CFI should be concerned about liability. When I write "flying on my
certificate" the student or transition pilot is effectively doing that
subject to the limitations stated in the FARs/CFRs and the endorsement in
the logbook. Should a student pilot/transition pilot violate those
limitations, then the CFI has some protection should a lawsuit arise.

As Judy wisely wrote, common sense needs to be applied. If I knew one of my
students knowingly and repeatedly violated a limitation I would ask for
their logbook and rescind the endorsement. If they refused, I would contact
the FAA and let them deal with the recalcitrant pilot who clearly has no
business flying.

You are correct in one sense that I cannot show the detail wording in a CFR,
but then there are other sources. I encourage you to wade through the FAA's
FAQ on Part 61. See http://www1.faa.gov/AVR/AFS/AFS800/DOCS/pt61FAQ.doc
See page 28. The guys that wrote part 61 state, and I quote... ANSWER:
Ref. § 61.31(d)(3), § 61.87(l)(2) and Endorsement #35 in Appendix 1 of
Advisory Circular 61-65D; The person is not a student pilot and only needs
to have received Endorsement #35 in order to solo a glider. The person does
not need Endorsement #4 as this 90-day limitation [§ 6187(l)(2)] only
applies to student pilots. The person may continue to perform solo flight
operations on the basis of Endorsement #35. However, as a flight
instructor, even though the rules do not specifically state any requirement
for limiting your endorsement to 90 days, it would be legally prudent of you
to place such a limitation if you have any doubts about this person's
judgment or his propensity to enjoy suing you. However, the rules do not
specifically require you to place such a limitation, because those of us who
rewrote Part 61 did not think it was necessary to attempt to regulate good
vs. irrational judgment.





"Michael" wrote in message
m...
"Paul Lynch" wrote
This particular chapter and verse comes from the secret handshake that
CFIs
get when they become CFIs.

That's so fascinating. I must not have gotten my secret handshake.

"35. To act as PIC of an aircraft in solo operations when the pilot
who
does not hold an appropriate category/class rating: § 61.31(d)(3)
I certify that (First name, MI, Last name) has received the training
as
required by § 61.31(d)(3) to serve as a PIC in a (category and class of
aircraft). I have determined that he/she is prepared to serve as PIC in
that
(make and model of aircraft). "

Funny, I got this part.

Note that the transition pilot is not a student pilot. Also note that
unlike the student pilot endorsement (under 61.87), there is no stated
expiration in the regs.

Nor is there a stated requirement to comply with any limitation his
instructor might place in his logbook. So I repeat my question - what
makes you think the transition pilot is required to comply with any
additional limitations, such as expiration date, crosswind limitation,
etc?

Sorry I can't provide a more detailed chapter and verse.

In other words, you believe it to be true but can't actually support
your belief in any way.

Michael

This is one case where logic does apply to the regulations.
The CFI has given a limited authorization (NOT CERTIFICATE).
If the transiztion pilot operates outside the limits
of the authorization he/she has no authorization.
The CFI did not authorize that and is not accountable.

At 19:12 21 August 2003, Judy Ruprecht wrote:
At 23:42 20 August 2003, Michael wrote, quoting Paul
Lynch:

(without a CFI-imposed limitation over & above FAR
minimum requirements)... the transition pilot (could)
be flying on the CFIs certificate indefinitely.

I know what you mean, but I'm the only one who'll be
operating 'ON' my CFI certificate, thank you very much
- particularly when it's in my back pocket.

(to which 'Micael' responded) And on what basis is
the transition pilot required to comply with the limitation
on the solo endorsement?

Chapter and verse, please.

Opinion only, since I know of no FAR directly on point
here. Still...

... under 61.31(d)(2), such an endorsement can be construed
as the CFI defining the 'supervision' he or she will
provide. (No supervision, no solo privileges.)

... under 91.103, required preflight action, the PIC
is required to 'become familiar with all available
information concerning that flight.' Logically (and
legally, one hopes) written CFI-imposed limitations
regarding x-winds, practice area, x-c routes and/or
time limitations would be considered pertinent.

... (hang on - this is sort of an indirect proof) 61.195(d)(iii)
prohibits a CFI from endorsing a student pilot certificate
or logbook for solo flight unless the CFI has 'determined
that the student pilot is prepared to conduct the flight
safely under known circumstances, subject to any limitations
listed in the student's logbook that the instructor
considers necessary for the safety of the flight.'
Nothing in this section or elsewhere in the FARs prohibits
the CFI from applying the same professional standards
to a transition pilot who is not the holder of a student
pilot certificate.

Judy

Judy Ruprecht wrote
So I repeat my question - what makes you think the
transition pilot is required to comply with any
additional limitations, such as expiration date, crosswind
limitation, etc?

Yeah, so? What makes you think the holder of a student
pilot certificate is required to bide by any of the
CFI-imposed limitations outlined in and required by
61.195(d)(iii)?

14CFR61 Subpart C -- Student Pilots
61.89 General limitations.
(a) A student pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft:
(8) In a manner contrary to any limitations placed in the pilot's logbook by an
authorized instructor.

Michael