Endorsement Twist

[cjh]

Rick,

With all due respect, your argument doesn't make sense. What you're saying is that your theoretical student is sane enough to be responsible with a solo endorsement but will somehow go nuts given the complex endorsement he needs to be legal.

It's your job to explain to the student the limitations you're placing on his priviledges. If your student doesn't respect the fact that as a student his complex endorsement is only good for that one plane, then I guarantee you he's also not going to respect that his solo priviledges are restriced to specific aircraft.

I would also question why you would even be training someone at all that you consider that irresponsible.

As for litigation, if someone is looking for a reason to sue you, the presence of a complex endorsement is not going to be the magic "gotcha". They'll find a reason. On the other hand, omitting an endorsement the regs clearly say must be there implies you have given the student solo priviledges in a complex aircraft without providing the necessary training to receive the complex endorsement.

Bottom line is that you can restrict student priviledges by adding limitations, but you can't change the reg requirements out of a fear of being sued.

 

[Rich Man]

See, now we agree

100% I agree with you this time.

And for that reason, I always put restrictions on my students endorsemnts, it is really necessary, and as the Instructor, the restrictor can be as tight as good for the date, that way, he cant go flying any other day you are not aware off.

Still I think the best thing is to use a trainer for primary flight instruction, not a Complex nor a High Perf. I kno it can be done, Im Just no willing to put my Ticket on the line for something like that. Honestly a pre-private has little bussines flying a complex or High Perf A/C.

Going back to Stupidity, even with a restriction, Dumb@$$ can still take the plane and do whatever he wants if he/she is dumb enough, there's just no cure for stupidity...


Rich!

 

[Rick1128]

Answers to the points made above.

1. Student pilots are like buck privates and 2nd Lts. They are expected to do dumb things. And usually do.

2. Some students tend to have selective hearing. They hear only what they want to hear. Not what you told them.

3. What students do in your presence can and generally is different from what they do when you are not around. Ask any school teacher.

4. Finally it comes down to what lawyers call 'Due Dilligence'. That restriction on the student's endorsement is your proof that you told him. You can say 'I told him this or that' but it really doesn't hold a lot of water in court. A piece of paper with a date and signature does.

What it really comes down to is documentation.

 

[cjh]

Answers to the points made above.

1. Student pilots are like buck privates and 2nd Lts. They are expected to do dumb things. And usually do.

2. Some students tend to have selective hearing. They hear only what they want to hear. Not what you told them.

3. What students do in your presence can and generally is different from what they do when you are not around. Ask any school teacher.

None of these things has anything to do with whether you, as his instructor, properly endorse his certificate and logbook. If anything, it could be argued that failing to do so only teaches the student that he can in fact get away with ignoring or abusing the regs. EG: the regs require the endorsement to act as PIC in a complex aircraft, you don't provide it, he flies a complex plane as PIC anyway, and he learns WHAT from this? And if anything happened you for some reason think an attorney would look at the absence of the required endorsement as a good thing?

4. Finally it comes down to what lawyers call 'Due Dilligence'. That restriction on the student's endorsement is your proof that you told him. You can say 'I told him this or that' but it really doesn't hold a lot of water in court. A piece of paper with a date and signature does.

What it really comes down to is documentation.

No, the ENDORSEMENT in the logbook is proof you taught him. The RESTRICTION is an indication you put limits on his freedoms, presumably in the interest of safety. And for the record, I have never inidcated there shouldn't be restrictions. In fact, I whole heartedly support the idea. What I don't support is skipping over FAR requirements, in this case omitting a required endorsement because YOU prefer not to give it.

 

[avbug]

All the argumentation about student responsibility is moot.

The solo endorsement is completely different from a complex endorsement. If you intend to solo a student in a complex airplane, then he or she must have a complex endorsement, period.

If you solo a student in a conventional gear airplane, then he or she must have a tailwheel endorsement, pure and simple.

If you solo a student in a high performance airplane, then he or she must have a high performance endorsement.

While the signature required by 14 CFR 61.87(1)(iv)&(v) is aircraft specific, this does not alleviate the responsibility to endorse the student in accordance with 61.31(e)(1)(ii) (additional training required for operating complex airplanes).

This is not a matter of one endorsement covering another. Clearly, these are separate and distinct endorsements. You must endorse the student's logbook for solo privileges, identifying specific make and model. Does this eliminate the requirement to endorse the student pilot certificate? Of course not. Likewise, it doesn't eliminate the requirement to endorse the student for operations acting as pilot in command of a complex airplane.

On a practical note, if you have any concerns about the student acting as PIC of a complex airplane, then don't solo him. If you have any doubt as to the intent or ability of the student, then you have no business making any endorsements at all.