Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Solo Endorsement question

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
I agree but I'm not sure that "overhaul" is necessarily the correct term for, "Dear Gleim: Please include a module on certificate requirements and endorsements in your online FIRC."
Gleim doesn't make up the requirements, just the course to comply with them. Unless you are speaking from the FAA's mouth there. (They could use a little help:laugh: )
Anyway, my original post was not at all a shot at the original poster. As a 121 / 135 / 91K guy for the last 10 yrs, I have to do a ton of additional study in addition to the Gleim course when I renew. Maybe I don't need to, but really, most of the flying I do (high level jet flying) really makes you fall out of touch with all the knuckling it out down low. The worst thing for a student is a jet pilot who part-time instructs but just does not keep his professional obligation to be an informed instructor. And unfortunately there is soooooome of that lurking around. To the student it's "Woweey! A jet pilot, he must know everything!". But the reality is that flying up high in the IFR system all the time really dulls the razor. I'd rather have a FLAP (no insult intended) who has been instructing a long time. But then again, how many of those are left now?
 
Last edited:
I agree but I'm not sure that "overhaul" is necessarily the correct term for, "Dear Gleim: Please include a module on certificate requirements and endorsements in your online FIRC."
...and if you do, the response looks something like:

We appreciate you writing in with such an interesting comment. The information you cite is addressed in the FARs, of course. Although many CFIs it may not feel it has been presented in a reader friendly manner there. I can certainly understand that perspective.

Customer input is very important to us, for this very reason. Our users often present us with very good ideas that deserve our attention. I can assure you that this suggestion will be addressed in our discussions when we next prepare to update the FIRC.

If I can offer any further assistance, please feel free to contact me.

Thank you, have a great day, and fly safely!
Yes, the FAA has minimum requirements for what must be in an FIRC (AC 61-83 and its Appendices) but that doesn't mean a provider can't go beyond the minimums.
 
...and if you do, the response looks something like:


Yes, the FAA has minimum requirements for what must be in an FIRC (AC 61-83 and its Appendices) but that doesn't mean a provider can't go beyond the minimums.
I can hear it now..."This stuff is too hard"....:laugh:
Fly safe.
Terry
 

Latest resources

Back
Top