Jump to content

CFII question


Recommended Posts

Ok, I am reading some notes from a guy after he did his CFII practical. He says he was asked to give an endorsement for a Pvt. fixed wing pilot instrument rated with a rotorcraft add on to take the instrument add on written.

 

In his notes he has written that he wrote this out....

 

I cert. that I have conducted ground training in the areas listed in 14 cfr pt. 61.65 (b-1-10) with ______________ and find him prepared to take the rotorcraft instrument add on aeronautical knowledge exam.

 

Ok looks worded ok, BUT as I read the FARS it states in 61.65 (a)(7) the applicant does not need to take an additional knowledge exam if he already holds an instrument rating.

So as outlined in this scenario, this pilot would not need an endorsement to take a knowledge exam since another instrument exam is not required and the only endorsement needed would be for the practical.

That's how I read the regs., BUT since this guy includes in his notes the things he did wrong and gives the corrections he received during his check ride, and does not show any on this one, I am in doubt as to how I read the regs and maybe I've missed a reg. somewhere?????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool, I thought so. The FARs are a very frustrating set of regs to me, so much of them is open to interpretation, whereas DOT stuff is not, and I'm more of a black and white kind of thinker and so the FARs have been a bit of a looper at times, so as a result I am constantly second guessing and questioning things.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite a quad mocha, I'm feeling a little testy this morning, so I'll say this: the Federal Airline Advocates (FAA) has 3 interpretations of sunrise/sunset. Most of the rest of their voluminous tomes of Regs are equally clear and easily understood. The only problem I have with them being replaced is that they'll no doubt be replaced with yet another government bureacracy staffed by non-flying lawyers.

 

I'm sure I'll feel better later.....

 

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like 61.63b2 require an aeronautical knowledge endorsement be given. I would say the DPE cut him some slack on semantics - the endorsement doesn't require him to be prepared for the test, it says the endorser has verified he has the required knowledge. The key words on the template I've got are "found competent in that aeronautical knowledge areas".

 

"(2) Must have an endorsement in his or her logbook or training record from an authorized instructor, and that endorsement must attest that the applicant has been found competent in the aeronautical knowledge areas appropriate to the pilot certificate for the aircraft category and, if applicable, class rating sought;"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool, I thought so. The FARs are a very frustrating set of regs to me, so much of them is open to interpretation, whereas DOT stuff is not, and I'm more of a black and white kind of thinker and so the FARs have been a bit of a looper at times, so as a result I am constantly second guessing and questioning things.

Thanks.

 

Have faith- I have fairly extensive experience dealing with NY DOT regs and specs. in a past life and they make the FARs look like a high school hall pass. The job of the government is to regulate to ensure safety and a level playing field for businesses under its jurisdiction- its when people and companies try to break, bend, or work around those regulations that they become more and more onerous and restrictive. Just wait and see what new economic regulations are born of this current crisis (which was caused by a regulation, the CRA, but dont get me started). We should feel blessed from this point of view that the FARs arent worse than they are. Just take a peek at some of the JAR tomes to see what im talking about. We've got it easy compared to that web of beaurocracy.

 

I not a fan of the FAA ;) but if we all strive to follow the regs in as conservative a way as possible I wont have to start hating the FAA. I like the current amount of wiggle room.

 

I cant believe I just defended the FARs. I should get some kind of tax credit for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...