SOLO ENDORSMENT

[MileHi480B]

Is a full-blown solo endorsement needed for your first hover solo of a few pickups and set downs?

 

Again, I have gotten conflicting opinions.

[helijay]

A solo is a solo. I would give full endorsement. A lot can go wrong for a students 1st pick up and set down.

[delorean]

All the endorsements are needed..........That helicopter is flying and they're PIC. Doesn't matter if it's 1-inch or 5000' off the ground.

 

So, you need:

 

-the presolo written test

-presolo written test endorsement

-90 day solo endorsement

-sign back of student pilot cert for the solo and the make/model

 

and for the Robinson

 

-all the SFAR 73 PIC and awareness training endorsements

[yzchopper]

I second what Delorean said.

All endorsements need to be signed off.

[RockyMountainPilot]

Like Delorean said, you need all the endorsements, but you can also specify in those endorsement any limitation you want. If you only authorize a student for hover practice within the boundaries of XYZ airport, in your presence, with your written authorization, only on tuesdays, while wearing a pink tutu, and humming "The Dog Song", then it is binding on the student.

 

I knew a student who got a standard solo endorsement fly a friends helicopter for dozens of hours and get into some trouble with the FAA and local law enforcement. Looked really bad for the instructor in the newspaper.

[delorean]

Like Delorean said, you need all the endorsements, but you can also specify in those endorsement any limitation you want. If you only authorize a student for hover practice within the boundaries of XYZ airport, in your presence, with your written authorization, only on tuesdays, while wearing a pink tutu, and humming "The Dog Song", then it is binding on the student.

 

I knew a student who got a standard solo endorsement fly a friends helicopter for dozens of hours and get into some trouble with the FAA and local law enforcement. Looked really bad for the instructor in the newspaper.

 

Been there.

 

We had a student that decided to take his own x-country to buzz his parent's house. He told us he want to go over to the west practice area (about 5 miles away), yet he flew about 15 miles to the NE.

 

An off duty cop got pictures of him probably below 200 AGL--close enough to get his face. The next day the FAA was calling and wanted to talk to him. He lied, and said that we told him he could do that......even though our endorsement said he could only go to the practice area. The instructor who signed him off got pulled for ones of those "re-evaluation" (609?) rides by the FSDO.

 

After that we made the endorsement much more restrictive and made the student sign them as well. Kinda of a "contract" deal.

[kodoz]

After that we made the endorsement much more restrictive and made the student sign them as well. Kinda of a "contract" deal.

 

How'd you make it more restrictive? Just by spelling out the limitations more specifically?

 

Having the student sign (or initial it at least) sounds like a good idea. Several schools I've gone to have the student initial the terms of a solo/renters agreement...this is where they put limitations on things like quick stops and autos during solo flights. Do you think having the student sign the endorsement is better than something like that?

[Raptor^]

An off duty cop got pictures of him probably below 200 AGL--close enough to get his face. The next day the FAA was calling and wanted to talk to him. He lied, and said that we told him he could do that......even though our endorsement said he could only go to the practice area. The instructor who signed him off got pulled for ones of those "re-evaluation" (609?) rides by the FSDO.

 

I can see one reason as to why the instructor had to be reevaluated, and that would have to be that before you endorse anyone for solo flight you must be sure of that students capabilities, knowledge and also know that you can trust him/her with the responsibility of being in command by them self.

 

It is tricky because you can never know what the student will do for sure, and sending students solo is never fun. At least not until they are safely back on the ground, parked and have shut down the heli They are, one way or the other, flying on the instructor´s license and good(?) reputation.

 

 

Yes, a "full-blown" solo endorsement is needed for pick-ups and set-downs. It´s flying with a student solo in the helicopter. Kinda makes a lot of sense And every solo endorsement can be restricted as much as the instructor wants and is comfortable with. Weather and wind limitations, only with supervision by the instructor, you can make is expire before the default 90 days etc. Whatever the instructor wants But then again one can´t go totally crazy about it, because then the solo´s are never going to happen.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Raptor^

[RockyMountainPilot]

I can see one reason as to why the instructor had to be reevaluated, and that would have to be that before you endorse anyone for solo flight you must be sure of that students capabilities, knowledge and also know that you can trust him/her with the responsibility of being in command by them self.

 

 

No such requirement exist.

[Raptor^]

No such requirement exist.

 

61.195 (d)(1)(ii)

Determined that the student 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.

 

Although the FAR´s don´t specify that you need trust him/her with the responsibility of being in command by them self; if you cannot trust the student to conduct the flight safely you would be in violation of the above FAR if you endorse him/her for solo flight. Would you endorse anyone that have a bad attitude towards safety, rules and reg´s that you feel you cannot trust with the heli by themself?

[RockyMountainPilot]

You trying to say that a flight instructor has a duty to determine a persons intent. There is no requirement. Someone can represent themselves as the perfect student, but then go and try to break their boyfriend out of jail on their second solo flight.

 

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=2...02004&key=1

[Mikemv]

61.195 (d)(1)(ii)

Determined that the student 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.

 

Although the FAR´s don´t specify that you need trust him/her with the responsibility of being in command by them self; if you cannot trust the student to conduct the flight safely you would be in violation of the above FAR if you endorse him/her for solo flight. Would you endorse anyone that have a bad attitude towards safety, rules and reg´s that you feel you cannot trust with the heli by themself?

 

Raptor, RMP is correct and never said to endorse a student for solo that a CFI has doubts about. I think the FSDO went too far in requiring a Competency check of the CFI that endorsed this student based on the facts given and the students actions!

 

A phone call and discussion between FAA Inspector and CFI should have cleared this up. Maybe the CFI did not answer questions with competency and required 709 ride?

 

Soloing a student is a major CFI responsibility that should be taken seriously but no one can tell what someone "Might" do and only the PIC is responsible for their actions when solo!

 

Be Safe, MikeMV