Can one CPL endorse another CPL on an acft?

[ConwayB]

Hello all,

I was told today by an instructor that a CPL can endorse another CPL on an aircraft type even if neither are Instructors? I am about to scour the regs to confirm this, but seem to recall hearing that that is correct.

I own a Cessna O-2 (military version of the 337 centreline thrust aircraft) so even though it is a twin engined aircraft, it doesn't have asymmetric issues making flying it very easy (Handles like a heavy 172). It does have the tricky Cessna fuel system and procedures for identifying, confirming and selecting inoperative engines require a slight amount of extra caution (you can't use 'Dead leg = dead engine), but other than that... she's just a standard Cessna < 5700kg.

So if you can shed some light on this (and point me to exactly where in the regs/orders it specifically says CPL to CPL is OK, I'd greatly appreciate it.

(PS Anyone interested in being endorsed on a real warbird? It's got a glass cockpit and is Day/Night IFR capable and in the standard category, not limited or experimental! Outside it's 1969 USAF in Vietnam: inside it's 21 Century. Has all the fire radios, bluetooth for mobile phone or satphone, cargo pod, smoke generator, the works.)

[morno]

I have been wrong before, however I'm pretty certain on this one.

The answer being, NO. Unless..... under CAR 5.20, CASA gives approval to the person giving the endorsement, to conduct the training without a flight instructor rating.

OR

The training is given under a CAR 217 training organisation (which I'm guessing yours isn't?).

morno

[cficare]

no.............

[Pilotette]

Endorsements, as in your case, No.
A CPL can however, "check you out" provided the aircraft doesn't have any design features that the pilot is not already endorsed on & the aircraft has to be single engine below 5700kg. A centreline thrust, still being a twin, requires an endorsement.

[T28D]

If CASA approve as in the case of Warbirds the Commercial/Commercial is acceptable, you just have to be in a situation where the circumstances require that, i.e. no suitably endorsed Instructor available.

Been there, Done that.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Pilotette,

Why only SE <5700kg?

If the pilot being checked is already endorsed on the class/type and holds any relevant design features, nothing stopping anther pilot saying they're capable of handling the aircraft, certain procedures, such as simulated engine failures excluded of course.

Conway,
That instructor will land you in a big pile of crap, especially if you send paperwork to CASA stating you have conducted training without the relevant rating or qualifications.
As for issuing the endorsement, as it has its own class under CAO 40.1.0, (and is not an entirely uncommon aircraft type), you will probably have Buckley's of getting CASA approval to issue. There are plenty of qualified instructors who can issue this endo.
You won't find CPL/CPL. No such animal.

All I can say is DON'T FORGET TO LEAD WITH THE REAR ENGINE!:ok:

[Pilotette]

MIHC, my wording is a bit off, but I was trying to aim my response more on the basis that if you're not already endorsed (on an aircraft that requires an endorsement), another CPL can't endorse you. Ie. It's fine for another pilot to check you on a C206 (if you're CSU endorsed), even if you've only ever flown a C172 for example, but another pilot can't check you on a Baron if the only twin you're endorsed on is a Seneca.

[ConwayB]

Hello everyone,

You have confirmed what I suspected (after much frustrating searching and interpretation in the Regs).

Thanks for all your input.

The instructor I was speaking to did have some doubts and was heading off to check the regs himself... but no harm done. I knew the Ppruners would have good guff for me.

Safe flying and remember to lead with the rear engine (if you have one).

CB

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Pilotette,

Sweet.:ok:

[Pilotette]

No worries! :O

[T28D]

Yep this is the one Unless..... under CAR 5.20, CASA gives approval to the person giving the endorsement, to conduct the training without a flight instructor rating.

My Float Rating was given Via this CAR and also my T28 Endorsement.

[Two_dogs]

It's actually CAR 5.21


5.20 Flight crew rating: approval to give training
(1) CASA may approve a person who holds a pilot licence to give
flying training for the issue of a flight crew rating, or a grade of
flight crew rating.

5.21 Approval to give conversion training
(1) CASA may approve:
(a) a person who holds an aeroplane pilot licence to give
aeroplane conversion training; or
(b) a person who holds a helicopter pilot licence to give
helicopter conversion training.

[Schmacko]

Who did your T28 endorsement and was the person who did your endorsement the same person who signed you off..........hmmm maybe it can be done under AWAL authorisation

[T28D]

The T 28 endorsement was done by a well known Commercial Pilot and the Sticky signed off by a CASA FOI at Bankstown, nothing to do with AWAL.

The float rating was done by a Canadian Commercial Pilot in Western Aust and again signed off by the CASA office which was at Jandakot at that time.

Both cases were CAR 5.21 authorised by CASA prior to the Endorsement/Rating flying.

[Two_dogs]

Splitting hairs really but ...

The float rating would be CAR 5.20
The type endorsement would be CAR 5.21

[T28D]

Two Dogs I will split it down the middle !!!!!!

[nitpicker330]

Yes you'd hate to have a CPL owner with possibly hundreds of hours in his own A/C endorse someone else wouldn't you!! :D That would be dangerous!!

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

You will find there needs to be a shortage of suitably qualified persons around or a compelling reason why this approval would be enacted.

As I said, the 337 isn't exactly a rare animal.

Then bear in mind insurance and liability.....

Nitpicker,
Understand the thread request was about a c/l thrust a/c, but I would be aghast if a CPL with a couple of hundred hours in their own aircraft (lets use a twin as an example) started conducting engine failures themselves.
Darwin, Bandit
Tamworth, Metro
Yes, it is f:mad:cking dangerous.

These were guys who knew what they were doing and died.
There is a reason why multi training requires approval above an instructor rating.
It's a whole new way for students to kill you.:cool:

[thorn bird]

Pity we dont have "Multi Engine Land" licences here, save every one a whole heap of grief, and things a lot simpler.

[T28D]

Yup Multi Engine Land, I have one of those, but they were not without problems, the MU 2 issue was salient in the U.S. re think of the way the Rating worked.

Put simply it is now not so free, yes it works for FAR 23 piston Twins without complex systems but it is restricted at the Turbine end < 5700 Kg 12400 lbs to type approvals and in the case of the MU 2 annual proficiency Flight Safety Style.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Moderately disagree.

The variation in even "simpler" variants of the same class of aircraft need to be explained and understood.

Examples being the fuel systems on 402's and even Queeenairs.

402 A's and B's have a completely different fuel system (similar to 310's) from C models (no tip tanks). Early model 65 queens return fuel to the mains, later models sent it back to the selected tank.

Can easily see the potential for some gumby who has a "generic" twin rating jumping into an unfamiliar type and screwing it six ways left of sunday.

Seen too many instances of people who jump into a new type without familiarising themselves and having dramas. Perfect example couple of years ago when a commanche pilot spent well over an hour talking to ATC trying to get hold of someone who could tell him how to do an emergency gear extension. He was definitely starting to stress by the time they got hold of someone.:E

[T28D]

Respect your thinking, but anyone who separates themselves from mother Earth without understanding the conveyance they are using is just dumb.

In the case of the Mu 2 it was a little different, the aircraft is a challenge as it uses advanced flight controls, high wing loading and a propensity to ice up on the bottom of the fuselage between the undercarriage sponsons, having said all that it is a delight to fly once you master it and on an ILS it is an awesome platform, the spoilers give one absolute roll control with no mushiness all the way to DA.

With -10 engines the Go Around is a wonderful experience, just slower with -5 engines but still no slouch.

The Multi Engine Land is OK provided normal caution is exercised and one understands their limitations as they align with the anti gravity device they intend to use and they are competent enough to read and understand the POH.

[Tinstaafl]

Except for a very limited number of types, the US' MEL isn't restricted @ the turbine (non-jet) &/or <12,500lb end. Those specifically exempted types are specified in the FARs eg the MU2 series. Apart from that, you could quite legally get an initial MEL in a PA44 Seminole, walk out of the test with your temporary licence and straight into a Kingair 200 - with a bit of a caveat: In every aircraft you fly, you are required to be familiar with the normal & emergency procedures & handling. Still rather less restrictive than the endorsement system of Oz.

Bearing in mind that a series grouped for endorsement purposes can be quite different within the series eg C4xx, an endorsement doesn't necessarily give you competence in type.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

T28 & Tinstaafl

Not suggesting for one second that enlightened persons (present company inluded, natch...) would fail to realise the folly in jumping into an unfamiliar a/c without some guidance beforehand. :cool:

My example was a perfect case of numptys needing to be protected from themselves. Even though the blanket endo for <5700 kg SE requires familiarity with any aircraft flown, it don't always happen!:ugh:

[601]

Back to the original question

I was told today by an instructor that a CPL can endorse another CPL on an aircraft type even if neither are Instructors? I am about to scour the regs to confirm this, but seem to recall hearing that that is correct.

Under CAR 5.20 CASA may approve the holder of a pilot licence to give flying training for the issue of a flight crew rating.

A flight crew rating is defined in CAR 5.13. 5.13 does not list an "aircraft endorsement or conversion training" amongst the list of Ratings. So CAR 5.20 is irrelevant for conversion training.

CAR 5.21 covers conversion training.

A private pilot may be approved to give conversion training. CAR 5.21(1)(a) or (b), subject to the other provisions of CAR 5.21.

CAR 5.22 states the requirement to hold an "aircraft endorsement"

A person may may be permitted to "self endorse" CAR 5.23(5).

Conversion training is a private operation. CAR 206(1)(a)(vi). Therefore no AOC is required.

The end result of conversion training is an "aircraft type or class endorsement", or a "design feature endorsement" not an "aircraft rating"

[LeadSled]

Under CAR 5.20 CASA may approve the holder of a pilot licence to give flying training for the issue of a flight crew rating.
A flight crew rating is defined in CAR 5.13. 5.13 does not list an "aircraft endorsement or conversion training" amongst the list of Ratings. So CAR 5.20 is irrelevant for conversion training.
CAR 5.21 covers conversion training.
A private pilot may be approved to give conversion training. CAR 5.21(1)(a) or (b), subject to the other provisions of CAR 5.21.CAR 5.22 states the requirement to hold an "aircraft endorsement"
A person may may be permitted to "self endorse" CAR 5.23(5).
Conversion training is a private operation. CAR 206(1)(a)(vi). Therefore no AOC is required.
The end result of conversion training is an "aircraft type or class endorsement", or a "design feature endorsement" not an "aircraft rating" Folks,
That's what I love about Australian air law, so simple, uncomplicated and easily comprehended????

Not like the highly complicated first pommie license I held ---- PPL with Group A --- all single engine aircraft under 12,500 lb, then added Group B --- All multi-engine aircraft under 12,500 lb, then added a night rating, so I could fly H24. And if they happened to have VP props, retractable U/C, floats or pressurization, that was up to you, the "authorities" were quite disinterested.

I only learned how difficult and complicated flying was supposed to be when I returned to Australia.
Tootle pip!!

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

A person may may be permitted to "self endorse" CAR 5.23(5).

A very poor choice of words, to say the least.

Reg 5.23(5) covers endorsement in a single place aircraft outside of the SE<5700 kg class. You obviously can't fly with an instructor in your lap, so there has to be some provision to fly the aircraft to receive the endorsement from an authorised person.