Can one CPL endorse another CPL on an acft?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Townsville Australia
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can one CPL endorse another CPL on an acft?
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.)
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.)
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Remote
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Been there, Done that.
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!
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!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Remote
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Townsville Australia
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many thanks
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
My Float Rating was given Via this CAR and also my T28 Endorsement.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: (Not always) In front of my computer
Posts: 371
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Belowthebelt
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heh T28D
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
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
That would be dangerous!!
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
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.
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
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.