Class D, C endorsements - recommendations?

[MrMorden]

Privates don't require a logbook endorsement to fly into controlled airspace nor do they need a logbook endorsement to fly aircraft with speeds above 80kts as sport pilots do...

Morden, the FAA has nothing to do with a CFI limiting a sport pilot student to a Class Delta airspace, that's between the sport pilot student and their CFI who is wasting that students time in the long run because they will still need to get it fixed later to include B, C and D.

While we are at this, Class A may only be flown by instrument rated pilots under IFR rules with private, commercial or ATP certs. And no one may enter Class A without ATC clearance, just like Class Bravo.

I did not require a Vh > 80kt endorsement, because the airplane I trained in and did my checkride in was a Vh > 80kt airplane. Not every SP requires that endorsement.

Saying the FAA has nothing to do with an airspace requirement is like saying that to police have nothing to do with speed limits, it's between you and your driving instructor.

The whole point of this discussion is that there is no "one size fits all" approach to training and endorsements. If a pilot never plans on entering a C or B airspace, there is no requirement that they ever get their D endorsement "fixed".

And we all understand the requirements of class A airspace. You have an annoying habit in your posts of randomly declaring some point of aviation knowledge that is not related at all to the current discussion, and that everybody with a pilot certificate already knows.

Also, VFR pilots flying on a predominantly easterly heading above 3000ft AGL are required to fly at an altitude of odd thousands of feet plus 500ft (i.e. 3500, 5500, 7500). See how annoying that is?

[3Dreaming]

How does this allow you not do all of the training that is required, and then make an endorsement?

Asked and answered.[/quote]

I am guessing that because the FAA said you can make a single endorsement for one type of airspace, that you think that you don't have to do all the required training.

[3Dreaming]

Privates don't require a logbook endorsement to fly into controlled airspace nor do they need a logbook endorsement to fly aircraft with speeds above 80kts as sport pilots do...

Morden, the FAA has nothing to do with a CFI limiting a sport pilot student to a Class Delta airspace, that's between the sport pilot student and their CFI who is wasting that students time in the long run because they will still need to get it fixed later to include B, C and D.

While we are at this, Class A may only be flown by instrument rated pilots under IFR rules with private, commercial or ATP certs. And no one may enter Class A without ATC clearance, just like Class Bravo.

I did not require a Vh > 80kt endorsement, because the airplane I trained in and did my checkride in was a Vh > 80kt airplane. Not every SP requires that endorsement.

Saying the FAA has nothing to do with an airspace requirement is like saying that to police have nothing to do with speed limits, it's between you and your driving instructor.

The whole point of this discussion is that there is no "one size fits all" approach to training and endorsements. If a pilot never plans on entering a C or B airspace, there is no requirement that they ever get their D endorsement "fixed".

And we all understand the requirements of class A airspace. You have an annoying habit in your posts of randomly declaring some point of aviation knowledge that is not related at all to the current discussion, and that everybody with a pilot certificate already knows.

Also, VFR pilots flying on a predominantly easterly heading above 3000ft AGL are required to fly at an altitude of odd thousands of feet plus 500ft (i.e. 3500, 5500, 7500). See how annoying that is?

Andy, I used to think because you did your check ride in a certain speed range airplane that you didn't need the speed endorsement, but my DPE says you do. I would call ASF-610 (405-954-6400) and check into whether you need it or not.

[SportPilot]

.......

[MrMorden]

Andy, I used to think because you did your check ride in a certain speed range airplane that you didn't need the speed endorsement, but my DPE says you do. I would call ASF-610 (405-954-6400) and check into whether you need it or not.

Now that you mention it, I think I might have gotten the endorsement when I got my temporary certificate after the checkride. I will check in the logbook when I get home. I know I was told I would need an endorsement for a Vh LESS THAN 80kt at the time (2009), not sure if that rule still stands.

[3Dreaming]

You would be much less annoying if you would simply state what you believe rather they say what someone else believes. That's why I have you on ignore. It's obvious why I have CTLSi on ignore. Every once in a while, I make the mistake of reading an ignored post.

I'll say this so maybe you can understand it:

The FAA is telling us that for practical purposes it is OK to interpret the FAR as if it is 3 FAR's. One for class B, one for class C, and one for class D. Therefore, as long as you do the required ground and flight training for one, two, or three of these, you can do the endorsement for the same one, two, or three. You must do the required training and the pilot must be proficient, but it is OK to consider the three airspaces separately.

I have nothing else to add. If someone does not accept this ruling, that's perfectly OK with me, and more importantly, perfectly OK with the FAA.

I ask that way to see if you thought that was your answer to the question, because I don't think you had answered the question.

BTW you shouldn't have me on ignore, because you might miss one of the rare occasions where I have posted that I agree with something you have said.

I figure now it is about time for you to pick up your words and go home like you have done in the past.

[SportPilot]

.......

[drseti]

I did not require a Vh > 80kt endorsement, because the airplane I trained in and did my checkride in was a Vh > 80kt airplane. Not every SP requires that endorsement.

Actually, Andy, that magic number is 87 knots, not 80. (It may seem arbitrary, but it's really a nice round number: 100 MPH.) And under the FARs as I interpret them, you need one of the two endorsements before you can take your checkride: either <87 or >87 knots. (Some of my students had received both...)

Edit: Coincidentally, those are the same numbers used for reference pressure when doing differential compression checks. 80 PSIG for Continental and Lycoming, 87 PSIG for Rotax. Do you think there's a Higher Power at work here?

[3Dreaming]

I did not require a Vh > 80kt endorsement, because the airplane I trained in and did my checkride in was a Vh > 80kt airplane. Not every SP requires that endorsement.

Actually, Andy, that magic number is 87 knots, not 80. (It may seem arbitrary, but it's really a nice round number: 100 MPH.) And under the FARs as I interpret them, you need one of the two endorsements before you can take your checkride: either <87 or >87 knots. (Some of my students had received both...)

Edit: Coincidentally, those are the same numbers used for reference pressure when doing differential compression checks. 80 PSIG for Continental and Lycoming, 87 PSIG for Rotax. Do you think there's a Higher Power at work here?

Paul, here is another one that I disagree with in a way. You don't need the endorsement before the checkride. You do need it for the flight home if you pass, so it is a good idea to do them before hand.

[3Dreaming]

Putting you and CTLSi on ignore has gone a long way toward solving that issue. However, I do have a reason for that but I certainly would not try to explain it to you. If you can't understand something as simple as this class B, C, and D endorsement, you certainly wouldn't understand that, not to mention that it's none of your business.

You sir don't have the comprehension to know what I understand, and don't understand. I understand completely all that has been discussed in regards to the endorsement. The simple fact is I don't agree with the operations inspectors interpretation based on the wording of the regulation. Like I said before I could ask FAA legal, but I have no intension of doing that because of the problems it could create.

As for why you delete your post I have 2 pretty good ideas why.

[drseti]

I agree, Tom. (I still prefer to do the endorsement before the checkride.)

[MrMorden]

Yes, 87kt...I knew that, just fell into the 80kt number after somebody mentioned that.

[3Dreaming]

I'm going to add one more thing, and I hope Sport Pilot reads this.
Your opinion on this regulation and those of the FAA personel are just that, opinions. My opinion is different than yours and theirs, but the opinions really don't mean anything.They carry no force of law. The regulation as it is written, and rulings delivered by FAA legal do carry the weight of the law. I have known several ocasions where the opinion of someone from the FAA was wrong.

I will give the first example that comes to my mind. A freind whose experimental airplane was torn up in the tornado at Sun'nFun had rebuilt after it was damaged. When he was finished he called the FAA to put it back into phase one flight testing. He told the inspector what had happened, and that he had rebuilt it. The inspector told him he would need to get a A&P to sign of his work. For those who don't know, you don't need anything special to work on an experimental aircraft. This came from the head of maintenance section at a FSDO.

[SportPilot]

.......

[CTLSi]

......