Written endorsements

[jesse]

I gave a student this morning an endorsement to take the private pilot written. He used a home study course, which I reviewed, and I also had him show me several practice tests.

I gave him the following endorsement:

I certify I have reviewed the home study curriculum of (John A. Doe). I have determined he is prepared for the private pilot airplane written test.
/s/ 5-8-2012 Jesse Angell XXXXXXCFI Exp. 04-2013

That endorsement is word-for-word out of AC 61-65E Page 17 item 70:

70. Review of a home study curriculum: section 61.35(a)(1).
I certify I have reviewed the home study curriculum of (First name, MI, Last name). I have determined he/she is prepared for the (name the knowledge test).
/s/ [date] J. J. Jones 987654321CFI Exp. 12-31-05

My student then later called me and informed me that they would not accept the endorsement. I asked to speak with whomever had said that -- who was the official practitioner of the test. He told me that the endorsement wasn't acceptable because it didn't reference 61.105. I asked him if he was familiar with AC 61-65E..He wasn't. Anyways....I ended up sending another endorsement referenceing 61.35(a)(1) which was accepted.

There are two endorsements shown in 61-65E. One strongly implies that you provided all the required ground training whereas another states you reviewed the home study curriculum. I suspect most instructors just always use the first one and don't even understand/read what they're actually endorsing.

I find it interesting that the endorsement recommended by AC 61-65E is not acceptable to Lasergrade. It had all the right verbiage I know of no regulation requiring that one reference the regulation in an endorsement. It's all about the verbiage.

Anyways. Rant over

 

[Jim Logajan]

You can start with Administrator v. Couillard, but also read Reno.

Those relate to logbook endorsements. A written endorsement for taking the written is another animal.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Not exactly. While it's not specified explicitly in 61.35, it is specified elsewhere as being a logbook endorsement, e.g., in 61.109 for PP:
... which is referenced in 61.35:
...61.109 being in "this part" (Part 61).

You mean 61.103, not 61.109.

I got endorsed by a computer proxy to take the written.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Technically, you should stick that in your logbook, but apparently they don't always worry about that. Either way, I'll bet it referenced the regs by number.

Fortunately I printed it out as a PDF file, allowing me to reprint it anytime I need it. (It was computer generated after all.)

For Jesse and others who are curious, here is a copy-and-paste of the relevant text Gleim usesr. Irvin N. Gleim certifies that the above individual has prepared for the FAA Private Pilot-Airplane knowledge test [covering topics specified in CFR 61.105(b)(1) through (13)] using the Gleim Online Ground School course.

The Gleim Online Ground School course has ascertained that the above individual has satisfactorily completed this online ground school, which includes all airplane-related questions in the FAA Private Pilot test bank of questions. Thus, I have determined that (s)he is prepared for the Private Pilot-Airplane knowledge test.
They call it a "Sign-Off Form" and it contains an image of Dr. Gleim's signature and this note on the legality of the document:The Gleim Ground School course and this sign-off form have been approved by the FAA (AFS-800). Your CATS or Lasergrade personnel must call their executive office with any questions.