Narrative:

I have been giving dual instruction in a single engine plane to a pilot that has a commercial pilot license, multi-engine, instruments, helicopter-instruments. To satisfy the insurance requirements on his single engine plane, I gave him 10 hours of dual, then gave him a biennial flight review and endorsed his logbook for solo flight without passenger. In checking with the local FAA designated pilot examiner, I was told that I must endorse his logbook every 90 days for him to fly solo. I also questioned 2 different seminar instructors and received the same answer. In reviewing far 61.56 flight review (A-2 and B-1) it appears that I was in error in giving this pilot a biennial flight review in a plane that he is not rated for. I have advised this pilot not to fly solo until he has taken a private pilot chkride. He has agreed. The factors that contributed to this situation was caused, in part, by the information I received from the examiner and other seminar instructors. It goes without saying that the real fault is mine for not reading far 61.56 more carefully. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states his 'student' is ex-military pilot and when he left he was certificated for rating as stated. It had been more than 6 months since he had flown single engine and so did not receive that certification. Reporter has lined him up with designated flight examiner for the chkride.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: INSTRUCTOR PLT WRONGLY ENDORSES PLT LOGBOOK FOR BIENNIAL FLT REVIEW WHEN PLT NOT RATED FOR SINGLE ENG.

Narrative: I HAVE BEEN GIVING DUAL INSTRUCTION IN A SINGLE ENG PLANE TO A PLT THAT HAS A COMMERCIAL PLT LICENSE, MULTI-ENG, INSTS, HELI-INSTS. TO SATISFY THE INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS ON HIS SINGLE ENG PLANE, I GAVE HIM 10 HRS OF DUAL, THEN GAVE HIM A BIENNIAL FLT REVIEW AND ENDORSED HIS LOGBOOK FOR SOLO FLT WITHOUT PAX. IN CHKING WITH THE LCL FAA DESIGNATED PLT EXAMINER, I WAS TOLD THAT I MUST ENDORSE HIS LOGBOOK EVERY 90 DAYS FOR HIM TO FLY SOLO. I ALSO QUESTIONED 2 DIFFERENT SEMINAR INSTRUCTORS AND RECEIVED THE SAME ANSWER. IN REVIEWING FAR 61.56 FLT REVIEW (A-2 AND B-1) IT APPEARS THAT I WAS IN ERROR IN GIVING THIS PLT A BIENNIAL FLT REVIEW IN A PLANE THAT HE IS NOT RATED FOR. I HAVE ADVISED THIS PLT NOT TO FLY SOLO UNTIL HE HAS TAKEN A PRIVATE PLT CHKRIDE. HE HAS AGREED. THE FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THIS SITUATION WAS CAUSED, IN PART, BY THE INFO I RECEIVED FROM THE EXAMINER AND OTHER SEMINAR INSTRUCTORS. IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT THE REAL FAULT IS MINE FOR NOT READING FAR 61.56 MORE CAREFULLY. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES HIS 'STUDENT' IS EX-MIL PLT AND WHEN HE LEFT HE WAS CERTIFICATED FOR RATING AS STATED. IT HAD BEEN MORE THAN 6 MONTHS SINCE HE HAD FLOWN SINGLE ENG AND SO DID NOT RECEIVE THAT CERTIFICATION. RPTR HAS LINED HIM UP WITH DESIGNATED FLT EXAMINER FOR THE CHKRIDE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.