§ 61.87 (i)

At least ground training on the subject. I always try to recruit my students to help me rig/de-rig on days where I fly XC. Voila training complete! They are definitely going to get some basic questions about assembly/disassembly on the checkride.

On Saturday, August 8, 2020 at 11:13:30 PM UTC-4, Tony wrote:
At least ground training on the subject. I always try to recruit my students to help me rig/de-rig on days where I fly XC. Voila training complete! They are definitely going to get some basic questions about assembly/disassembly on the checkride.

I do the same thing. I keep my LS 1-f in the trailer and when I assemble there is usually a student available to help with the wings and the positive control check.

It's about The FAA EXEMPTION. The FAA grants glider pilots an EXEMPTION from the requirement of having an A&P make a logbook entry each time we assemble any glider because all glider pilots have received training in assembly.. If a pilot has not logged the training from a CFIG then you technically cannot put the wings onto a glider. The SSA staff worked with the FAA to obtain this exemption many years ago. Find it on the SSA website.
As a Designated Pilot Examiner, I look for this training along with ALL of the 19 pre-solo FAR 61.87 mandatory training items along with the type of launch endorsement, typically aerotow. Further, I've learned that some CFIG's have failed to provide a Pre-Solo Written Test for each model of glider a student will solo and make an entry into the student pilot's logbook. One pre-solo test is not enough if the student starts in a Schweizer 2-33 and later solos a 1-26. Same for PW-6 into PW-5, two seat or into any single seat glider. Each requires a pre-solo written test generated by the CFIG for each glider. Note that all pilot examiners are required by the FAA to look very closely at the applicant's logbook (as well as the glider logbook.) To avoid the embarrassment of rejection just before the checkride begins, I ask the applicants scan their pilot logbook for these mandatory endorsements from their CFIG in advance and e-mail these to me. If an endorsement is missing, we cannot begin the checkride. Blame it on the CFIG?

Except if you look at the reg, the pre-solo test is not required to be written, but I think that is a great way to "prove" you'd done the test. An Oral test meets the requirement, but you may have a hard time remembering what you asked if an FAA inspector was investigating an incident.

MB

On Sunday, August 9, 2020 at 11:30:29 PM UTC-5, SoaringXCellence wrote:
Except if you look at the reg, the pre-solo test is not required to be written, but I think that is a great way to "prove" you'd done the test. An Oral test meets the requirement, but you may have a hard time remembering what you asked if an FAA inspector was investigating an incident.

MB

Thank you all for a robust exchange.

What prompted the question in the first place was I was told flatly "there are no FAR violations" followed by "you are wrong".

It's abundantly clear why the requirement exists. Burt, your point is well taken with regard to the exemption. I think I could make a solid case against gratuitous disassembly for the sake of a class (Grob 102 ADs on wing spigots come to mind here) but I am convinced that the need for the training is there pre-solo. I say that having helped on a landout only weeks ago. It was time consuming and tedious, but everything was put back together before it went back into the hangar. I don't think any of us lost any sleep that night over how it was done.

But the requirement for the training is there.

It's kind of amusing that only a week ago I had a CFI-G tell me I didn't know WTF I was talking about.

On Tuesday, August 11, 2020 at 5:41:22 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, August 9, 2020 at 11:30:29 PM UTC-5, SoaringXCellence wrote:
Except if you look at the reg, the pre-solo test is not required to be written, but I think that is a great way to "prove" you'd done the test. An Oral test meets the requirement, but you may have a hard time remembering what you asked if an FAA inspector was investigating an incident.

MB
Thank you all for a robust exchange.

What prompted the question in the first place was I was told flatly "there are no FAR violations" followed by "you are wrong".

It's abundantly clear why the requirement exists. Burt, your point is well taken with regard to the exemption. I think I could make a solid case against gratuitous disassembly for the sake of a class (Grob 102 ADs on wing spigots come to mind here) but I am convinced that the need for the training is there pre-solo. I say that having helped on a landout only weeks ago. It was time consuming and tedious, but everything was put back together before it went back into the hangar. I don't think any of us lost any sleep that night over how it was done.

But the requirement for the training is there.

It's kind of amusing that only a week ago I had a CFI-G tell me I didn't know WTF I was talking about.

That could be achieved as simply as giving the student the written procedure for glider assembly to review. You don't actually have to rig a glider in the presence of the student.

Tom

On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 9:14:56 PM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
On Tuesday, August 11, 2020 at 5:41:22 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, August 9, 2020 at 11:30:29 PM UTC-5, SoaringXCellence wrote:
Except if you look at the reg, the pre-solo test is not required to be written, but I think that is a great way to "prove" you'd done the test. An Oral test meets the requirement, but you may have a hard time remembering what you asked if an FAA inspector was investigating an incident.

MB
Thank you all for a robust exchange.

What prompted the question in the first place was I was told flatly "there are no FAR violations" followed by "you are wrong".

It's abundantly clear why the requirement exists. Burt, your point is well taken with regard to the exemption. I think I could make a solid case against gratuitous disassembly for the sake of a class (Grob 102 ADs on wing spigots come to mind here) but I am convinced that the need for the training is there pre-solo. I say that having helped on a landout only weeks ago. It was time consuming and tedious, but everything was put back together before it went back into the hangar. I don't think any of us lost any sleep that night over how it was done.

But the requirement for the training is there.

It's kind of amusing that only a week ago I had a CFI-G tell me I didn't know WTF I was talking about.
That could be achieved as simply as giving the student the written procedure for glider assembly to review. You don't actually have to rig a glider in the presence of the student.

Tom

Never a disagreement as to how it might be accomplished.

The disagreement began and ended with the idea that it needed to be accomplished pre-solo at all.


No longer a problem for me. I'm flying at another club and I'll finish my work up there. I guess somebody got butt hurt or something that I dared to ask a question without getting their approval.

For them a traditional raven sign off

Alpha
Mike
Foxtrot