We recently went throught the requirements for a "transition pilot" argument
at our club. The CFIs all agreed (including our DPE) that the transition
pilot is not a student pilot. The club's board did not agree with the CFIs.
The FSDO and insurance company settled it quickly as they agreed with the
instructors. The instructors who did not already understand the reasons for
limiting the solo endorsement quickly learned they needed to add the
limitation lest the transition pilot be flying on the CFIs certificate
indefinitely.

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
...
You seem to think the student pilot restrictions do not apply to this
private - glider.
Correct. They do not apply.
Does this mean they can take passengers as well?
No. 61.31(d)(3) provides for a "solo" endorsement only.
Do they need a 90-day endorsement or does this "solo" endorsement
count forever?
It counts forever. The instructor has the right, but not
the obligation to limit the duration of his endorsement.


Perhaps more succinctly, my point is just that one either
believes one thing or the other.

Either you think

1) a private-glider pilot with 61.31(d)(3) can
fly ASEL (in this case) with the only restriction being it must be solo,

or

2) that pilot must meet all the requirements just like a student
ASEL pilot.


It makes no sense to me that sections of "student" regs can
be mixed and matched at will.

If you believe 1, then the pilot needs a flight review, needs
no medical, and can have no limitations other than the 61.31(d)(3),
straight out of the reg, which says "solo".

If you believe 2, then the pilot isn't a student pilot, but all
of the sections applying to student pilots apply, including
needing a medical, NOT needing a flight review, following
limitations, and needing the various endorsements.

I can believe arguments towards either 1 or 2, but I
don't believe mixing the two makes any sense. Either
the pilot is exercising the privileges of the glider - private
with a 61.31(d)(3) endorsement, or the pilot is
treated exactly like a student (but is not a student pilot).

Instructor limitations and medicals are specifically
addressed in the regs as applying to student pilots. If
one believes 1, then the pilot isn't a student, so how can
one carve up the regs to apply these regs but not the others?

I believe there are very convincing arguments for either
side, but I also believe that taking bits and pieces of
each makes little sense...