![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Richard Kaplan" wrote
I agree that on first glance this would prohibit me from providing flight instruction in a twin because both my pilot certificate and my instructor certificate would need to contain both the Category Airplane and the Class Single-Engine Land. Yet if this is true, then how can there exist flight instructor certificates which only state "Instrument Airplane" because a strict interpretation of the above would render such an instructor certificate useless. I concur that strict interpretation would render a CFI-IA with no other ratings useless. In reality, we know the rule is not interpreted that way. So once again the rules are not clear. You may be right, but this would be meaningless. Meaningless but legal -- yes, I agree. Again, I am not proposing I or any other single-engine CFI do this. It just seems to be a loophole in the FARS, probably a dangerous loophole at that. No, my point is that this loophole - a non-multiengine CFII giving dual in a sim configured as a twin for purposes of an IPC - is not dangerous at all. For purposes of legality, an IPC given in a single also covers you in a twin. The only difference between the single and twin IPC is the engine-out stuff; otherwise the twin flies just like a complex single. So my point is that the loophole would allow you to teach and evaluate the multiengine portion of the ICC, and you probably could not do that competently, but it's not required anyway. So the question would be - is the sim training ground or flight training? If it's ground training, then an IGI would be an authorized instructor and this would be legal. If it's flight training, then he would not be authorized and it wouldn't be legal. It is ground training but the ground training can serve as a legal IPC so it does seem to be a loophole again as I understand it. Now this is a dangerous loophole - all you need to do to be an IGI is take two written multiple-guess tests. I would imagine this would be well within the capability of most professionals with no flight experience at all... Michael |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Where is approach good about multiple approaches and clearances in the air? | Andrew Gideon | Instrument Flight Rules | 29 | February 14th 04 02:51 AM |
Zzzz Campbell's Second Lawsuit Against Sun-N-Fun Zzzz | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 23 | October 6th 03 02:09 PM |
Aerial duel to the death - count to ten then Fire! | pac plyer | Home Built | 18 | August 12th 03 12:35 AM |