Get-Home-Itis, Arrogance, or What?

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 11:24:52 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
If CFI's were authorized to instruct students in IMC, there would be
no need for CFIIs. Or am I overlooking something here?

Yes. The training doesn't count toward an instrument rating unless it's
given by a CFII. But (as far as I know) CFIs can provide IMC training for
purposes of PP emergency-IMC preparedness.


In that case, the CFI would be the sole PIC, and the CFI would have to
hold an instrument rating, but would be only demonstrating IMC
operations, not actually instructing in them?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 11:24:52 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
. ..
If CFI's were authorized to instruct students in IMC, there would be
no need for CFIIs. Or am I overlooking something here?

Yes. The training doesn't count toward an instrument rating unless it's
given by a CFII. But (as far as I know) CFIs can provide IMC training for
purposes of PP emergency-IMC preparedness.

In that case, the CFI would be the sole PIC, and the CFI would have to
hold an instrument rating, but would be only demonstrating IMC
operations, not actually instructing in them?

There is always a sole PIC. A CFI is always the PIC with a pre-PP student.
CFIs always need an instrument rating. As far as I know, there is no reason
that a CFI can't let a student manipulate the controls in IMC; the time is
logged as dual, but not for purposes of an instrument rating.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote:
There is always a sole PIC. A CFI is always the PIC with a pre-PP student.
CFIs always need an instrument rating. As far as I know, there is no reason
that a CFI can't let a student manipulate the controls in IMC; the time is
logged as dual, but not for purposes of an instrument rating.

I did plenty of that as a student pilot. I knew I wanted to start on my
instrument rating right away and my instructor was happy to fly in IMC. At
the point where I was almost done with my private, we agreed that if the
weather were ever IFR on a day we had a flight secheduled, rather than
canceling, we would just go out and play in the clouds.

Roy Smith wrote:
"Gary Drescher" wrote:

There is always a sole PIC. A CFI is always the PIC with a pre-PP student.
CFIs always need an instrument rating. As far as I know, there is no reason
that a CFI can't let a student manipulate the controls in IMC; the time is
logged as dual, but not for purposes of an instrument rating.


I did plenty of that as a student pilot. I knew I wanted to start on my
instrument rating right away and my instructor was happy to fly in IMC. At
the point where I was almost done with my private, we agreed that if the
weather were ever IFR on a day we had a flight secheduled, rather than
canceling, we would just go out and play in the clouds.
I still don't have an instrument rating, but I have 3 hours of actual
from my student pilot days. It's not bad experience for anyone.

Margy

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 12:06:27 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 11:24:52 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
If CFI's were authorized to instruct students in IMC, there would be
no need for CFIIs. Or am I overlooking something here?

Yes. The training doesn't count toward an instrument rating unless it's
given by a CFII. But (as far as I know) CFIs can provide IMC training for
purposes of PP emergency-IMC preparedness.

In that case, the CFI would be the sole PIC, and the CFI would have to
hold an instrument rating, but would be only demonstrating IMC
operations, not actually instructing in them?

There is always a sole PIC.

That's true.

A CFI is always the PIC with a pre-PP student.

But in this case, would the "student" be able to log PIC time as is
normally authorized?

CFIs always need an instrument rating.

That's not the way I read the regulations:


http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text.... 1.1.2.8.1.2
§ 61.183 Eligibility requirements.
To be eligible for a flight instructor certificate or rating a
person must:

(c) Hold either a commercial pilot certificate or airline
transport pilot certificate with:

(1) An aircraft category and class rating that is appropriate to
the flight instructor rating sought; and

(2) An instrument rating, _or_ privileges on that person's pilot
certificate that are appropriate to the flight instructor rating
sought, if applying for—

i) A flight instructor certificate with an airplane category and
single-engine class rating;

(ii) A flight instructor certificate with an airplane category and
multiengine class rating;

(iii) A flight instructor certificate with a powered-lift rating;
or

(iv) A flight instructor certificate with an instrument rating.


Doesn't that '_or_' in '(2)' above mean there is an alternate way to
comply with instructor requirements sans an instrument rating?

As far as I know, there is no reason that a CFI can't let a student
manipulate the controls in IMC; the time is logged as dual, but not
for purposes of an instrument rating.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
In that case, the CFI would be the sole PIC, and the CFI would have to
hold an instrument rating, but would be only demonstrating IMC
operations, not actually instructing in them?

There is always a sole PIC.

That's true.

A CFI is always the PIC with a pre-PP student.

But in this case, would the "student" be able to log PIC time as is
normally authorized?

A pre-PP student can never log PIC time except when flying solo. With a PP
(or sport or recreational) license, you can log PIC time whenever you're the
sole manipulator of an aircraft for which you're rated. But you don't have
to be rated for the flight conditions; so you don't need an instrument
rating to log PIC time in IMC.

CFIs always need an instrument rating.

That's not the way I read the regulations:
§ 61.183 Eligibility requirements...
Doesn't that '_or_' in '(2)' above mean there is an alternate way to
comply with instructor requirements sans an instrument rating?

The wording of 61.183b2 is notoriously unclear. But my understanding is that
it's meant to require an instrument rating (or else equivalent ATP
privileges) for the appropriate class and category of aircraft.

--Gary