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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 18:50:15 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote: Why on earth would any instructor do that, and how could he possibly do any CFII instruction in an airplane that he is not allowed to give instruction in? I'm surprised you never came across it before. This is a question that comes up from time to time and the common wisdom has been that a CFI with only an "instrument airplane" rating, but no "airplane" rating is permitted to provide instrument training in an airplane, so long as he doesn't cross the line into teaching how to fly the airplane itself. Even John Lynch's Part 61 FAQ has taken this view, saying such things as a CFII with no MEI =can't= give training in one-engine failure during takeoff but =can= give instruction in single-engine operations under instrument conditions. Those FAQ paragraphs are going to become defunct. As a result of an inquiry by Ron Levy, an instructor at the University of Maryland and a regular contributor to Aviation Safety Magazine, the Eastern Region FAA legal counsel has started the process of putting that one to rest. There are still some things a CFII with no aircraft rating can do. Ground instruction and flight training in a simulator are two of them. As to why, it's pretty hokey, but there's some theory going around that the CFI-I is easier, so, if you have to have an inspector for the first ride, it might as well be the easier one. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael" wrote in message om... "C J Campbell" wrote It may be your policy, but it does not really follow the regs. Yes, I know the argument that the instructor certificate is not a pilot certificate, but it sure gets treated as a pilot certificate for all other purposes. I also know that the policy varies from one FSDO to another. Actually, it varies from one inspector to another. Not too long ago, we had a jumpship crash. The pilot did all the right things, but when the engine of a heavy single fails in the climb at 400 ft, you just don't have many options. The field was wet and rough, and there was substantial damage but no injuries. The accident was reported, and the investigation delegated to the FAA. The pilot made the mistake of noting that he never seems to hear of automobile engines having catastrophic failures, but certified airplane engines fail with depressing regularity. Next thing you know, he's written up for flying with an expired BFR - enven though he had taken his CFII ride only a few months ago. Your tax dollars at work. I also know that most examiners will sign the ride off as a BFR if you ask them to do that. That's another gray area, worse than the original. 61.56 Flight review. (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (f) of this section, a flight review consists of a minimum of 1 hour of flight training and 1 hour of ground training. The FAA is pretty adamant that a checkride is not instruction. But a checkride does count as a BFR " 61.56 Flight Review (d) A person who has, within the period specified in paragraph (c) of this section, passed a pilot proficiency check conducted by and examiner, an approved pilot check airman, or a US Armed Force, for a pilot certificate, rating or operating privilege need not accomplish the flight review required by this section." Not sure if CFI checkride counts as above, but adding an instrument rating does count as a BFR. Adding a Multi Engine or MEI counts as a BFR. Mark Personally, I don't understand why the instructor doesn't just sign the BFR. There's no way I would be comfortable signing someone off for a CFI ride and not willing to sign off a BFR. Michael --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.614 / Virus Database: 393 - Release Date: 3/5/2004 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Mark Manes" wrote in message ... "Michael" wrote in message om... "C J Campbell" wrote I also know that most examiners will sign the ride off as a BFR if you ask them to do that. That's another gray area, worse than the original. 61.56 Flight review. (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (f) of this section, a flight review consists of a minimum of 1 hour of flight training and 1 hour of ground training. The FAA is pretty adamant that a checkride is not instruction. But a checkride does count as a BFR Which is the most stupid thing about the whole idea that a CFI ride does not count as one. You can go and get your hot air balloon or glider certificate and that counts as a BFR for your multi-engine seaplane certificate that you already have, but becoming a MEI with a commercial multi-engine seaplane certificate does not count as a BFR. In theory, a private pilot SEL who has not flown in forty years can get his BFR in a balloon, do his three touch & goes in a Cessna 150, then carry passengers in his homebuilt Lancair even though he has never in his life flown anything but balloons and the 150. Apparently some people in the FAA believe that this pilot is actually more competent than a CFI who just got his certificate in that Lancair. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Someone getting an instrument rating in a tailwheel aircraft, and the
instructor doesn't have a tailwheel signoff comes to mind. "C J Campbell" wrote in message ... "Brad Z" wrote in message news:gTl4c.16400$bP2.83279@attbi_s53... If your flight instructor certificate only has a "instrument-airplane" rating (i.e. no airplane single engine or Airplane multi engine) That is one of the most bizarre things I have ever heard, and that despite the fact that I have been reading the news groups for years.... :-) Why on earth would any instructor do that, and how could he possibly do any CFII instruction in an airplane that he is not allowed to give instruction in? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
C J Campbell wrote:
"Mark Manes" wrote in message ... "Michael" wrote in message .com... "C J Campbell" wrote I also know that most examiners will sign the ride off as a BFR if you ask them to do that. That's another gray area, worse than the original. 61.56 Flight review. (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (f) of this section, a flight review consists of a minimum of 1 hour of flight training and 1 hour of ground training. The FAA is pretty adamant that a checkride is not instruction. But a checkride does count as a BFR Which is the most stupid thing about the whole idea that a CFI ride does not count as one. You can go and get your hot air balloon or glider certificate and that counts as a BFR for your multi-engine seaplane certificate that you already have, but becoming a MEI with a commercial multi-engine seaplane certificate does not count as a BFR. It isn't just the checkride that counts as the BFR, it is the fact that you added a license or rating. Most that I'm familiar with require a lot of preparation in addition to passing the checkride. I don't think there is any illusion that the checkride itself contributes to proficiency, it is the preparation leading up to it that does. No clue why a CFI doesn't count. That does seem like a dumb one. In theory, a private pilot SEL who has not flown in forty years can get his BFR in a balloon, do his three touch & goes in a Cessna 150, then carry passengers in his homebuilt Lancair even though he has never in his life flown anything but balloons and the 150. Apparently some people in the FAA believe that this pilot is actually more competent than a CFI who just got his certificate in that Lancair. Few have accused government regulation writers of being paragons of logic. Unfortunately, many, if not most, regulations are the result of an accident. Probably haven't yet had a PP SEL with a balloon rating BFR go out and crash his Lancair.... Matt Matt |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Mark Kolber wrote
As to why, it's pretty hokey, but there's some theory going around that the CFI-I is easier, so, if you have to have an inspector for the first ride, it might as well be the easier one. The real reason is a little different. For all practical purposes, you can't rent a complex airplane that isn't decades old. Any determined fed can ground an airplane that old, and that's normal practice in many FSDO's. If you go for an initial CFI ride in many cases you get three inspectors - one ops and two maintenance. The ops inspector starts your oral, and the maintenance inspectors start going over the airplane. Oral ends when they ground it, and you get a pink slip and, if you have the temerity to question their determination (airplane not airworthy because the placard is curled up/TSO tag on seatbelt unreadable/repair or alteration logged in logbook is major, not minor, and requires Form 337) or the inspector just doesn't like you, you get written up for flying an unairworthy airplane as well. I know people who have had this happen, and there's at least one CFI on this newsgroup who has his own story of something very similar. The CFII ride need not be in a complex airplane - and new full-IFR C-172's are available for rent all over. It's very difficult to ground a new airplane. Thus I recommend that anyone doing an initial CFI go over to a place that rents new C-172's and do the CFII first. I did my initial CFI in a glider for the same reason - a new glider was locally available for rent, and there was no way to flunk it because it was new and completely unmodified - everything was just the way it came from the factory. Michael |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
....and they never enter IMC, where there would be no legal PIC.
-- David Brooks "Doug" wrote in message om... Someone getting an instrument rating in a tailwheel aircraft, and the instructor doesn't have a tailwheel signoff comes to mind. "C J Campbell" wrote in message ... "Brad Z" wrote in message news:gTl4c.16400$bP2.83279@attbi_s53... If your flight instructor certificate only has a "instrument-airplane" rating (i.e. no airplane single engine or Airplane multi engine) That is one of the most bizarre things I have ever heard, and that despite the fact that I have been reading the news groups for years.... :-) Why on earth would any instructor do that, and how could he possibly do any CFII instruction in an airplane that he is not allowed to give instruction in? |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
No clue why a CFI doesn't count. That does seem like a dumb one. A CFI checkride does count. It is written as such, and interpreted as such by (me and) AOPA. Makes sense to me. Hilton |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
My take is that any rating requiring a checkride (with an designated
examiner), counts as a BFR. The key is "does it require a checkride?" If yes then you have two more years. So a tailwheel signoff, by itself is not a BFR, as it is only a signoff. Using common sense, the CFI rating certainly should count. It is pretty intense, requires a written test, ground school and a flight test. Mine was exhaustive with 75 hours of ground school, 15 hours of flight training and flying with 5 different instructors. Not all are that exhaustive, but if someone tried to tell me it didn't qualify as a BFR, I'd think that was pretty ridiculous. When you compare all that to a two hour BFR, you see what I mean. "Hilton" wrote in message thlink.net... Matthew S. Whiting wrote: No clue why a CFI doesn't count. That does seem like a dumb one. A CFI checkride does count. It is written as such, and interpreted as such by (me and) AOPA. Makes sense to me. Hilton |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Related to this question of earning a CFII but not a CFI, I have not done what follows and I am not sure the regs make sense in this area, but from a strictly legal perspective I believe I can give an instrument proficiency check in a multi-engine airplane even though I am not a multi-engine pilot. My certificates are Commercial Pilot (ASEL + Instrument Airplane) and CFI (Airplane Single Engine + Instrument Airplane). Again I realize this may not make much sense from an instructional point of view, but legally I do not see any reason I could not do this except (even more oddly) that this would have to be done in actual IMC because I would not be qualified to act as a safety pilot -- correct? Perhaps somewhat more practically speaking, I see no reason why I could not sign off an IPC done with my simulator (Level 3 FTD) in twin-engine mode since I do not need to be PIC to "create" IMC in the simulator and my CFI instrument privileges refer to instrument airplane and not specifically to single- or multi-engine airplanes. Indeed, extending this further, my understanding is that a non-pilot could pass the written exam to become an Instrument Ground Instructor and then without ever setting foot in an airplane he could do an IPC in the simulator (again a Level 3 FTD) and this non-pilot would have the authority to sign off the pilot of a cabin-class twin as safe to fly in IMC. Again, I am not proposing any of these tasks as sane -- I am simply asking whether my interpretation of the FARs is correct. -------------------- Richard Kaplan, CFII www.flyimc.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
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 |