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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:13:45 -0500, "Barry" wrote:
One can argue that a CFI without the CFII is not authorized to give instrument flight instruction, Nah. A CFI without the CFII is not authorized to give instrument flight instruction that counts toward the "instrument training" or "instrument flight instruction" that may be required for a certificate, rating, or currency. The restriction is on what may be counted for these purposes, on to n giving instrument instruction. Mark Kolber APA/Denver, Colorado www.midlifeflight.com ====================== email? Remove ".no.spam" |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Barry" wrote in message ... | A CFI with airplane single-engine rating but not instrument-airplane (not a | CFII) gives flight instruction to a private pilot. Part of the flight is in | the clouds, with the private pilot flying. Can the CFI log instrument time | under FAR 61.51(g)(2): | | "An authorized instructor may log instrument time when conducting instrument | flight instruction in actual instrument flight conditions." ? | A CFI may give instrument flight instruction, but that flight instruction cannot count for the instrument rating. The CFI in your case may log instrument flight time. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"john price" wrote in message ... Barry first of all, the scenario is not possible, since to be a single engine CFI, I believe you need to have a single engine instrument rating... If somehow, the instructor is not instrument rated in the airplane, he has no business being in IFR conditions... We're talking about instrument ratings on his INSTRUCTOR certificate. You know, II. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote in message ... A CFI may give instrument flight instruction, but that flight instruction cannot count for the instrument rating. The CFI in your case may log instrument flight time. Finally....an answer to the question. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
A CFI may give instrument flight instruction, but that flight
instruction cannot count for the instrument rating. The CFI in your case may log instrument flight time. Finally....an answer to the question. But is this just a personal interpretation (which agrees with my own interpretation), or does C.J. have a reference or precedent? Barry |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Barry" wrote in message ... | A CFI may give instrument flight instruction, but that flight | instruction cannot count for the instrument rating. The CFI | in your case may log instrument flight time. | | Finally....an answer to the question. | | | But is this just a personal interpretation (which agrees with my own | interpretation), or does C.J. have a reference or precedent? | FAR 61.196 c. The CFII is needed only for giving instruction for an instrument rating or for a type rating not limited to VFR. There is no prohibition against a CFI giving any other instrument training, including an instrument proficiency check under FAR 61.57 (probably a loophole in the regs that should be fixed). Under 61.51(g)(2) a flight instructor may log instrument flight time if giving instruction in instrument flight conditions. There is no provision limiting this logging of time only to CFIIs. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message om...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message ... A CFI may give instrument flight instruction, but that flight instruction cannot count for the instrument rating. The CFI in your case may log instrument flight time. Finally....an answer to the question. and a mostly correct answer, with one small nit -- the instrument flight instruction cannot count as part of the 15 hours required to be given under 61.65.d.2.i-iii, but it certainly can count as part of the 40 hours of actual or simulated instrument time required by 61.65.d.2 (before the subparagraphs) -- assuming the non-instrument rated pilot was sole manipulator of the controls. mho, g_a |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
FAR 61.196 c. The CFII is needed only for giving instruction for an
instrument rating or for a type rating not limited to VFR. There is no prohibition against a CFI giving any other instrument training, including an instrument proficiency check under FAR 61.57 (probably a loophole in the regs that should be fixed). Under 61.51(g)(2) a flight instructor may log instrument flight time if giving instruction in instrument flight conditions. There is no provision limiting this logging of time only to CFIIs. This is your interpretation. Personally, I agree, but when someone asked me this question and I started looking into it a little more, I realized that other interpretations are possible. FAR 61.51(g)(2), which I started with in my original post, states: "An authorized instructor may log instrument time when conducting instrument flight instruction in actual instrument flight conditions." Note that it says "instrument flight instruction," not just "flight instruction". FAR 61.1 unfortunately has no definition for "instrument flight instruction," but it does define "instrument training" as "that time in which instrument training is received from an authorized instructor under actual or simulated instrument conditions." Is a non-CFII an "authorized instructor" for instrument flight instruction? I couldn't find this exact question in the FAA's Part 61 FAQ (http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/afs800/docs/pt61FAQ.doc , a 2 MB file), but related issues are addressed there. In the section dealing with Commercial Pilot requirements (page 325, Q&A-60), the FAQ states that only a CFII can provide the instrument training required for the Commercial: "Ref. § 61.1(b)(10); Yes, the instrument training required by § 61.129 requires a CFII (with the appropriate aircraft and instrument rating on the CFI certificate) to provide the flight training." On page 381 (Q&A-283), the FAQ draws a distinction between "real instrument training" and the training given to student pilots: "For years, the FAA has differentiated between the kind of training described in § 61.109(a)(3) [i.e., “... 3 hours of flight training in a single-engine airplane on the control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to instruments...”] and REAL “instrument training.” Therefore .... a CFI-ASE can give the 3 hours of Private Pilot flight training on the control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to instruments [i.e., §61.109(a)(3)] because the training is not REAL “instrument training.” So one could argue that a CFI (non-CFII) who instructs a student pilot in the clouds could NOT log the instrument time, because he's not conducting "instrument training". But what if the same CFI gives the same flight instruction to a private pilot? It's not clear. By the way, page 136 (Q&A-315) of the FAQ addresses your point about a CFI (non-CFII) being authorized to conduct an IPC (no surprise, the FAA says a CFII is required). I should add that I disagree with some of the answers in the FAQ, and that the FAQ includes a disclaimer stating that the contents are not legal interpretations. Barry |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Barry" wrote in message ... | FAR 61.196 c. The CFII is needed only for giving instruction for an | instrument rating or for a type rating not limited to VFR. There is no | prohibition against a CFI giving any other instrument training, including an | instrument proficiency check under FAR 61.57 (probably a loophole in the | regs that should be fixed). Under 61.51(g)(2) a flight instructor may log | instrument flight time if giving instruction in instrument flight | conditions. There is no provision limiting this logging of time only to | CFIIs. | | | This is your interpretation. Personally, I agree, but when someone asked me | this question and I started looking into it a little more, I realized that | other interpretations are possible. | | FAR 61.51(g)(2), which I started with in my original post, states: | | "An authorized instructor may log instrument time when conducting instrument | flight instruction in actual instrument flight conditions." | | Note that it says "instrument flight instruction," not just "flight | instruction". FAR 61.1 unfortunately has no definition for "instrument | flight instruction," but it does define "instrument training" as "that time | in which instrument training is received from an authorized instructor under | actual or simulated instrument conditions." Is a non-CFII an "authorized | instructor" for instrument flight instruction? Of course he is. As I pointed out, a non-CFII may give the required instrument instruction to student pilots as well as possibly give instrument proficiency checks. However, the FAQ to part 61 does say that you have to be a CFII to give instrument proficiency checks. Lynch claims that it is a requirement in 61.193, but the argument looks excessively weak: QUESTION: Is it true that a CFI giving an endorsement for an Instrument Proficiency Check must have an instrument rating (CFII) on his/her flight instructor certificate? I can't seem to find anything in the current Part 61 that states that an Instrument Proficiency Check endorsement requires a CFII. The §61.57(d)(2)(iv) requires an "authorized instructor". The definition of "authorized instructor" now seems to come from FAR 61.193 (Flight Instructor Privileges) and FAR 61.195 (Flight Instructor Limitations). The only reference to a requirement for a CFII that I can find is in FAR 61.195(c). ANSWER: Ref. §61.57(d)(2)(iv) and §61.193; A flight instructor who performs an instrument proficiency check, as required by §61.57(d), must hold the appropriate instrument rating for the category and class of aircraft that the instrument proficiency check is being conducted in. As per §61.193, it states in pertinent part, ". . . A person who holds a flight instructor certificate is authorized within the limitations of that person's flight instructor certificate and ratings to give training and endorsements that are required for, and relate to: * * * * * (f) An instrument rating; A flight instructor who does not hold an instrument rating on their flight instructor certificate that is appropriate to the category and class of aircraft that the instrument proficiency check is being conducted in is NOT authorized to conduct the instrument proficiency check. The term "authorized instructor" was intentionally used in §61.57(d) because authorization to conduct an instrument proficiency check is not limited to a CFII. A Ground Instructor Certificate - Instrument Rating is also an "authorized instructor" and is authorized to give the instrument proficiency check in an approved flight training device. Also, a Part 142 training center instructor, who may or may not hold any certificate or ratings, can be an "authorized instructor" who may give the instrument proficiency check that is performed under an approved Part 142 training program in an approved flight simulator, in accordance with a Part 142 approved training program. Another example, a pilot who holds a Letter of Operational Authority (LOOA) may give the endorsements for the instrument proficiency check to a holder of a Letter of Authorization (LOA).) Holders of an LOOA give training for the endorsement for the Letter of Authorization (LOA) allowing a pilot to act as pilot in command in surplus military turbine or piston powered airplane, in accordance with FAA Order 8700.1, Chapter 32. However, in this case, the holder’s Letter of Operational Authority (LOOA) must specifically state this authority to give the endorsements for the instrument proficiency check. And so the rulemaking team that drafted the new Part 61 111FAQs Part 61 With Chg #18, 12/05/2002 All Q&A’s from #1 through #540 decided on merely stating . . . An authorized flight instructor . . ." But notice in §61.57(d)(2)(v), we also included ". . . A person approved by the Administrator to conduct instrument practical tests." {Q&A-315} |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote in message ... However, the FAQ to part 61 does say that you have to be a CFII to give instrument proficiency checks. Lynch claims that it is a requirement in 61.193, but the argument looks excessively weak: It is excessively weak because the FAR's don't support what he is saying. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Instrument Rating Ground School at Central Jersey Regional (47N) | john price | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | October 12th 03 12:25 PM |
Which of these approaches is loggable? | Paul Tomblin | Instrument Flight Rules | 26 | August 16th 03 05:22 PM |
Logging PIC time as student instrument pilot in IMC | Greg Esres | Instrument Flight Rules | 24 | August 2nd 03 05:20 PM |
Logging instrument approaches | Slav Inger | Instrument Flight Rules | 33 | July 27th 03 11:00 PM |