Question about time in aircraft before you can instruct.

P

pilotman245

New Member
I have a question about how many hours you need to have in an aircraft you have never flown before you can start counting it as dual given. While taking my MEI today (which I passed btw), the examiner said you need 5 hours in the aircraft before you can start counting it as dual given. I am not sure where this can be found in the regs, or if this is even correct. I looked in the section for flight instructors and did not see anything there to help me. I am a brand new CFI and am still a little unsure about all the regs, which is why I am going to study the FARs like nothing else.

The flight school I am currently working at, but not for too much longer, had me do a few touch-and-goes and a few maneuvers in a Sportstar Evektor and then gave me this endorsement:

"I certify that _______, holder of FAA Pilot license #______, has received the training as required by 61.309 and 61.311 , and is authorized to act as PIC in a Light Sport airplane."

I, being a stupid and trusting flight instructor, thought they knew what the flight school was doing and blindly started instructing with less than three hours logged in the airplane thinking this endorsement would allow me to start teaching in that aircraft. I did think it was a little odd, but did not question their "wisdom", which I should have done. Since they knew I have never instructed before, I would have thought they would have reminded me about the 5 hours PIC as required by the FARs. The stupid cheif pilot who endorsed me did not go over anything in 61.309 and 61.311, so I am also guessing he is in violation also.

Their are a lot of red flags going up in my head about this flight school, which makes me VERY uncomfortable, especially since I am a career pilot. That is why I am leaving my current flight school ASAP to start at a better run school.

If any of you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please contact me. I am always willing to learn how to improve as a pilot and flight instructor.
 
61.195 (f) says you need 5 hours in make and model before you can give dual for multiengine airplane, helicopter or powered lift

no requirement for single engine time, your school did nothing wrong.
 
todd584 said:
61.195 (f) says you need 5 hours in make and model before you can give dual for multiengine airplane, helicopter or powered lift.
Click to expand...

61.195(f)
"(f) Training received in a multiengine airplane, a helicopter, or a powered-lift. A flight instructor may not give training required for the issuance of a certificate or rating in a multiengine airplane, a helicopter, or a powered-lift unless that flight instructor has at least 5 flight hours of pilot-in-command time in the specific make and model of multiengine airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift, as appropriate."

It sounds to me like if a pilot who has an ME rating already buys a twin and has to have some time in it with an MEI for insurance or some such reason and the MEI has only a few hours or even has never flow this twin, the MEI can still sign him off and can log dual given. No certificate or rating is in question in the example given.

I'm not suggesting this is wise, just looking at the reg as it is written. What do you think?
 
Hey, thanks for the help. I was looking at 61.195 but stopped before reaching "f". I am glad the flight school I am currently instructing at did not violate any FARs, but I still do not like how the operation is run. They expected me to do one landing with the cheif pilot before being allowed to instruct. The Evektor is a very hard airplane to land (the nose goes all over the place when the nose gear touches down), and it made me mad they did not require more time. I did tell them I was not going to instruct until I felt more comfortable, which I think frustrated them. Also, this airplane has little clearance between the wings and ground, and has also had wing strikes on several occasions. :mad:
 
pilotman245 said:
The flight school I am currently working at had me do a few touch-and-goes and a few maneuvers in a Sportstar Evektor and then gave me this endorsement:

"I certify that _______, holder of FAA Pilot license #______, has received the training as required by 61.309 and 61.311 , and is authorized to act as PIC in a Light Sport airplane."

The stupid cheif pilot who endorsed me did not go over anything in 61.309 and 61.311, so I am also guessing he is in violation also.
Click to expand...

You are confusing us all with your mixing Sport Pilot Rules with regular rules. You're not making sense talking about 61.195(f) and 61.309 & .311, they're in different worlds.

I'm not really very familiar with Sport Pilot Instructor Rules, but I seem to remember that you need 5 hours in the Sport class or soething to give dual in that kind of sport vehicle.
 
Katzenjammer said:
61.195(f)
"(f) Training received in a multiengine airplane, a helicopter, or a powered-lift. A flight instructor may not give training required for the issuance of a certificate or rating in a multiengine airplane, a helicopter, or a powered-lift unless that flight instructor has at least 5 flight hours of pilot-in-command time in the specific make and model of multiengine airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift, as appropriate."

It sounds to me like if a pilot who has an ME rating already buys a twin and has to have some time in it with an MEI for insurance or some such reason and the MEI has only a few hours or even has never flow this twin, the MEI can still sign him off and can log dual given. No certificate or rating is in question in the example given.

I'm not suggesting this is wise, just looking at the reg as it is written. What do you think?
Click to expand...

The 5 hour PIC requirement is only for a certificate or rating. Checkouts, BFRs, ect can be done with no time in the airploane at all.

I've done a couple of BFRs in a twin that I had never flown before.
 
PM me if you need some Sportstar pointers. It is a little different from a Cessna but not a hard plane to land.
 
I have also heard about what USMC is talking about...

me having no hours in a seneca can still instruct in a seneca, but what I have been told is that as long as it is not for the three hours prior to a practical exam, and I am not endorsing them for the exam then it is ok...where this fits in mostly is BFR's etc, as well as someone who comes in and is already appropriately rated and wants a twin "refresher"

Gotta love the "i heard" far's
 
USMC-SGT said:
I have been told is that as long as it is not for the three hours prior to a practical exam, and I am not endorsing them for the exam then it is ok...where this fits in mostly is BFR's etc, as well as someone who comes in and is already appropriately rated and wants a twin "refresher"
Click to expand...

There's another "I have been told...." lines. Why do we do that? I think I picked up that habit in grade school / high school / initial military, when you are new and everyone is telling you what to do. But then we usuually have a specific responsible person in mind. "My teacher told me",...or "The boss told me,"...but as certified pilots, ...and especially, as certified instructors of those pilots, ...how is it that we still hear so much "I was told" as a reference to regulatory or recommended operational practices?

Anyway, Sir, the regulation says "for a certificate or rating", so, any multi engine instruction to a non-multi engine rated student is going to be perceived by the FAA as being instruction for the purpose of obtaining a ME rating. Not just the 3 hours. Which, BTW, is not a requirement for an add-on.

You can give dual to an already rated ME pilot.
 
nosehair said:
Anyway, Sir, the regulation says "for a certificate or rating", so, any multi engine instruction to a non-multi engine rated student is going to be perceived by the FAA as being instruction for the purpose of obtaining a ME rating.
Click to expand...
You may be right, but I don't think so. Your example is like the CFI-A ("one I") giving recurrent training to a VFR-only pilot and teaching a VOR approach as an additional tool for finding a destination that is unfamiliar or in low-visibility conditions, or the fairly common practice of having one-Is give instruction to instrument students above and beyond the required 15 hours.:

We know the CFI-A can do it; we know that it is dual; but we also know that the lesson cannot be counted toward the "instrument training" requirements for the instrument rating.

Anyway, Sir, the regulation says "for a certificate or rating", so any multi engine instruction to a non-multi engine rated student by a CFI without the required M&M time cannot be counted toward those requirements. I don't think the regulation prohibits instruction by the CFI any more than it prohibits instruction by uncle Ralph who has nothing but a private pilot certificate; it just prohibits the use of that instruction to meet the requirements "for a certificate or rating."
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
fairly common practice of having one-Is give instruction to instrument students above and beyond the required 15 hours.:...We know the CFI-A can do it;
Click to expand...

And how do we know that? The gist of the FAA opinions have been that a single -I cannot give instrument instruction, even though the regulations seem more permissive. (I seem to remember Nosehair on the opposite side of the discussion last time that came up.)

any more than it prohibits instruction by uncle Ralph who has nothing but a private pilot certificate;
Click to expand...

The time by uncle Ralph will not be logged as instruction by either Ralph or the student. And since Ralph isn't a Flight Instructor, he's not limited by Flight Instructor limitations.

it just prohibits the use of that instruction to meet the requirements "for a certificate or rating."
Click to expand...

Since the FAA has never defined what exactly it means by "requirements", we don't have any definitive information on this. Arguably, the requirements for a rating are whatever is needed to prepare a student for checkride.

Interestingly, in the latest proposed revisions of the Part 61 regulations, the FAA wants to add the requirement that an instructor be a -II in order to provide the instrument instruction required for a Commercial Certificate. This has already been the interpretation by the FAA, but they seem to have a need to put it in the regs. This also casts doubt on the FAA interpretation that any "instrument instruction" requires a -II; otherwise, why the need for a regulation change. Anyway, I made a comment on the NPRM website that they officially define instrument instruction as something that requires a -II, since that would be in accord with the attitude of the FAA.
 
tgrayson said:
And how do we know that? The gist of the FAA opinions have been that a single -I cannot give instrument instruction, even though the regulations seem more permissive. .
Click to expand...
I've never seen even one FAA Legal opinion that suggests to me that a CFI-A can't give that instruction on use of a VOR that I described before. They've all suggested to me the "counts for" analysis I described.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
I've never seen even one FAA Legal opinion that suggests to me that a CFI-A can't give that instruction on use of a VOR that I described before. They've all suggested to me the "counts for" analysis I described.
Click to expand...

You said "fairly common practice of having one-Is give instruction to instrument students above and beyond the required 15 hours," which suggests more than demonstrating the use of a VOR.

Showing a VFR pilot how to fly a VOR approach as an airport finding tool is arguably within the rights of a non-II, but I would be careful not to log it as "instrument training" unless the FAA clarifies its position on this.
 
tgrayson said:
You said "fairly common practice of having one-Is give instruction to instrument students above and beyond the required 15 hours," which suggests more than demonstrating the use of a VOR.
Click to expand...
I did. And I guess that's pretty empirical. If it was against the rules, the FAA has has plenty of chnaces to close it down.

but I would be careful not to log it as "instrument training" unless the FAA clarifies its position on this.
Click to expand...
I agree (although I personally don't find anything unclear about it - your "personally" may vary). It's logable as training received, but, to the extent that one identifies training as specifically "instrument training" by either a separate column or comments, it would probably be a bad idea to go out of one's way to identify it in a way that it could be mistaken as an intent to lead someone to believe it's countable toward instrument training requirement. But I have to say I haven't seen many logbooks where training is designated as "instrument training."
 
The operative word is "intent".

If the "intent" of the ME instruction is to train towards a ME rating, then the instructor must have 5 hours PIC in make/model.

If the ME instructor with less than 5 hours make/model time wants to give some dual to Uncle Ralph who has a Private single, and Uncle Ralph never intends to get a ME rating, but wants to get some training just for the fun and experience, that would be technically legal...but, you would bear the burden of proving to the FAA that the dual was never meant to be used as time towards a rating.

This is kind of like logging time that you never intend to use as an experience requirement. I used to think you could log any kind of time you want, ie. observer, back seat, waht ever, as long as that time was never used for a certificate or rating,..but, I have heard / read that the FAA has violated pilots who put anything other than the kind of time described in 61.51 so that the door isn't open to 'mistakenly' use the 'other' kinds of time.

As I said, I think the 'perception' of the FAA is that any time in a logbook is to be used for certs, ratings, and currency. Any other purpose and/or use, such as a 'personal log' is illegal.

It's all about the 'intent'. That's where all the loopholes are. It is usually obvious what the 'intent' of a regulation is, and it is people who are looking for a 'loophole' who want to shortcut the intent and use a loophole in the wording to establish legality over an obvious safety point.
 
tgrayson said:
Really? You think the regs support the interpretation that it takes a -II to provide the instrument training required for a Commercial Pilot Certificate?
Click to expand...
Yes. The Commercial requirement uses the phrase "instrument training."

My personal paradigm after having read a bunch of rules, opinions, etc, is that any training that is described in the regs as "instrument training" or that is to be used to meet a requirement that involves instrument flight privileges (an IPC is an example) requires an instrument rating on the instructor certificate.
 
nosehair said:
This is kind of like logging time that you never intend to use as an experience requirement. I used to think you could log any kind of time you want, ie. observer, back seat, waht ever, as long as that time was never used for a certificate or rating,..but, I have heard / read that the FAA has violated pilots who put anything other than the kind of time described in 61.51 so that the door isn't open to 'mistakenly' use the 'other' kinds of time.

As I said, I think the 'perception' of the FAA is that any time in a logbook is to be used for certs, ratings, and currency. Any other purpose and/or use, such as a 'personal log' is illegal.
Click to expand...
I sort of agree, - a logbook =is= an officially-required record, not a diary, and the FAA =has= violated folks for making fraudulent entries when recording things that 61.51 does not permit or are downright bogus.

One of the more interesting examples is the pilot who listed 210 make and model hours on his 8710 (and on a logbook summary page) for a type rating on his ATP certificate. He only had 87 hours. His defense was that he only needed 25 hours, so it was immaterial that he put in more. The defense flew about as well as a 172 with the wings sheared off at his revocation hearing.

But I think the "burden is on the pilot" (or at least the implication that an permitted by 61.51 used for a legitimate 61.51 purpose is going to bite you on the rear without an accompanying intent to use it in some illegitimate way) is reading a bit too much into it, although it is always a better practice to make clear what you are doing. Isn't that one of the things the non-required "remarks" section in a logbook for?
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
Yes. The Commercial requirement uses the phrase "instrument training."
Click to expand...

The regulations do not forbid CFI's (no -II) from providing instrument training. As you know, they only say a -II is required for "the issuance of an instrument rating or a type rating not limited to VFR".

The FAA apparently realizes that there is no regulation requiring that the instrument training provided to Commercial pilots requires a -II, since they are proposing to amend the regulation to state the requirement.
 
tgrayson said:
The FAA apparently realizes that there is no regulation requiring that the instrument training provided to Commercial pilots requires a -II, since they are proposing to amend the regulation to state the requirement.
Click to expand...
My experience suggests that a change like this can represent a change in a rule or a clarification based on it having been misinterpreted, and that it's a mistake to assume one or the other from the mere fact of the change.

There is usually something else that will give the clue. I know you've quoted the old Part 61 FAQ in the past. I assume you have a copy and know that Lynch had this to say on the subject:

==============================
Since Section 61.65(e)(2) refers to "instrument instruction" by an authorized instructor, the instructor must have an instrument instruction rating. Section 61.107 refers to "instruction from an authorized instructor" and to "control and maneuvering an airplane solely by reference to instruments," rather than to "instrument instruction;" therefore, any certificated flight instructor (CFI) may give the type of instruction described in FAR 61.107. The instrument instruction required by FAR 61.129(b)(2)(i) must be given by a certificated flight instructor with instrument instruction rating. Other non-instrument instruction required by FAR 61.127 may be given by any CFI.
==============================

which suggests "clarification" rather than "change."

I haven't bothered to check the explanatory material to the proposed rule - there might be a clue there as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top