Can sim time in private be used toward instrument rating?

gredenko

gredenko

Well-Known Member
Hey guys,

I've heard this issue crop up every now and then, but now I'm a CFI and in the position where I gotta know because I have a student in this situation.

I have a part 61 student training at a school which is primarily 141. They "strongly encourage" 61s to log an hour of sim time, even though it won't count toward the private. (I agree that some sim time would be good for privates and offers situations like failures or random VOR tracking that we can't do in the plane)

Question: Can this hour be used towards the sim time you can use in the instrument rating?

61.65 reads:

...(d) Aeronautical experience. A person who applies for an instrument rating must have logged the following:
...(2) A total of 40 hours of actual or simulated instrument time on the areas of operation of this section, to include --
...(i) At least 15 hours of instrument flight training from an authorized instructor in the aircraft category for which the instrument rating is sought;

Obviously, one need not be "appropriately rated" on a sim, so I'm thinking that this hour done during a private CAN be used in the instrument rating. Thoughts?
 
Yes and no. ;) The "yes" is easy - I assume you looked at it even though you may not have mentioned it but just in case, 61.65(e) covers the use of sim and FTD time for training requirements.

The "no" is this: The now-defunct Part 61 FAQ in a number of areas, took the position that none of the instrument work done by a student pilot counts toward the IR requirements. The peg for this was twofold. First, in terms of training, a student pilot working on his private is not receiving "instrument training." Even without the FAQ, that part is relatively clear. So it wouldn't count toward the 15 hours.

In terms of the rest, the peg was the "on the areas of operation" language. Lynch (who wrote the FAQ and much of the regs) took the view that a student pilot simply cannot be doing work "on the areas of operation" listed in 61.65. There's a lot of disagreement about that one, but hardly worth the fight for one hour.
 
gredenko said:
Hey guys,

I've heard this issue crop up every now and then, but now I'm a CFI and in the position where I gotta know because I have a student in this situation.

I have a part 61 student training at a school which is primarily 141. They "strongly encourage" 61s to log an hour of sim time, even though it won't count toward the private. (I agree that some sim time would be good for privates and offers situations like failures or random VOR tracking that we can't do in the plane)

Question: Can this hour be used towards the sim time you can use in the instrument rating?

61.65 reads:

...(d) Aeronautical experience. A person who applies for an instrument rating must have logged the following:
...(2) A total of 40 hours of actual or simulated instrument time on the areas of operation of this section, to include --
...(i) At least 15 hours of instrument flight training from an authorized instructor in the aircraft category for which the instrument rating is sought;

Obviously, one need not be "appropriately rated" on a sim, so I'm thinking that this hour done during a private CAN be used in the instrument rating. Thoughts?
Click to expand...


On a bit of a different note, I didn’t think that sim time could fulfill the “15 hours of instrument flight training.” And that those 15 hours had to be accomplished in the appropriate category of aircraft?
 
Snickersnwa said:
On a bit of a different note, I didn’t think that sim time could fulfill the “15 hours of instrument flight training.” And that those 15 hours had to be accomplished in the appropriate category of aircraft?
Click to expand...

Totally right...I meant to roll it into the 40 hours, not the 15 that has to be in the airplane.
 
The key issue is whether you are an authorized instructor. A student pilot is not recieving instrument training from a CFI, it is categorized as "flight by reference to instrument" which is required for private pilot training, but is not "instrument training". If a student pilot were to recieve the same training, but is given that training from a CFII, then it would be considered to be "instrument training" which could be used to satisfy the requirements for the private pilot and instrument rating. It doenst matter whether this training takes place in a sim or a plane, as long as for the instrument rating the category and class minimums are still met. So in summation yes that training would count towards the 40 hours of instrument training if it is administered from a CFII.
 
Southgater said:
The key issue is whether you are an authorized instructor. A student pilot is not recieving instrument training from a CFI, it is categorized as "flight by reference to instrument" which is required for private pilot training, but is not "instrument training". If a student pilot were to recieve the same training, but is given that training from a CFII, then it would be considered to be "instrument training" which could be used to satisfy the requirements for the private pilot and instrument rating.
Click to expand...
That's not the position the FAA took in the now-defunct FAQ.

The FAA has long taken the view is that "the control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to instruments" in 61.109(a)(3) is not "instrument training." That's why a one-I can teach it to count to begin with. But the FAQ went a step further: since it's not "instrument training" to begin with, it doesn't matter who gives it - it doesn't count toward the instrument training requirements of any other certificate or rating.
 
Southgater said:
Do you have a regulation that supports that?
Click to expand...
Only the 15 hours must be "instrument training from an authorized instructor", FAR 61.65(d)(2)(i).

The remaining 25 can be from a CFI or even a safety pilot.
FAR 61.65(d)(2)"A total of 40 hours instrument time"...not "instrument training time".
 
Southgater said:
Do you have a regulation that supports that?
Click to expand...
Obviously not (other than the words used in the regs are different) since I said "That's not the position the FAA took in the now-defunct FAQ. " But on point one, here's an old FAA Legal opinion talking about the difference between the two tasks:
==============================
JUNE 20, 1979

MR. GREGORY BRUSH

Dear Mr. Brush:

In your recent letter you pose several questions regarding interpretation of Section 61.65(e) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). First, you ask whether the 20 hours of instrument instruction by an authorized instructor in an instrument ground trainer referred to in FAR Section 61.65(e)(2) may be credited toward the 200 hours total time required by FAR 61.65(e)(1). Assuming an affirmative answer the above question, you then ask whether such time should be logged merely as "total time" or specifically as "ground trainer time." Finally, you ask whether the "authorized flight instructor" referred to in FAR 61.65(e)(3) must be a certificated flight instructor with an instrument rating, and more generally, what type of instructor is required by FAR Sections 61.107 (introductory paragraph), 61.107(a) and (b), 61.127 (introductory paragraph), and 61.129(b)(2)(i).

Up to 20 hours instrument ground trainer time, acceptable as instrument time under FAR 61.65(e)(2), may be credited toward the 200 hours total time required by FAR 61.65(e)(1). Such time should be logged specifically as instrument ground trainer time, since only 20 hours may be credited toward the total time requirement.

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.

We hope this information will be of assistance to you.

Sincerely,

EDWARD P. FABERMAN
Acting Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division
Office of the Chief Counsel
==============================

and FWIW, the FAQ

==============================
QUESTION: When an instructor provides the flight training required by § 61.107(b)(1)(ix) and § 61.109(a)(3) for the Private Pilot Certificate and the Airplane Single-engine Land rating can that be logged and signed off as "instrument training” provided it met the definition of § 61.1(b)(10)? Would that training count towards the instrument training required by § 61.65 and/or § 61.129? Would such training by a CFI-IA meet the intent of § 61.107(b)(1)(ix) and § 61.109(a)(3)?

ANSWER: Ref. § 61.129(a)(3); Here you are asking, in effect, can the training given to satisfy the training § 61.107(b)(1)(ix) and § 61.109(a)(3) also be "double logged" to also satisfy training required by § 61.65(d)(2)(i) and § 61.129(a)(3)(i)? The answer is no, the training cannot be "double logged" or "counted twice" or however you want to say it.
==============================

BTW, if you say, "that's nonsense - there's no good reason why the student pilot hood flights shouldn't count if given with a II," I agree with you. But it's only one of a series of FAQ answers that take similar positions on a number of subjects, so it's not me you're arguing with. Whether with the demise of the FAQ, Flight Standards has changed its view, I don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top