Chief Counsel on Instrument Training

MidlifeFlyer

MidlifeFlyer

Well-Known Member
Based largely on a Chief Counsel opinion that CFIs with no instrument rating may give the private pilot training in flight "solely by reference to instruments" and an analysis in the orphaned Part 61 FAQ, it has long been the general view that 61.109 training solely by reference to instruments cannot be used to meet 61.65 instrument training" requirements.

At the end of last month, the Chief Counsel put that one to rest.

Yes, if a "One-I" gives the 61.109 training, it does not count, but if it is given by a II

Therefore, the 3 hours of flight training on "the control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to instruments" in § 61.109(a)(3) may be applied toward the 40 hours of actual or simulated instrument time under § 61.65( d)(2), but may not be applied toward the 15 hours of instrument training unless the flight instructor who provided the flight training under § 61.1 09( a )(3) held an instrument rating on his or her flight instructor cetiificate and otherwise meets the requirements of § 61.65.​

Here's the 2016 Rohfing opinion.
 
It's unfortunate for the students out there that probably don't know if their private pilot instructor has his CFII and then goes onto an instrument checkride without those minimums counting....

Although, haven't met many instrument checkride ready students with the bare minimum instrument training anyways...
 
gotWXdagain said:
How in any deity's name do they expect they enforce this?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how you see an interpretation that expands what counts as an enforcement problem, but they enforce this exact same way they enforce all logging rules. Logbook entries are accepted on the honor system unless there is a reason to question them.

In the extremely rare case an applicant needs to rely on those 3 hours when applying for an instrument rating, perhaps the CFI had used "CFII" in his signature. If not, the recommending CFII for the practical has attested all qualification were met so if it's close, he or she should have verified it. If the DPE is concerned, he or she may have access to the information, although I would expect the DPE to reject the applicant unless it can be shown by the applicant or the recommending CFI that those 3 hours were with a CFII, at least on paper.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
I'm not sure how you see an interpretation that expands what counts as an enforcement problem, but they enforce this exact same way they enforce all logging rules. Logbook entries are accepted on the honor system unless there is a reason to question them.

In the extremely rare case an applicant needs to rely on those 3 hours when applying for an instrument rating, perhaps the CFI had used "CFII" in his signature. If not, the recommending CFII for the practical has attested all qualification were met so if it's close, he or she should have verified it. If the DPE is concerned, he or she may have access to the information, although I would expect the DPE to reject the applicant unless it can be shown by the applicant or the recommending CFI that those 3 hours were with a CFII, at least on paper.
Click to expand...
While I may agree that this may not be an "enforcement problem" it certainly presents an additional burden for the instrument instructor or DPE who must determine whether the 3 hrs of training solely by reference to instruments is given by an -i or double eye. Most pilots don't have logbooks that have separate columns for instrument training given by double eyes vs training given by -i solely by reference to instruments.

Since you say that "logbook entries are accepted on the honor system unless there is a reason to question them" would a simple statement by the logbook owner attesting that all instrument training time was received by a double eye suffice if you were a DPE? or would some sort of statement of qualification be required by the CFI?
 
I think signing a logbook CFII would make it easier but I don't do that. My CFI Cert has certificate#CFI.....not CFII
 
So you get an applicant 5 years after private going for instrument. What then? Did they know if their CFI was or wasn't a CFII?
 
Old Pete said:
While I may agree that this may not be an "enforcement problem" it certainly presents an additional burden for the instrument instructor or DPE who must determine whether the 3 hrs of training solely by reference to instruments is given by an -i or double eye. Most pilots don't have logbooks that have separate columns for instrument training given by double eyes vs training given by -i solely by reference to instruments.

Since you say that "logbook entries are accepted on the honor system unless there is a reason to question them" would a simple statement by the logbook owner attesting that all instrument training time was received by a double eye suffice if you were a DPE? or would some sort of statement of qualification be required by the CFI?
Click to expand...
In the unlikely event that the applicant had only 12 hours of instrument training post-private, if I were a DPE I would make further inquiry. I would expect the referring instructor to provide that info since she is the one who attested that the applicant met all qualifications. As the referring CFI I would make it my business to find out.

Keep in mind the "old" SOP was that it didn't count no matter who gave it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top