Flight instructor limitations

Sidious

Well-Known Member
From what I have read on this board if you only hold you CFII you can give instruction in any aircraft that your are rated in (commercial pilot license).

You can give instrument instruction in a multi or single if rated on your CPL.

But reading the regs it seems to say that you need that category/class rating on both your instructor and pilot certificates.

----------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Aircraft ratings. A flight instructor may not conduct flight training in any aircraft for which the flight instructor does not hold:

(1) A pilot certificate and flight instructor certificate with the applicable category and class rating; and

(c) Instrument Rating. A flight instructor who provides instrument flight training for the issuance of an instrument rating or a type rating not limited to VFR must hold an instrument rating on his or her flight instructor certificate and pilot certificate that is appropriate to the category and class of aircraft in which instrument training is being provided.

If I don't have my MEI and Im giving instrument instruction in a multi arn't I conducting Flight Training in an aircraft for which I dont have on my instructor certificate?​
 

tgrayson

New Member
But reading the regs it seems to say that you need that category/class rating on both your instructor and pilot certificates.
That isn't the way that the regulation is interpreted. Let me edit to make it clearer:

(c) Instrument Rating. A flight instructor who provides instrument flight training for the issuance of an instrument rating or a type rating not limited to VFR must hold an instrument rating on his or her flight instructor certificate and [must hold a] pilot certificate that is appropriate to the category and class of aircraft in which instrument training is being provided.
Note that if the meaning were other than what I show, the part about category and class would have been unnecessary, since it would have been already covered by (1).
 

MidlifeFlyer

Well-Known Member
That isn't the way that the regulation is interpreted. Let me edit to make it clearer:
...or even clearer...

==============================
(b) Aircraft ratings. Except as provided in paragraph (c), A flight instructor may not conduct flight training in any aircraft for which the flight instructor does not hold:

(1) A pilot certificate and flight instructor certificate with the applicable category and class rating; and

(c) Instrument Rating. A flight instructor who provides instrument flight training for the issuance of an instrument rating or a type rating not limited to VFR must hold an instrument rating on his or her flight instructor certificate and pilot certificate that is appropriate to the category and class of aircraft in which instrument training is being provided.
==============================

This used to be a big issue for discussion since, Sidious, the reg does say what you think it says. But the way its been interpreted is that, so long as you are providing =instrument= training in an airplane, all that is required is a CFI-IA and a commercial pilot certificate with the appropriate category and class ratings.

And, to make it even clearer than either I or tgrayson did,

==============================
Single- and/or Multiengine Ratings. According to part 61, flight instructors who hold an “INSTRUMENT-AIRPLANE” rating only on their flight instructor certificate are authorized to give instrument flight instruction in single- and/or multiengine airplanes for instrument certification, provided they hold single- and/or multiengine ratings on their pilot certificate. FAA Order 8900.1, Vol 5, Chapter 2, Sec 11, Para 5-503(A)
==============================
 

Sidious

Well-Known Member
Thanks as always. I just came across it while reading and thought hmmm.... that doesn't right, Id better just ask.
 

tgrayson

New Member
Thanks as always. I just came across it while reading and thought hmmm.... that doesn't right, Id better just ask.
Note that the NPRM for the upcoming Part 61 changes included a change to this regulation that obsoletes this interpretation. I made a comment to the FAA on the NPRM to point out that they were removing a privilege currently held by many flight instructors. Whether tightening up this regulation was accidental or intentional, I do not know.
 

Ruff T

Well-Known Member
(c) Instrument Rating. A flight instructor who provides instrument flight training for the issuance of an instrument rating or a type rating not limited to VFR must hold an instrument rating on his or her flight instructor certificate and pilot certificate that is appropriate to the category and class of aircraft in which instrument training is being provided.
In my opinion, the key phrase is "training for the issuance of an instrument rating." You can provide instrument training in a multi without having your MEI, but the student CANNOT log it in their log book as dual received.. and therefore they can't use that time that you flew with them towards getting an IFR rating. So if you're just providing instruction to someone for fun of them learning how to shoot an approach and such, that's fine, but they can't use that time to show they qualification to get an instrument rating.
 

tgrayson

New Member
training for the issuance of an instrument rating
We all understand that the regulation is governing the training for an instrument rating.

What's at issue here is that the regulation is written is that you don't need to have a MEI to give instrument instruction for an instrument rating in a ME because paragraph (c) says that the instructor only needs to have the category and class on his Pilot Certificate (not Instructor certificate).
 

MidlifeFlyer

Well-Known Member
Note that the NPRM for the upcoming Part 61 changes included a change to this regulation that obsoletes this interpretation. I made a comment to the FAA on the NPRM to point out that they were removing a privilege currently held by many flight instructors. Whether tightening up this regulation was accidental or intentional, I do not know.
I don't know either but part of the history is that there are a couple of indications that some parts of the FAA was looking at the reg as (b) and (c) while others saw (b) or (c).

I know of one CFI who they tried to bust for this one. In 2004 (most likely unrelated) , the FAA Eastern Regional Counsel wrote:

==============================
an instructor must hold a pilot certificate and an instructor certificate, each with an airplane multiengine instrument rating, to give instrument training in a twin airplane.
==============================
 

SlantG

Well-Known Member
And that CFII prevailed and came up with a letter of interpretation from FAA National Legal Counsel (trumphs Regions) that said a CFII can give "instrument" instruction in any airplane for which they hold the appropriate commercial pilot certificate in category, class, and type rating (if applicable).

AOPA shot down the FAA's last attempt to nix the CFII privileges, let's hope our comments and AOPA's does the same again this time.
 

Ralgha

Well-Known Member
The regs clearly state that you must be rated for the aircraft on both certificate. It's quite plain English. Notice how the first response had to add words to get it to say what he wanted it to. Some FAA lawyer probably got bought to provide the BS interpretation that an instrument only instructor can provide instrument instruction in an airplane. I hope they do tighten it up and bounce the interpretation out on its ass where it belongs.
 

tgrayson

New Member
It's quite plain English.
I don't agree. As I pointed out before, the part about category and class would have been unnecessary in the paragraph, since it would have been already covered by (1), had that been the intent of the regulation. Regardless, it's written in poor english, no matter what the meaning.

Additionally, note that a -II only couldn't teach in a SEL either, if the regulation were read as you think appropriate. BTW, the interpretation you condemn was made by the people that wrote it.
 

Ralgha

Well-Known Member
We all understand that the regulation is governing the training for an instrument rating.

What's at issue here is that the regulation is written is that you don't need to have a MEI to give instrument instruction for an instrument rating in a ME because paragraph (c) says that the instructor only needs to have the category and class on his Pilot Certificate (not Instructor certificate).
Paragraph (c) does not say that.

(c) Instrument Rating. A flight instructor who provides instrument flight training for the issuance of an instrument rating or a type rating not limited to VFR must hold an instrument rating on his or her flight instructor certificate and pilot certificate that is appropriate to the category and class of aircraft in which instrument training is being provided.
Note the sentence structure. If the pilot certificate was addressed as a seperate entity, it would have a structure such as the following, "must hold an instrument rating on his or her flight instructor certificate and a pilot certificate that is appropriate to the ..."

§ 61.195 Flight instructor limitations and qualifications. said:
A person who holds a flight instructor certificate is subject to the following limitations:

(a) Hours of training. In any 24-consecutive-hour period, a flight instructor may not conduct more than 8 hours of flight training.

(b) Aircraft ratings. A flight instructor may not conduct flight training in any aircraft for which the flight instructor does not hold:

(1) A pilot certificate and flight instructor certificate with the applicable category and class rating; and

(2) If appropriate, a type rating.

(c) Instrument Rating. A flight instructor who provides instrument flight training for the issuance of an instrument rating or a type rating not limited to VFR must hold an instrument rating on his or her flight instructor certificate and pilot certificate that is appropriate to the category and class of aircraft in which instrument training is being provided.
This is another passage which is commonly twisted to suit individuals wants and needs. Notice that each paragraph has a heading in italics. The first is "hours of training," and specifics the hours that an instructor may train. The second is "Aircraft Ratings," and specifies the aircraft ratings that the instructor must hold to conduct training in an aircraft. The third is "Instrument Rating," and specifies the instrument ratings that an instructor must hold to provide instrument training. It is not in place of paragraph (b), but in addition to. If it were in place of, it would say so!

If paragraph (b) addressed giving training for a rating, it would say so. The heading would be Providing Training for an Aircraft Rating. It's not. If paragraph (c) addressed giving training for an instrument rating it would say so. It doesn't. Both paragraphs are dictating what an instructor must hold to provide any training.
 

Ralgha

Well-Known Member
Additionally, note that a -II only couldn't teach in a SEL either, if the regulation were read as you think appropriate. BTW, the interpretation you condemn was made by the people that wrote it.
Precisely. A -II can only provide instruction in simulators, ground school, anywhere that is not in an airplane. The interpretation was made because of special interest groups that wanted to make an end-run around the law, and it worked. It's a crock of crap.
 

Ralgha

Well-Known Member
A practical example of why a -II should not be allowed to provide any instruction in an airplane.

Joe is an -II. Bob is an instrument student in a Bonanza. Bob puts the Bonanza into a spin while practicing unusual attitude recoveries. Bob has never seen a spin before. Neither has Joe. Oh ****.
 

tgrayson

New Member
Those who most understand the regulation were bought and paid for.
Yes, bribed by the millions in ill-gotten gains of instrument instructors everywhere. Next to the AARP, they are the most powerful lobby in the United States. That's because the profession is so lucrative and the barriers to entry so high.;)
 

Ralgha

Well-Known Member
Yes, bribed by the millions in ill-gotten gains of instrument instructors everywhere. Next to the AARP, they are the most powerful lobby in the United States. That's because the profession is so lucrative and the barriers to entry so high.;)
It wasn't the individual instructors, it was the companies employing those individual instructors that wanted to make a quick buck by only getting someone qualified as an -II and having them teach. They got AOPA got on board because they're idiots and didn't see what a colossally stupid idea it was (or because they got bribed), and now here we are.

Anyway, I'm going to bed. Any -II who instructs in an airplane is a moron, and is endangering the lives of everyone else in the airplane and on the ground below.
 

MidlifeFlyer

Well-Known Member
The regs clearly state that you must be rated for the aircraft on both certificate. It's quite plain English. Notice how the first response had to add words to get it to say what he wanted it to. Some FAA lawyer probably got bought to provide the BS interpretation that an instrument only instructor can provide instrument instruction in an airplane. I hope they do tighten it up and bounce the interpretation out on its ass where it belongs.
I agree with you on what the regs =say=. But official FAA policy says that you don't need both.

And it was an FAA lawyer who said that you needed both in a letter opinion. It was an published existing FAA Order that said you didn't - FAA Order 8700.1, the predecessor of FAA Order 8900.1 that I quoted above. (So, as much fun as the great pastime is, you really can't blame lawyers for everything).

I've never seen the letter that terminated the enforcement against that CFI, but AFAIK the FAA policy reflected in the Order pre-existed it (not to mention the quasi-official Part 61 FAQ) and it's always difficult for the FAA to violate a pilot in the face of official FAA policy that specifically approves the activity.
 
Top