As far as I know, what you say here is correct. But what I said is correct too. You just have to think a little outside the box to figure it out. On a similar note, did you know (many do not) that a CFI without a high performance endorsement can give an IPC to an ATP who's flying his personal bonanza?
Log PIC as a private pilot in IFR?
- Thread starter Fly_Unity
- Start date
As far as I know, what you say here is correct. But what I said is correct too. You just have to think a little outside the box to figure it out. On a similar note, did you know (many do not) that a CFI without a high performance endorsement can give an IPC to an ATP who's flying his personal bonanza?
tgrayson
New Member
Notwithstanding the FAQ's the regulation doesn't make sense any other way. Why bring in the issue of the pilot certificate at all, if the intent was to have the category and class on the instructor's certificate? All the regulation had to say was
limited to VFR must hold an instrument rating on his or her flight instructor certificate
and leave it at that.
Do you have a copy of that regional counsel interp?
jrh
Well-Known Member
Believe me, I'm all for exercising my rights and privileges as an instructor to the maximum possible limit. However, I still don't see what you're getting at. Could you explain further?
Sure! But there's a big difference between needing (or not needing) an endorsement, versus needing (or not needing) an entire category and class.
tgrayson
New Member
Here's a cut-and-paste from FAAO 8700, General Aviation Operations Inspector's Handbook
--------<snip>-----------
A. 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.
--------<snip>-----------
That's a pretty clearcut FAA policy, not some errant John Lynch interpretation.
As for any contrary Eastern Regional Legal Counsel's opinion, well, someone in that part of the country said something about needing dual brakes too.
--------<snip>-----------
A. 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.
--------<snip>-----------
That's a pretty clearcut FAA policy, not some errant John Lynch interpretation.
As for any contrary Eastern Regional Legal Counsel's opinion, well, someone in that part of the country said something about needing dual brakes too.
meritflyer
Well-Known Member
I just dont see how a CFI with no II can have a PPL log "actual" and the CFI log dual given if he is not an instrument instructor.
Point made.
Point made.
tgrayson
New Member
If I were that instructor, I would log it as "Flight by Reference to Instruments."
meritflyer
Well-Known Member
I agree.
I've always understood that there is a distinct difference between what a II and CFI could log.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
And giving single-engine ops under the hood when you can't without the hood does make sense?
Here's that eastern regional opinion. It deals with more than just that issue. It's the part I italicized.
==============================
JAN 6 2004
Capt Ronald B. Levy
Director, Aviation Sciences Program
University of Maryland Eastern Shore
30806 University Boulevard South
Princess Anne, MD 21853-1299
Dear Capt. Levy:
This responds to your request for an interpretation of 14 CFR § 61.195 pertaining to the providing of instrument instruction. You have raised your disagreement with information contained in the FAA web site maintained by flight Standards (specifically, AFS-840) where answers are provided to frequently asked questions (FAQs). We apologize for the delay in providing this response to you and appreciate your patience.
Your question concerns the response given on the Flight Standards website (http://www1.faa.gov/AVR/AFS/AFS800/DOCS/pt61FAO.doc) in "Q&A-249. The question posed and the answer from AFS-840 are as follows:
QUESTION: The flight review requirements of § 61.56(a) requires [sic] 1 hour of flight training and 1 hour of ground training which includes a review of the current general operating and flight rules of part 91 and a review of those maneuvers and procedures that, at the known of the person giving the review, are necessary for the pilot to demonstrate the safe exercise of the privileges of the pilot certificate. If the person getting the flight review holds an Instrument-Airplane rating on his certificate does the review have to be given by a CFI-IA and include instrument procedures such as radial intercepts, approaches, etc.? Can a CFI-A (but no Instrument-Airplane rating on his CFI) give the flight review to the instrument rated pilot and can that CFI cover any instrument maneuvers such as those that might be given to a Private pilot under 61.107?
ANSWER: Ref. § 61.193 and § 61.195(c); You’re incorrectly mixing up the flight review requirements of § 61.56(c) with the Instrument Proficiency Check § 61.57(d). They are two separate requirements. But if you’re asking whether a CFI-ASE only can administer the Instrument Proficiency Check of § 61.57(d), the answer is no. The flight instructor must hold a CFII-Airplane rating to administer the Instrument Proficiency Check of § 61.57(d). {Q&A-249}
We view, as the response acknowledges, the above dialogue as involving two distinct matters. The first concerns the requisite qualifications of the person conducting a flight review under 14 CFR § 61.56(c). Section 61.193(g) provides that a flight instructor, within the limitations of that person’s flight instructor certificate and ratings, may conduct the flight review. Since maneuvers and procedures necessary for the flight are at the instructor’s discretion, see 61.56(a)(2), they need not include instrument maneuvers and procedures. The flight review may be combined with an instrument proficiency check if warranted, see 61.56(h), in which case the instructor must hold the appropriate authorization, see 61.57(d)(2)(iv), 61.195. Accordingly, the person conducting the flight review need only have instructor-airplane privileges (CFI-A). Instrument instructor qualifications (instructor-instrument/airplane, or CFI-IA) are not necessary, even if maneuvers are performed "under the hood" since a flight review is not flight training for the issuance of an instrument rating or type rating, see 61.195(c).
The second matter concerns the requisite qualifications of the person conducting the instrument proficiency examination under 14 CFR § 61.57(d). Since the proficiency check is an operation related to instrument flying, under 61.193(f) an instructor-instrument rating (CFI-IA) is needed, even though the proficiency check does not constitute training toward an instrument or type rating (see 61.195(d)).
Considering the context of the response, we do not read it as indicating that a CFI-A may give instrument training in flight without holding instrument authorization (CFI-IA) as per § 61.193. Flight training is defined as training, other than ground training, received from an authorized instructor in flight in an aircraft (14 CFR § 61.1(b)(6)). Training can only be logged if provided by an instructor authorized to provide the specific training. Any instrument procedures conducted with a CFI-A during a flight review may be appropriate at the discretion of the instructor but do not qualify and may not be logged as training.
Your related question deals with the qualifications to provide instrument training corresponding to the category and class of the aircraft. As you point out, § 61.195(b) provides, "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." You have indicated that some persons hold the belief that the possession of a CFI-IA authorizes the holder to provide instrument training without regard to the class rating held, a belief you do not share.
In construing § 61.195(b), we must rely on the plain language since it appears to be unambiguous and we are not aware of any agency-condoned practices that deviate. Section 61.195(b) refers specifically to category and class, as you have pointed out. The category of aircraft is airplane, but the class can consist of, for example, single engine, multiengine, land, and water (sea), as defined in 14 CFR 1.1. As provided in 61.195(b), to provide flight training, the instructor must bold both a pilot certificate and a flight instructor certificate with the category and class rating applicable to the training being provided. For example, 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. We do not construe Q&A-249 as indicating any other position.
I trust that this response satisfactorily answers your question. Should you need any further clarification, please contact Stephen Brice in this office at 718 553-3268.
Sincerely,
Loretta E. Alkalay
==============================
tgrayson
New Member
Well, yeah, pretty much. As an instrument instructor, I don't have to teach someone how to do short field landings, turns around a point, chandelles, etc. In theory, the student already knows how to fly a SE airplane.
Now, if the regulation clearly forbade this situation, I wouldn't have a big problem with it, since I could see the logic of that too. I'm easy to please.
However, I believe the interpretation you posted is simply in error. The author didn't appear to do much research and made a number of mistakes;
- She said "we are not aware of any agency-condoned practices that deviate," when it was/is common industry practice for there to be an active -II, with no other instructor ratings. Heck, even the official FAA Guidance to their own operations inspectors indicates that this is a legal practice. Plus, the FAQ's endorse this point of view numerous places.
- In her analysis, she mentions 61.195(b), but ignores 61.195(c) in this context. Did she not read the next paragraph?
- She says that the FAQ-249 does not express a contrary opinion, but that question did not address this subject, so she apparently read no further.
Thanks for posting the interpretation.
desertdog71
Girthy Member
I have highlighted the important part of this FAR. If you are not given instruction for the purpose of an instrument or type rating it doesn't matter. Perfectly legal for the private pilot to log it as PIC and Actual Instrument. Legal for the Instructor to log as PIC and as instructor and actual time for any time in actual conditions.
tgrayson
New Member
Then explain why the FAA invented the concept of "Flight by Reference to Instruments" as part of the PPL training requirements. If a CFI were capable of giving instrument instruction, they could have stated the requirement as "3 hours of instrument instruction."
desertdog71
Girthy Member
61.129 says 10 hours of "Instrument Training", so are you saying that you mnust be a CFII to give instruction for a commercial rating? I think the rule is very clear when it says "A flight instructor who provides instrument flight training for the issuance of an instrument rating or a type rating not limited to VFR"
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
Does everybody realize that there are two different discussions going on?
They created the concept to segregate training requirements and to allow all the private pilot tasks to be accomplished by a mere CFI-A. Only a CFII is authorized capable of giving instruction that =counts= toward any "instrument instruction" or "Instrument training" requirements. But that's a completely different issue than whether an instructor, CFI or CFII, may take a student into the clouds and provide instruction there (heading back to the original thread).
tgrayson
New Member
The FAA has explicitly said yes in the FAQs.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
You make a good point. But I think the answer to that is yes. The commercial instrument training needs to be with a II. Despite the wording of the regulation, there are a series of FAA Legal and other interpretations that suggest that whenever you see the words "instrument training" or "instrument instruction," the training requires an II. And, unlike the private, the commercial regulation talks in terms of "instrument training."
It goes way back. Here's an excerpt from an FAA Legal opinion from 1979. Some specific reg numbers may have changed a bit, but you'll recognize that 61.65 is the instrument rating, 61.107 is the private, and 61.129 is the commercial.:
==============================
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.
==============================
Fortunately, since the usual sequence means that most pilots have their instrument ratings before they get the commercial, it's an issue that rarely comes up.
tgrayson
New Member
Three
Yes. DesertDog is arguing that any instructor can give instrument training if it's not intended for an instrument rating or type rating not limited to VFR.
Sure. We're not discussing that.
desertdog71
Girthy Member
61.65 has an interesting term I have made bold here. (c) Flight proficiency. A person who applies for an instrument rating must receive and log training from an authorized instructor in an aircraft, or in a flight simulator or flight training device, in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section, that includes the following areas of operation:
(1) Preflight preparation;
(2) Preflight procedures;
(3) Air traffic control clearances and procedures;
(4) Flight by reference to instruments;
(5) Navigation systems;
(6) Instrument approach procedures;
(7) Emergency operations; and
(8) Postflight procedures.
Curious huh?
(c) Flight proficiency. A person who applies for an instrument rating must receive and log training from an authorized instructor in an aircraft, or in a flight simulator or flight training device, in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section, that includes the following areas of operation: (1) Preflight preparation;
(2) Preflight procedures;
(3) Air traffic control clearances and procedures;
(4) Flight by reference to instruments;
(5) Navigation systems;
(6) Instrument approach procedures;
(7) Emergency operations; and
(8) Postflight procedures.
Curious huh?
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
...and one more thing...
Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night.
Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night.
desertdog71
Girthy Member
:yeahthat:
I just like debating the FAR's, they are so poorly written sometimes its amazing. The original question and my answer to the original question stand. Yes it can be logged as PIC.
tgrayson
New Member
Not really....obviously a -II can teach flight by reference to instruments, just like a non -II.
However, look at 61.65(d)(2)(i)
At least 15 hours of instrument flight training from an authorized instructor in the aircraft category for which the instrument rating is sought;
vs 61.109(a)(3)
3 hours of flight training in a single-engine airplane on the control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to instruments
The reason that it's stated this way is that the FAA wanted to enable CFI's to provide this training. The FAA has said so.
What I'm giving you is the FAA opinion, as expressed through various FAQ's and letters of interpretation. While I agree with you that you'd be hard-pressed to find in the FARs that says that CFI's cannot provide instrument training at all, that generally appears to be the interpretation applied by the FAA.