Logging IMC when not current

[MidlifeFlyer]

Interesting. On my Double-I checkride, I asked the examiner pretty much the same question about counting a student's approaches as my own for currency purposes and got pretty much the exact opposite answer

Just to clarify, in order for a CFI to count the student's approaches during an instructional flight, they have to be done in actual. I didn't mention that because being in actual was the entire scenario being discussed.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

I should say as a CFI. If he has a CFII it should be fine to log the time assuming it was legitimate instruction.

There is also the problem that some CFIs go up with friends that are pilots to "share time" and then sign the other guy's log book as a CFI. They try to use this as a loophole to allow them to log everything. Including the cross-countries. No instruction was given however. Someone from the FAA could easily question seeing a bunch of random "instruction flights" with no substance in them.

Well, assuming the other pilot was already instrument rated and current, why would they need CFII? I've received lots of instruction from CFI's that weren't double-eye's (I am a CFI). Could be for a BFR, could be for a commercial, could be for an insurance requirement, could be because they just wanted instruction staying proficient, or a million other reasons.

As I understand things, being a double-eye allows you to A) Give instruction that counts towards the time required for an instrument rating, or B) Give Instrument Proficiency Checks. I don't know of anything that would prohibit a CFI from giving instrument instruction that isn't intended to satisfy either of those scenarios.

The "Someone from the FAA could easily question" rationale strikes me as making up regs that don't exist And even if it is flying with your buddy, assuming you aren't taking a nap, they are probably getting free instruction from you anyway. My CFI friends do answer questions/offer advice/critique technique when I end up flying with them, even if the purpose of the flight wasn't strictly instruction. Logging 2,000 hours with the same CFI might be a red flag to someone, but I've seen students that took 350 hours to get a PPL as well....

 

[Old Pete]

IYes, like any other bad cop a FSDO inspector who goes beyond his authority and makes up his own rules (intentionally or through error) can cause problems.

Don't we have a penchant for understatement.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Don't we have a penchant for understatement.

I've had folks from the FSDO as students, totally not my experience that they are loose canons at all. And no one I have dealt with has acted like they knew everything (I certainly don't, yet they still have found my instruction valuable)

 

[Old Pete]

I've had folks from the FSDO as students, totally not my experience that they are loose canons at all. And no one I have dealt with has acted like they knew everything (I certainly don't, yet they still have found my instruction valuable)

My statement has nothing to do with my experience with my local FSDO, even the most irascible ASI at my FSDO has a pretty good relationship with me, but when "bad cops" or an inspector make up their "own rules" they don't cause "problems" they cause the loss of peoples life savings, future earnings, and and in some cases their freedom.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

As I understand things, being a double-eye allows you to A) Give instruction that counts towards the time required for an instrument rating, or B) Give Instrument Proficiency Checks. I don't know of anything that would prohibit a CFI from giving instrument instruction that isn't intended to satisfy either of those scenarios.

You probably know from some old threads that I agree with you on how the reg "should" be read. But take a look at 2010 Grayson - Must have CFI-I

I think you're familiar with it. The part that concerns me in the context of your comment is the first paragraph on the second page part that essentially says that a single-I can't give instrument training even for tasks for which there is no requirement for any training at all (the time in excess of the requirements that could just be with a private pilot safety pilot).

When the opinion first came out, I sent an email to the signer of the letter in which I expressed concerns that the interpretation in the letter was very broad and appeared to prohibit any instrument training beyond basic "flight by sole reference" to a student pilot; not even as much as giving a VFR pilot some extra skills in reading approach charts and flying an IAP for either emergency situations or simply to locate and get to an airport in marginal VFR conditions. I received a call from the person who actually wrote the opinion. The gist of our conversation was that the letter is intentionally broad and the FAA, as a general principle, doesn't want a one-I to give any "instrument training" at all, although he recognized there might be some exceptions here and there.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Don't we have a penchant for understatement.

We try

 

[drunkenbeagle]

You probably know from some old threads that I agree with you on how the reg "should" be read. But take a look at 2010 Grayson - Must have CFI-I

I think you're familiar with it. The part that concerns me in the context of your comment is the first paragraph on the second page part that essentially says that a single-I can't give instrument training even for tasks for which there is no requirement for any training at all (the time in excess of the requirements that could just be with a private pilot safety pilot).

When the opinion first came out, I sent an email to the signer of the letter in which I expressed concerns that the interpretation in the letter was very broad and appeared to prohibit any instrument training beyond basic "flight by sole reference" to a student pilot; not even as much as giving a VFR pilot some extra skills in reading approach charts and flying an IAP for either emergency situations or simply to locate and get to an airport in marginal VFR conditions. I received a call from the person who actually wrote the opinion. The gist of our conversation was that the letter is intentionally broad and the FAA, as a general principle, doesn't want a one-I to give any "instrument training" at all, although he recognized there might be some exceptions here and there.

Yeah, like in a glider? There are instruments in many, but there is no such thing as a glider instrument CFI. And they have been known to get sucked into clouds

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Yeah, like in a glider? There are instruments in many, but there is no such thing as a glider instrument CFI. And they have been known to get sucked into clouds

In terms of what "might" be an exception, your guess is as good as mine but I'd go along with instrument training in an aircraft for which there isn't an instrument rating for either a pilot or an instructor.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

I think you're familiar with it. The part that concerns me in the context of your comment is the first paragraph on the second page part that essentially says that a single-I can't give instrument training even for tasks for which there is no requirement for any training at all (the time in excess of the requirements that could just be with a private pilot safety pilot).

That paragraph goes on to say that this is in the context of someone training for an instrument rating though, so i don't see that it would make any difference for an already instrument rated student.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Just relating my conversation. What it may ultimately mean is a guess.

 

[KHanson]

Deregulating is like fragmenting a PC. We should make this happen. (sarcasm)