Must read for those thinking of doing the CFII as the initial

Bandit_Driver said:
Lets throw this into the mix as well. Technically, I don't think you need even a medical do give instruction for the instrument rating if you aren't acting as PIC for the flight, just as long as you have the II certificate. Also, why can't a CFII without a MEI give instruction in a twin for instrument work as long as it is isn't single engine work, especially if he/she isn't acting as PIC and the pilot receiving instruction is AMEL VFR rated and current?
Click to expand...

If the other pilot is under the hood, you'd need a medical, as you're required crew at that point. Why can't a CFII without an MEI give instruction in a twin, because the regulations say so.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
What is your definition of "loophole"? Something the FAA specifically says is authorized doesn't fit mine, whether I agree with it or not.

And the FAA at one time definitely said that a CFI-I with no CFI-A could teach instruments in an aircraft.
Click to expand...

CFII done with DPE as "initial flight instructor certificate" (mainly to avoid CFI Initial with FSDO and so endorsed by schools with DPE's "on staff" who could otherwise not continue making their own flight instructors) and then sitting for CFI -A as "add on".

This is generally outsourced to DPE's because a initial Flight Instructor certificate has already been issued. Old trick to avoid flying with FSDO.

Some special clowns went and did Sport CFI (DPE) first as their initial and went on to add their regular CFI/ CFII's with DPE's as well. Start to finish, never flown with a FSDO, no failures to their record. This has nothing to to with agreeing or not, its a simple loophole that diminishes testing standards over time.
 
Cessna414JJB said:
CFII done with DPE as "initial flight instructor certificate" (mainly to avoid CFI Initial with FSDO and so endorsed by schools with DPE's "on staff" who could otherwise not continue making their own flight instructors) and then sitting for CFI -A as "add on".

This is generally outsourced to DPE's because a initial Flight Instructor certificate has already been issued. Old trick to avoid flying with FSDO.

Some special clowns went and did Sport CFI (DPE) first as their initial and went on to add their regular CFI/ CFII's with DPE's as well. Start to finish, never flown with a FSDO, no failures to their record. This has nothing to to with agreeing or not, its a simple loophole that diminishes testing standards over time.
Click to expand...

Stop BSing. I did my CFII as the initial and it had to be sent to the FSDO as an initial CFI ride. They farmed it out to a DPE because they were overloaded with rides, like they do for all the rides, CFI/CFII/MEI.
 
Cessna414JJB said:
CFII done with DPE as "initial flight instructor certificate" (mainly to avoid CFI Initial with FSDO and so endorsed by schools with DPE's "on staff" who could otherwise not continue making their own flight instructors) and then sitting for CFI -A as "add on".

This is generally outsourced to DPE's because a initial Flight Instructor certificate has already been issued. Old trick to avoid flying with FSDO.

Some special clowns went and did Sport CFI (DPE) first as their initial and went on to add their regular CFI/ CFII's with DPE's as well. Start to finish, never flown with a FSDO, no failures to their record. This has nothing to to with agreeing or not, its a simple loophole that diminishes testing standards over time.
Click to expand...

Why are you referring the Sport CFI's as clowns?? I know several sport pilots and are more competent in their flying than many pilots with multiple certificates..............:rolleyes:
 
Cessna414JJB said:
CFII done with DPE as "initial flight instructor certificate" (mainly to avoid CFI Initial with FSDO and so endorsed by schools with DPE's "on staff" who could otherwise not continue making their own flight instructors) and then sitting for CFI -A as "add on".

This is generally outsourced to DPE's because a initial Flight Instructor certificate has already been issued. Old trick to avoid flying with FSDO.

Some special clowns went and did Sport CFI (DPE) first as their initial and went on to add their regular CFI/ CFII's with DPE's as well. Start to finish, never flown with a FSDO, no failures to their record. This has nothing to to with agreeing or not, its a simple loophole that diminishes testing standards over time.
Click to expand...
Ah, so your definition is "something the rules allow I personally don't like."

That's ok, just wanted to clarify whether or not we were talking about the same thing.
 
Ok, to the "loophole to make it easier crowd" ....

First of all, like I said before, most schools its not about making it easy for the students, its about bringing an easy airframe to pass the MX inspectors at the FSDO. A 1969 Arrow usually gets a little more attention from them than a 2013 172 G1000 with 10 entries in the log. They need to lift the complex requirement from the CFI-A because I don't see Cessna making a single engine retract any time soon.

Second, lets not pretend that you are getting tested by the best of the best pilots in the world, Its not some Jedi panel you are going to. I have sent applicants with way more knowledge than anyone in the FSDO office and they failed. Most of the inspectors just randomly open the FAR or FOI book and ask some question verbatim without knowing the answer themselves. They have zero standards to which they conduct test. Which is ironic....
 
KHanson said:
But this isn't referring to 141, which is what you did when you were there. Didn't I sign you off for your CFII 141? lol. Anyways, they'll just have to flip-flop it around... I kinda' saw this coming, and do agree with the "category/class" debate.
Click to expand...

?
I have never trained under 141

I have no idea who you are, but it's nice to know I'm your FAA insider connection!
 
Last edited:
On my CFI ride the inspector was combing through my logbook and asked why I had logged 2 hours of SIC time in a 182 when I could log it as PIC. I told him I was flying safety pilot for a guy doing hood work and I hadn't received my high performance endorsement at that point. He told me that I shouldn't be flying safety pilot without the endorsement and that you can only log SIC on a "two crew" airplane. I disagreed and referenced the appropriate regulation stating I was logging SIC under the regulations being flown (since sim instrument makes it a two crew airplane and all). He told me that I was misusing a loophole, but he would let it slide since I had enough time to hold a commercial without the SIC time.

Anyway, from my experience with the FAA, loophole is defined as something that is legal yet possibly inconvenient to a given inspector at any given time.
 
My my my, Quite the discussion. It appears the following FAR would have some bearing on the subject.
61.195 Flight instructor limitations and qualifications.
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; ..

In layman's terms it would appear that 61.195 (a) (1) specifically states that in order to instruct in an aircraft you must have both a Commercial and flight instructor certificate with the appropriate category and class rating. Therefore, if someone obtains a CFII only as their first instructor certificate with no category and class rating on their CFII ticket they would appear to not meet the requirement of (b)(1). To explain it a little more simply, can a CFI with only an airplane single engine rating on his CFI ticket instruct in a Multi? Of course not, because they do not have the appropriate category and class rating on their CFII certificate. Therefore if you have a CFII certificate with no category and class rating on it how can you instruct in any aircraft?

And for further consideration, let's say something bad happened to a student and their airplane while the "CFII Only" was conducting instruction? Would anybody in their right mind want to have to explain, while they were being deposed by the attorney for the decedent's survivors, why they realistically thought they were legal to be instructing in and aircraft while they were apparently in violation of 61.195 (b)(1)?

Yes, as always the regs are subject to interpretation. That's what lawyers and judges are for. If someone can sue an aircraft manufacturer because they flat ran out of gas and end up with a pile of money, what makes any one think they would prevail in a suit involving something like this? Good luck and may the best attorney win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top