PIC/IP for BFR

7

7700

Well-Known Member
I am a CFI, but I do not have a High Performance endorsement. Can I give a BFR to someone who flies a 182Q (230hp) if they are high performance certified and are acting PIC. If it is legal, can I log PIC as an instructor; because I am rated in the category and class of airplane as per 61.195(b)(1).
 
As long as they're still qualified to be PIC. If the BFR has already expired than no. 61.51 says you can log any dual given as PIC.
 
I am assuming the same holds true for a CFII without a tailwheel endorsement? doing an IR in a tailwheel plane?
 
MNFlyGuy said:
I am assuming the same holds true for a CFII without a tailwheel endorsement? doing an IR in a tailwheel plane?
Click to expand...

FWIW, the old Part 61 FAQ's said "no" to a CFI giving instruction in airplane for which he did not have the necessary endorsements. The author used the "authorized instructor" card, since the regulations don't actually forbid the practice, and said it was the FAA's intent for the requirement to become regulatory. So far, it hasn't.
 
tgrayson said:
FWIW, the old Part 61 FAQ's said "no" to a CFI giving instruction in airplane for which he did not have the necessary endorsements. The author used the "authorized instructor" card, since the regulations don't actually forbid the practice, and said it was the FAA's intent for the requirement to become regulatory. So far, it hasn't.
Click to expand...
It would be interesting to count the number of Lynch FAQ pronouncements an predictions of the FAA's intent to change the regs to meet his views that have not become regulatory. Are there any that have?

Personally, FAQ or no FAQ, this one is on the edge - are you qualified to train someone in an aircraft that you don't meet the minimum qualifications to fly in as the pilot in command?
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
are you qualified to train someone in an aircraft that you don't meet the minimum qualifications to fly in as the pilot in command?
Click to expand...

That's what had Lynch frothing at the mouth in the FAQ. For the high performance endorsement, I have a hard time taking seriously that the instructor isn't "qualified" to instruct in the aircraft without the endorsement. From a legalistic point of view, though, I suppose we have to assume that each endorsement is equivalently meaty.
 
tgrayson said:
That's what had Lynch frothing at the mouth in the FAQ. For the high performance endorsement, I have a hard time taking seriously that the instructor isn't "qualified" to instruct in the aircraft without the endorsement. From a legalistic point of view, though, I suppose we have to assume that each endorsement is equivalently meaty.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of folks have a hard time taking lack of "qualification" in a 182 seriously. And that's the mental image we have of what the "high performance" endorsement. But as I recall, Lynch was frothing at the mouth over the question as it applies to a tailwheel airplane where the "qualification" issue might be a bit more pronounced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top