Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

CFI medical required?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

mavrck

Well-known member
Joined
May 12, 2004
Posts
201
Heres one for ya. What class of medical is required to be a current CFI?

Its obviously a trick question, but try looking it up under the requirements for the CFI certificate. I just wanna reiterate why the trial lawyers are having a field day with us.
 
ya, i guess it was easier than i thought. While it is not necessary to hold any medical for the requirements for CFI. It is still often argued that since CFI activity is considered a commercial activity therefore it falls under the requirements for comercial.
 
mavrck said:
It is still often argued that since CFI activity is considered a commercial activity therefore it falls under the requirements for comercial.
Only by those who don't know what they are talking about.

But the real rule can also be a bit misleading if it's not really understood. Remember that a CFI requires the appropriate medical if the CFI is acting as required crew. For examples,

1. CFI performing a BFR for a =current= pilot. No medical required because the pilot can act as PIC on the flight.

2. CFI performing a BFR for a pilot who is =not current=. The CFI needs to have at least a 3rd Class medical certificate because she needs to act as PIC on the flight.
 
i couldnt agree with you more! Which brings me to my point as to how the regs can be so misconstrued and interpreted differently. Clear, cut, and dry to you or me isnt so clear cut when it comes time to interpreting the regs like the lawyers do.
 
mavrck said:
I couldn't agree with you more! Which brings me to my point as to how the regs can be so misconstrued and interpreted differently. Clear, cut, and dry to you or me isn't so clear cut when it comes time to interpreting the regs like the lawyers do.
Yes and no. I say this from time to time in these discussions, but in most cases, the problem really isn't that the language used is unclear. Just that because it's a bunch of laws and regulations, it's written in a highle stylistic technical way.

How many things do we read in our regular lives that are written completely in an outline format that uses a combination of regular English words, "terms of art", and words that =sound like= regular English but are used in a very different way and may be defined hundreds of pages away in order to define rules of conduct to apply to a broad range of "what if" situations, some of which no one has even thought of yet. (Whew!)

It doesn't necessarily take a lawyer but it does take a bit of training and understanding how the language is put together. I know experienmced business people who can read contracts better and notice what's missing than most lawyers.

But without that, heck, but you might as well ask me to read a medical text.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top