CFI teaching instrument

[midlifeflyer]

it doesn't state it explicitly, thus it is a grey area (like a lot of reg's).

i got this confirmed from Larry Sturm of the Charlotte FSDO because we had a DE saying the spin endorsement HAD to be done within the 3 hrs prep time requirement from 61.39. we kinda beat the spin stuff around.

I'm not sure I see the reasoning. I don't find

Except for an instructor who meets the requirements of paragraph (h)(3)(ii) of this section, a flight instructor who provides training to an initial applicant for a flight instructor certificate must -

particularly vague. But grey or not, I wouldn't rely too much on the result of a jaw session. Although not really regulatory, there is a question in the Part 61 FAQ that asks whether non-24-month CFIs can be used for any of the initial CFI training. Lynch's answer is "no".

QUESTION: Our FSDO has come across a situation that seems to be a clear noncompliance issue with initial CFI training and we want to confirm our interpretation of the regulations.

§ 61.195(h) is the issue. Two local Part 61 training schools are taking the position that required training for the initial CFI can be given, in substantial part, by instructors that do not meet the two year/200 hour requirements of 61.195(h) ("senior instructors" in the local vernacular). As we read the regulation all instruction required for an initial CFI applicant has to be conducted by a CFI meeting the two year/200 hour requirement.

Can a "junior" instructor can be used in preparing an initial CFI applicant, and if so, what limitations on their use would apply?

ANSWER: Ref. § 61.195(h)(2); NO, a "junior" instructor cannot be used.

In accordance with § 61.195(h)(2), which states in pertinent part, ". . . who provides training to an initial applicant for a flight instructor certificate must- . . . . held a flight instructor certificate for at least 24 months . . . have given at least 200 hours of flight training . . ."

The rule requires that the training resulting in the required endorsements for an initial flight instructor applicant must be given by a CFI who meets the requirements of § 61.195(h)(2). Notice that this question does not involve the requirements for an instructor serving in an FAA-approved school under § 61.195(h)(3)(ii).

 

[midlifeflyer]

Careful on the GPS training. Two FSDOs in CA consider avionics training to be "instrument instruction" requiring a CFII.

Are these the same guys who some years ago said that when a CFI was giving instruction to a private pilot only one of them could log PIC?

 

[JediNein]

Are these the same guys who some years ago said that when a CFI was giving instruction to a private pilot only one of them could log PIC?

Entirely possible. Both FSDOs have cracked down on CFIs not logging ground instruction, private pilots flying for commercial operations, runway incursions (both ATC and pilot errors), and "junior" (>24 months and 200 hours dual) instructors teaching instructor wannabes.

Fortunately on the mechanic's side, both FSDOs are arguing the directive from above that allows inspectors to approve a Form 337 for an STC, but NOT the Aircraft Flight Manual Supplement that is part of the STC and required by the 337.

There is a saying that there are 12 different FAAs. . .

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein

 

[CitationLover]

not using the results of a jaw session with the FSDO. i have a letter from them stating this.

here are some other grey areas to ponder....

can an instrument student log pic in actual imc with a cfii giving instruction?

can a commercial student log pic in a complex/hp airplane with no endorsement while being instructed by a cfi?

does an lda w/ glide slope constitute a precision or nonprecision approach when using this for an alternate?

 

[SpinDoctor]

not much to ponder over here.


yes, yes, and precision. all legal.

 

[CitationLover]

i agree with you on your answers using common sense, however they are not black and white.

prove to me how you do not need a complex endorsement to log pic in a complex airplane using the reg's (which states it pretty clearly in 61.31(e)), not just a yes answer. it is an interpretation of how we read a reg and as such it is grey.

fyi, the lda anser is wrong according to AIM 5-4-5(a)(7). it says it is an "approach with vertical guidance" and neither a precision or nonprecision.