CFII currency

[WMUSIGPI]

Can a CFII log FOR IFR CURRENCY the approaches, tracking, and holding that the student does while in IMC?

 

[172driver]

NO. To be IFR current, you must have performed and logged 6 approaches within the preceding 6 months. Many CFI's seem to interpret their instruction as performing the approach. Dangerous ground if you ask me.

1. Do you really think you are as proficient teaching approaches as you would be if you flew them?

2. Can you prove that to the FAA if the chit hits the fan?

 

[cjh]

Although I agree totally with 172driver's comments, unfortunately the current FAQ indicates otherwise. I've posted the current opinion below. Because I agree that the interpretation is not supported by 61.51 language, I've also included Doc's (of Doc's FAR Pages) opinion on this issue. (If you're not familiar with Doc's web site, it is THE place to get accurate information on reg interpretation. http://www.propilot.com/doc/logging2.html.)

-----------------------
From the FAA FAQ web site:
QUESTION 2: Am I correct in understanding that a CFII may log approaches that a student flies when those approaches are conducted in actual instrument conditions? Is there a reference to this anywhere in the rules?

ANSWER 2: Ref. §61.51(g)(2); Yes, a CFII may log approaches that a student flies when those approaches are conducted in actual instrument flight conditions. And this would also permit that instructor who is performing as an authorized instructor to “. . . log instrument time when conducting instrument flight instruction in actual instrument flight conditions” and this would count for instrument currency requirements under §61.57(c).

---------------------------
From Doc's FAR Pages, in response to someone asking the same question:

I strongly disagree with the FAA's policy on allowing a CFI to log approaches flown by someone else. There is simply no legal basis for it in the FAR (See the link below). Yes, I know that the FAA has issued a policy through the AFS-640 site, and you can follow that until it is changed, if you wish.

But let me ask you a couple of questions. Why would you want to log the trainee's approaches as if you had flown them? Do you want to base your instrument proficiency on someone else's ability to fly?

I certainly cannot support and will never support basing instrument currency on someone else's instrument approaches. But, the FAA certification folks will (presently) allow it as stated on the FAA AFS-640 site and as quoted by Scott. However, that policy could change at any time. And we still do not know if the FAA Chief Counsel agrees with that position or whether you would be protected if there ever was a violation alleged based on the fact that you were maintaining currency on the back of someone else. Again, the current policy is not legally supported in the FAR. The FAR allows you to log instrument TIME, but is silent as to approaches (FAR 61.51(g)).

As for logging landings, the FAR (and the FAA AFS-640 BBS) are clear. In order to log landings for recency of experience, you must be the "sole manipulator of the flight controls" -- e.g. you cannot log student-flown landings (see FAR 61.57).

 

[172driver]

Logs the time as PIC...yes. 61.51(e)(3)
Logs the instrument time...yes. 61.51(g)(2)
Logs the approach...no. 61.57(c)(1)

These areas are covered by different regulations and should not be lumped together as such. How can a CFII say they performed the approach if they never touched the flight controls? You can make an argument for 'teaching' meeting the requirement for 'performing' but I sure wouldn't want to stand up in front of the FAA Chief Counsel and do so.

 

[172driver]

Keep in mind that a question and answer IS NOT a legal interpretation.

Falcon, where'd you go?

 

[cjh]

172driver,

The other poster apparently decided to delete his comments.

I totally agree with being unable to log a student's approaches no matter how "involved" you as a CFII are with the safe landing (or miss) of the aircraft. 61.51 does not say anything that would support logging approaches. It only speaks to the ability to log the time in actual as instrument time. I have never understood the logic behind the FAQ position.

 

[cjh]

True a Q&A is not legal interpretation, but it does provide insight as to the thinking of the FAA folks, at least until changed! Obviously when one is looking for guidance and direction, short of waiting months for a response to personal correspondence, one looks to the FAQ site for the current trend in thinking.

 

[tarp]

"1. Do you really think you are as proficient teaching approaches as you would be if you flew them?"

I think this is why the FAA used "performed" instead of the usual "as sole manipulator", etc. It may be up to the person doing the performing.

As to your question, when I have a 2,000hr instrument pilot and am doing an IPC or other review, I'm not performing anything. When I have a 6hr instrument student, seeing the inside of a cloud for the first or second time, I'd say I'm performing quite a bit.

My hands may not be on the controls but if I'm watching every move to make sure that the holding pattern entry is correct, that the holding pattern is flown within specs, that we intercept radials, make calls, time, brief, descend, etc, etc - then I'd say I'm very proficient. That little bump on the right hand side of my yoke wasn't turbulence, it was me getting the airplane nudged back in the cross-hairs.

So my answer is that when you are flying in real IMC on my ticket and I'm sweating the details, you bet it's my approach and my IFR time. If it's not IMC or I'm just sitting back watching a very adept person fly the plane correctly, then I can't justify logging that one. My log book shows at least 6 approaches where I've done the work.

There are people out there that never uncouple the autopilot until they can see the ground. So I guess they didn't "perform" the approach and shouldn't count it. I guess all our 135 FOs better get out there and start "performing" some approaches because they are mostly illegal. (At least at carrier's that only have 12 month recurrent for FO's.)

I'm thinking the FAA won't have a problem with my logbook.

 

[banned username 2]

I agree with Tarp & cjh....

If it is in IMC and the student does not have an Instrument rating, then they are operating on my ticket, I am the PIC and I have the ultimate authority over the vehicle and the procedure flown...

Again, the FAA chose NOT to use the phrase "Sole manipulator of the controls" in this instance.. I don't think that was an oversight on their part, I think it was intentional for this very reason...

(my previous posts were deleted through my own stupidity, tried to combine them into one, didn't work and ended up deleting both on accident)

 

[172driver]

I'm thinking the FAA won't have a problem with my logbook.

You're probably right, at least until you do something wrong. If you screw up while IFR -- violate separation, miss a clearance, stray into a TFR, violate an altitude, bend something, etc. -- they will hang you with it if all you have to show for currency is your students' approaches. Just my opinion.

I have taught many primary IFR students and I was definitely working as hard as them to teach the approach and keep the airplane where it needed to be. So, I see your point. However, I still believe the most conservative method for logging time is the safest.

I choose to follow the regs as I see them written rather than interpreting them for my convenience. A CFII without an MEI can give instruction in a twin according to the FAQ's but I would never do it. Reason...if I have an engine failure and things go badly, they will point to the reg that says in black and white that I should not have been giving instruction in that airplane.

 

[cjh]

Thanks, but I'm not certain we do agree.

So, let me make it perfectly clear that I do NOT believe an instructor can log a student's approach just because it's done under instrument flight conditions. I don't care that the current FAQ, which "yes" I posted above, says otherwise. I don't find the supporting documentation in the FAR to back it up. So what if you have to be on your toes, so what if you're doing most of the work. You're a flight instructor and those two statements cover the initial training aspect of any maneuver. Granted the lack of VMC conditions adds to the sweat factor, but are you only slightly less dead if you screw up in VMC?

Below is the reg that covers logging of instrument flight time. Forget about 61.57, which covers currency. We're talking about logging and that's covered only under 61.51. Show me where, in 61.51(g) it says you, as a flight instructor, can log anything more than instrument flight time, given instrument flight conditions.

61.51(g) Logging instrument flight time.
(1) A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.

(2) An authorized instructor may log instrument time when conducting instrument flight instruction in actual instrument flight conditions.

(3) For the purposes of logging instrument time to meet the recent instrument experience requirements of § 61.57(c) of this part, the following information must be recorded in the person's logbook --

(i) The location and type of each instrument approach accomplished; and

(ii) The name of the safety pilot, if required.

 

[midlifeflyer]

We all know that John Lynch's FAQ has been wrong before and it will be wrong again.

But, strictly as a matter of interpretation (not necessarily wisdom), he is arguably correct. I don't know what his thinking is, but notice that =only= landing currency under 61.57(a)&(b) require the logger to be sole manipulator.

If the FAA intended that the CFII be the sole manipulator, the section would have used that language.

Note that "perform" is also used in the landing currency regs. In order to count, the landings must be "performed" with the pilot at sole manipulator. This also suggests that "perform" means something less than "manipulate the controls.

Without the sole manipulator language, we're left with the general 61.51(g) rule that an "instructor may log instrument time when conducting instrument flight instruction in actual instrument flight conditions."

Might simple be another case of what's legal isn't necessarily safe.

 

[cjh]

I disagree.

61.51(g) makes no provision for an instructor logging a student's approaches. Instrument time is allowed for "actual" conditions, but there is nothing there that allows the instructor to glom onto the student's performance of an approach for the purposes of logging.

Looking at 61.57(c), the key is the reference to the person who wishes to maintain currency. The language indicates that *that* person must be the one to *perform* and log the approach. Either the instructor is performing the approach and the student is watching or the student is executing the approach and the instructor is instructing. They can't *both* be executing the same approach. Assuming the student is logging approaches, the instructor cannot also log the same for his/her own currency. Neither 61.51 nor 61.57 support doing that.

61.57(c) is listed below, with emphasis added by me.

So, I still contend there is no supporting language for CFIIs taking their students' approaches for their own currency.

As for the argument that an instructor is soooo involved in keeping it all together, if your family were on a flight where an approach was being shot to mins, who would you rather have flying it. The guy who's actually executed them time and again, or the guy who's *watched* them exectued repeatedly. As an instructor you may be really involved, and working hard, but there's still no substitute for hands on practice.

-------------------
61.57(c) Instrument experience.
Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless within the preceding 6 calendar months, that person has:

(1) For the purpose of obtaining instrument experience in an aircraft (other than a glider), performed and logged under actual or simulated instrument conditions, either in flight in the appropriate category of aircraft for the instrument privileges sought or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of the aircraft category for the instrument privileges sought --

 

[CitationLover]

can't we all just get along?

172driver....using your logic can an airbus captain log an approach for 121 currency if using a cat-iii autoland?

 

[avbug]

The FAA did not make a mistake on the language. One must have performed the approach.

As observed previously, one must consider the circumstances of the approach.

One cannot simply claim the approach as an instructor, or as PIC. We are all aware that commonly circumstances exist in which one may be PIC, but may not be able to log the time, so that's no justification. However, this is an issue of performing, rather than manipulating.

One may fly a coupled approach via the autopilot, doing little more than monitoring, and may count the approach. In fact, for currency under certain parts for certain operations, it's required. Quite obviously, when not actually physically manipulating the controls, one may still utilize the approach for meeting the recency of experience requirements as outlined in 61.57.

In the case of a student, if the student is able to fly the approach and does so, then the student has executed and performed the approach, and you may not log it. Consider the spirit of the regulation here, which speaks to proficiency. No legal interpretation has been assigned on this subject, but the intent of the regulation is clear.

If the student is essentially an extention of the instructor, with the instructor working the student to fly the approach, then the instructor may be said to have performed the approach, even though the student may have manipulated the controls (with help).

A good rule of thumb, however, is to refrain from logging approaches flown by another individual, regardless of your function in the airplane (instructor, PIC, PNF, captain, hairy knuckled drooler, whatever).

My personal policy is that I don't log an approach or a landing that I don't fly.

 

[JediNein]

The 2000 hour IMC logged pilot may not catch everything either. How long has it been since that last IMC flight? Are those hours monitoring an autopilot and never needing to put down the cup of coffee? Or is there a freight dog in the other seat, putting on some more polish before the next interview?

Spatial disorientation can hit anyone. There's an airline pilot that crashed a 172 in Arkansas, got into the clouds and lost it. Then there is the flight instruments, vaccuum pump, and other things that will go wrong. It's sooo much easier to back up a student's judgement of instrument failure, than have to go from magazine to scanning...

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein

 

[cjh]

One cannot simply claim the approach as an instructor, or as PIC. [/I]

However, unfortunately the FAQ site says in instrument conditions the instructor can do just that, "co-claim" the approach. I posted the Q&A earlier so will not repost it here. While any number of us disagree with the opinion, as long as it sits out there any number of CFIIs will point to it to justify logging approaches they have not performed. No skin off my back, I don't and won't, but it is the point we're discussing.

One may fly a coupled approach via the autopilot, doing little more than monitoring, and may count the approach.

Yeah, I forgot the "autopilot defense". I get so tired of the autopilot being referenced in these discussions like it's a second (or third) PF. "I don't understand how we could have crashed, the autopilot was flying the plane!"

In the case of a student, if the student is able to fly the approach and does so, then the student has executed and performed the approach, and you may not log it. Consider the spirit of the regulation here, which speaks to proficiency. No legal interpretation has been assigned on this subject, but the intent of the regulation is clear.

Apparently not clear to everyone, including John Lynch!

If the student is essentially an extention of the instructor, with the instructor working the student to fly the approach, then the instructor may be said to have performed the approach, even though the student may have manipulated the controls (with help).

No different from landings. Only one person gets to do the logging.

A good rule of thumb, however, is to refrain from logging approaches flown by another individual, regardless of your function in the airplane (instructor, PIC, PNF, captain, hairy knuckled drooler, whatever).

My personal policy is that I don't log an approach or a landing that I don't fly.

Amen!

 

[cjh]

jEDI,

All the more reason to maintain currency using only approaches you actually fly, not those you observe.

 

[avbug]

Even Mr. Lynch is crystal clear on the spirit of the law, which speaks to safety. The intent of the regulation is that a pilot remain proficient.

The FAQ site, as discussed before, does contain known errors, and in some cases, does not agree with legal interpretations. Legal interpretations represent the stand of the administrator, are regulatory, and are defensible in court. The FAQ site is not.

A flight instructor who stakes his or her actions on the FAQ site, may do just as well asking someone at the FSDO, or taking a clipping from Flying magazine. All good entertainment, but none defensible, or authoratative.

Personally, I prefer the little plastic 8 ball that you turn over to get a message in the blue goo underneath. I live by what the 8 ball says. So far it's stymied my career, cost me a bank account and a marriage, but one of these days I'm going to pick it up, and it will be right...and then it's my turn to laugh.

 

[JediNein]

I work harder and scan far faster when I'm observing a student than when I'm the one flying. I've never had to rely on going out to keep current as I always am quite sharp and legally current just by flying in southern CA. If it ain't the ***** Tule Fog, it's the **** coastal fog.

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein