CFII currency

[cjh]

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.

Well, I think Mr. Lynch deserves more respect than that. One just needs to remember his opinions aren't binding and like all the rest of us, also not infallible.

 

[midlifeflyer]

cjh wrote:
Well, I think Mr. Lynch deserves more respect than that. One just needs to remember his opinions aren't binding and like all the rest of us, also not infallible.

Maybe. But ...

"However, the answers in this website address Frequently Asked Questions on 14 CFR part 61 and represents FAA Flight Standards Service policy as it relates to this regulation. The answers are provided for standardization purposes only."

which means that even John's incorrect interpretations are intended to represent standard policy for DPS and FSDOs and to be looked to for guidance in answering Part 61 (and 141) questions. The disclaimer doesn't change that.

When Lynch changes almost 20 years of official FAA policy with a stroke of the pen (as he did with the logging PIC during high performance training) and that becomes what FSDOs and DPE pass on as policy, it's a potentially bigger problem than a bunch of folks sitting around trying to figure out if you can log PIC when your let your 9-year old niece fly the airplane for a while.

 

[cjh]

True, but then there are all those other interpretations provided that do represent a clearer insight into the meaning of the regs.

Like everyone else, I agree that where there is any confusion legal interpretations are the best, but in lieu of that a site that provides guidelines is certainly preferable to 1000 different opinions with no alternative. Lynch's site does that. It may not be the best but it could also be a lot worse.

Of course, my favorite site for the regs is Doc's FAR Pages. However, as Doc acknowledges, they are his opinions and so unfortuantely don't carry the weight of the FAA. When I have a question about a reg, though, his opinion is the one I'd take to the bank. Plus, his opinions are always written in a courteous and professional manner, and I appreciate that.

Look, regardless how it may sound, I'm not sitting here trying to defend the FAA or John Lynch. I have a lot of respect for Avbug's insights, but there are times when he feels compelled to try and make a point by belittling either the subject matter or the author. His statement comparing Lynch's writings to "good entertainment, but none defensible, or authoratative" was out of line imo, and so I posted a response.

As for the original question, logging student's approaches, one is free after all to log whatever one wants. It all comes down to personal responsibility. If an instructor wishes to use Lynch's position to increase the approach quantity so be it. I don't and won't put anyone's work in my logbook other than my own, but that's me. I wonder how many instructors who log a student's efforts as their aren't even aware of Lynch's stance on the subject?

 

[avbug]

As the FSDO a question, get an answer. Stake your reputation on it, and you're gambling. The opinion or direction gained at the FSDO level has no authority. While fun, it's value is perhaps thought provoking, perhaps enraging, perhaps interesting. Entertainment.

Ask John Lynch a question, and read it on the FAQ site. While Mr. Lynch has had a large hand in the shaping of Part 61, as did Allen Pinkston (who does answer email, letters, and calls directly), their information falls into the same category as that from the FSDO. Being unoffical, it carries no more weight than any opinion I might have.

I would be very disappointd if someone were to base their actions on anything I say. It would be a foolish mistake. The same applies for someone who calls the local FSDO, and then stakes their career on "the FSDO said it was okay." The same is absolutely true of Mr. Lynch's site, and he advises this quite clearly at the beginning of the site. He prefaces his comments to make it clear that it is informative, thought provoking, intersting, perhaps angering...whatever...and that is what makes up good drama...but still isn't defensible in court.

You could just as easily say, in enforcement action, "my mamma said..."

It might even do you more good. Everybody fears mamma.

 

[midlifeflyer]

> but still isn't defensible in court

That's probably right. But despite the FAA's tendency to make up the rules in the middle of a hearing (supported by case law), if the following took place in the just the right proportions, I could see an Admin judge saying that, even if there is a violation, they are not going to hammer the pilot:

1. No =official= FAA interpretation existing
2. Lynch's interpretation is clear on the subject
3. The pilot isn't an a**hole
4. The pilot wasn't trying to get away with something, but was acting in good faith.

Actually, in that siuation the case probably wouldn't get as far as an NTSB hearing. It's hard to prosecute someone for littering when the cop on the beat says that this particular corner is an okay drop point.

 

[bobbysamd]

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

No, no, a thousand times, no.

14 CFR 61.57(c)(1) is clear on this subject:

(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 --

(i) At least six instrument approaches;

(ii) Holding procedures; and

(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation systems.

(emphasis added)

Clearly, the "performed" part of "performed and logged" means just that; you have to perform the procedure in question. You have not performed the procedure if your student flew it.

We had a Chief Pilot at FSI who tried to sell us instructors on counting our students' approaches and night takeoffs and landings as our own. He didn't get far. He was trying this con on us because he was too tight to let instructors have proficiency time.

The FAQs posted on an FAA web site and similar letters from FAA counsel are intended strictly for guidance. They are not black-letter law. In fact, the FAA operates something like the IRS. The IRS rules on each matter on a case-by-case basis, even though some cases appear to be identical. The IRS issues something called Private Letter Rulings, to which tax lawyers and accountants subscribe. Private Letter Rulings give you an idea which way the wind is blowing, but cannot be counted on as being dispositive of an issue.

Finally, consider it from a common-sense and safety perspective. Conceivably, under the assumption that an instrument instructor can count his/her students' approaches, an instructor who works in an IMC-rich environment could be regarded as instrument current without ever having his/her hands on the controls! That is not the intent of this reg.

Hope this helps a little more.

 

[cjh]

BobbyS,

I think you're preaching to the choir for the most part. Those of us who would never dream of logging any approach other than our own are sitting here applauding and agreeing with you.

However, those who log student approaches in their own logbooks almost seem to take pride in the fact. We've all seen the posts, on this board as well as others, from instructors who seem to think that to actually teach an instrument student in instrument flight conditions constitutes such a monumental achievement the entry is their hard fought right. As I posted earlier, I wonder how many of those individuals are even aware of Lynch's position on the matter. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find these same individuals logging student landings as well.

As I said before, it all comes down to personal responsibility. Thanks for adding your .02.

 

[bobbysamd]

FAA "advice"

You betcha.

What bothers me especially about this interpretation is that it is given under color of the FAA. In other words, if the FAA says so, it must be correct, and logic, interpreting the regs according to their plain meaning, and common sense be d@mned. I sure would be embarrassed if I could not demonstrate an approach(es) and holding during an interview sim ride, although my logbook said I had logged umpteen dozens of approaches in actual during the past six months!

Don't forget, folks, if you are an instrument instructor you can still log the actual. 14 CFR 61.51(g)(2). Isn't that what really matters to your logbook?

 

[PRO AV8R]

The TRUE question here is - If you are "Current", are you "Proficient"? The answer is an astounding no. Hopefully everbody knows the difference.

 

[midlifeflyer]

No, no, a thousand times, no.

14 CFR 61.57(c)(1) is clear on this subject:

Okay, it's clear enough that Lynch (and a lot of people) has a different interpretation (and he probably =is=wrong) but tell me,

what's the difference between "sole manipulator of the controls" and "perform"?

If they mean the same thing, why two different phrases?

If they mean something different, what?

 

[bobbysamd]

Sole manipulator v. perform

what's the difference between "sole manipulator of the controls" and "perform"?

14 CFR 61.57(a), (b) and (e) reference "sole manipulator." All of these sections discuss takeoffs and landings. 14 CFR 61.57(c), which we're discussing, references instrument procedures. That's where I see the difference.

I learned in my legal writing class in paralegal school that one should use the same terms throughout a piece because changing them within the piece could confuse meaning. 14 CFR 61.57 has undoubtedly been redrafted several times, but maybe several drafters were involved in writing it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

bobbysamd wrote:
14 CFR 61.57(a), (b) and (e) reference "sole manipulator." All of these sections discuss takeoffs and landings. 14 CFR 61.57(c), which we're discussing, references instrument procedures. That's where I see the difference.

Ah, so "sole manipulator" means "sole manipulator" only when we're talking only abut takeoff and landing currency, logging PIC time, glider towing currency and instructor requirements under Part 142. And "perform" means "sole manipulator" but only for approaches.

Hmmmm....

Can you tell me what "is" is?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Just came across a post in another group discussing this.

Are there approaches that =require= more than one pilot to perfrom them?

 

[WMUSIGPI]

Sounds like everyone has thier own opinion. It also sounds like it is time that the FAA put together a website like the Lynch site and make the answers official, legal, and binding rather than leaving everyone to make up thier own opinions and decide which is right after the fact.

As for logging issue, I agree that logging students' approaches in actual is legal for currency (at least today it is... who knows tomorrow) and yes I also log all of my students landings...BUT NOT FOR CURRENCY... I try to keep my log entries as close as possible to my students. Rather than just write in instrument training I actually list which approaches were flown or commercial training I list which maneuvers, and as part of that I list every landing done on the flight. I specifically do a night flight with 3 full stop landings within every 90 days to show currency. I don't think it's right to "steal a landing" on a dual flight to keep myself current or to count a last moment grab of the yoke to save a bad landing as a landing for currency. Besides that is only half the requirement anyway, you still haven't done 3 takeoffs that way.

As far as instrument currency I think that everyone should do a 6 month IPC and put an end to the 6 approaches and holding stuff.
A person that hasn't flown IFR in 10 months that then grabs a friend and does 6 approaches and a hold and tracking (hooded)isn't safe to be flying IFR most likely. But they are legal. And the same thing might hold true for a CFII but as the rules are today both can and do take off into the clouds legally.

 

[cjh]

Can you tell me what "is" is?

Hey, he never said he was playing the part of a president!

And on that subject, could someone please tell Martin Sheen that he is.

 

[cjh]

Just came across this in another Q&A. To further muddy the waters, you'll note this response makes clear the intent of 61.57 is to be hands-on! The answer makes no exception for any subset of 61.57 or certificate held, and the questioner specifically references the inability to log approaches.

"QUESTION: I recently upgraded to captain and have a question regarding the logging of flight time. My question is: As the PIC, when I’m not the flying pilot, should I be logging night and/or instrument flight time? Obviously the approaches can't be logged, but I'm wondering if the actual instrument time can be logged. Same goes for the night time.

ANSWER: Ref. § 61.51(e)(2) and § 61.57; If you’re a holder of an ATP certificate, and provided you’re “. . . acting as pilot-in-command of an operation requiring an airline transport pilot certificate” then yes you may log actual instrument time and night time while acting as pilot-in-command. But don’t read into that answer, that you can count the time toward meeting the recent flight experience of § 61.57. Because you can’t. Those requirements are “hands-on-the-controls” requirements."

 

[midlifeflyer]

Logging student activities generally

and yes I also log all of my students landings...BUT NOT FOR CURRENCY...

in a separate column? If not, how can someone tell the difference between the ones that count and the ones that don't just by looking at your logbook?

(BTW, I have a different approach on student flights. The only thing that appears in my logbook is the time that counts for me. So long as my student's logbook shows a record of maneuvers that Part 61 says must be logged as a prerequisite for a certificate we're working on, I don't much care what else is put in the student's "remarks" column. My "remarks" column only contains the student's name. I use a separate document, signed by both me and the student as the record of everything covered in the flight.)

 

[WMUSIGPI]

by putting in the remarks section "3 night full stop patterns solo for currency"

 

[WMUSIGPI]

Just came across this in another Q&A. To further muddy the waters, you'll note this response makes clear the intent of 61.57 is to be hands-on! The answer makes no exception for any subset of 61.57 or certificate held, and the questioner specifically references the inability to log approaches.

"QUESTION: I recently upgraded to captain and have a question regarding the logging of flight time. My question is: As the PIC, when I’m not the flying pilot, should I be logging night and/or instrument flight time? Obviously the approaches can't be logged, but I'm wondering if the actual instrument time can be logged. Same goes for the night time.

ANSWER: Ref. § 61.51(e)(2) and § 61.57; If you’re a holder of an ATP certificate, and provided you’re “. . . acting as pilot-in-command of an operation requiring an airline transport pilot certificate” then yes you may log actual instrument time and night time while acting as pilot-in-command. But don’t read into that answer, that you can count the time toward meeting the recent
flight experience of § 61.57. Because you can’t. Those requirements are “hands-on-the-controls” requirements."

That is being asked by an ATP not a CFII so we are not comparing the same thing. The ATP pilot is not acting as and authorized instructor in this example he is acting as a pilot.

But all the more reason to have the FAA come up with an OFFICIAL " Q/A " site

 

[cjh]

Yeah, I realized he was asking as a pilot, not an instructor. My point, although I should have clarified it, was that we have two differing opinions from the same source as to what 61.57 means.

If that particular reg is meant to be applied differently to instructors then it should state that. It doesn't, however, which would lead me to believe that it is meant to be applied equally to everyone looking to maintain currency. I believe that "that person...has performed and logged" doesn't somehow take on a different meaning with respect to instructors than to all other pilots.

Note in comparison 61.51 with regard to logging. Instructors are granted specific, separate logging privileges.