Currency for CFI

[cart]

Student has Private ASMEL Instrument rating and is sole manipulator of controls.

Can CFI flying with him log landings, actual instrument and night for currency purposes?

Part 91?
Part 135?

Thanks.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Student has Private ASMEL Instrument rating and is sole manipulator of controls.

Can CFI flying with him log landings, actual instrument and night for currency purposes?

Landings: no. The person logging landings for currency must be the "sole manipulator of the controls". (61.57, 135.247)

Actual instrument: yes. A CFI may log instrument time when giving instruction in actual instrument conditions. (61.51)

Night: If you're talking about logging "night" as a condition of flight, yes. There's nothing specific that says yes or no, so it falls into the catchall of CFIs logging flight time while giving instruction and the requirement to log the conditions of flight. (61.51).

If you're asking about logging night landings, no, for the same reason as any other landings.

 

[cart]

Mark, THANKS!

You've got a great website, too! I encourage all of you to see what Mark has created at:

www.midlifeflight.com

Good luck with your flying business and fly safe(ly).

 

[midlifeflyer]

You've got a great website, too! I encourage all of you to see what Mark has created at:

www.midlifeflight.com

Good luck with your flying business and fly safe(ly).

Gee, thanks. :blush:

Guess this is a good a time as any to solicit contributions - no, not money, material.

 

[CDVdriver]

Interesting.....

If I fly with a student I log all the landings, I know it strictly speaking does not count towards my currency but my logbook is (in a way) also a backup training record for my student.
And lets face it , there are very few flights where you do not get a landing in yourself, there's always something you can demonstrate.
I also log all the approaches I do with an instrument student even if it's crystal clear VFR, it shows my recency of experience.
I just mark the ones we did in actual for my own currency...

 

[avbug]

When I'm instructing, seldom do I ever touch the controls, let alone make a landing.

 

[lawfly]

Query: "authorized flight instructor" and logging of instrument PIC while instructing in IMC. FAR 61.51 (g)(2). Original hypothetical by originator of thread posed "CFI". Actual IMC suggests CFII as "authorized"? As to the the dual received aspect, matters whether Private Pilot intends to log the dual received as counting toward the instrument flight training from authorized instructor required under 61.65(d)(2)(i) for instrument rating. As for myself, I don't recall instructing in actual until I had my "double i". In any event, for the instructor to log the IMC dual given as instrument PIC, he must be "an authorized instructor."
And as for intructor PIC generally, loggable only when acting as "authorized flight instructor." 61.51(e)(3).

 

[lawfly]

Supplemental Comment: I realize that the basic certificate is "CFI" and "instrument airplane" on CFI certificate is the additional rating for what we refer to as CFII, and you have probably all meant CFII, but thought the subject could use some clarification, in view of FAR language "authorized flight instructor".

 

[midlifeflyer]

Query: "authorized flight instructor" and logging

Are you by any chance referring to the hypertechnical view, followed by next to no one, that a CFI may only log PIC when giving specifically authorized instruction. i.e., that a CFI who goes up with a fully current private pilot who intends to pursue no other ratings in order to get some recurrent training in crosswinds, may not log PIC?

 

[lawfly]

No. Not even aware of that interpretation. Referring more to the straightforward idea, but which was not specifically mentioned in the earlier posts, that CFI should be CFII in order to be "authorized" to give instruction in IMC and to log it as his own instrument PIC. That "authorized" essentially refers to instructor ratings on CFI certificate. As I recall, there may also be "make and model" experience requirements for multi instruction (at least if it's toward a multi rating given by MEI). The original hypo involved a Private Pilot ASEL with instrument rating, and a "CFI" presumably in right seat. As to crosswind hypo, if the CFI is authorized to instruct on the manuever in question for the conditions (VFR, IFR) of flight, he's "authorized" by the FAA. For VFR crosswind practice in single-engine, CFI-ASE should suffice as authorized. Really just inviting comment on "authorized" and the original hypo and CFII.

 

[lawfly]

Some further comments: One could distinguish between CFI firend who is just sitting in right seat of his friend's new airplane and friend (or relative) is fully current, fully rated, and sole manipulator. And maybe they switch seats on next leg. Really just flying for flying's sake. But that goes more to whether CFI is "acting" as an authorized instructor rather than whether he is authorized by FAA for the operation in question. Here's another hypo: Same facts as original post, with clarification that the CFI is not a CFII. And the flight is a BFR. The instrument-rated private pilot is current for all of his privileges. All goes well, except it's a coastal airport and some localized low stratus has crept in. IFR approach back into airport. Actual IMC during descent. You can modify the hypo some more if you want, but idea is there's actual on the return. Can the CFI who is not a CFII but who is conducting BFR log the actual instrument time as his own actual instrument PIC? My thinking is in general the CFI needs to be a CFII to log actual instrument PIC while acting as authorized flight instructor. But this CFI is authorized to conduct a BFR of this private pilot. With focus on whether this CFI can log the actual instrument PIC, your thoughts?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Ah. The old, "Can a CFI-One-I teach instruments".

I've never seen an official interpretation that a CFI must have the second "I" in order to give instruction in IMC and to log PIC if he does. As far as I've been able to tell from looking at a bunch of rules and official opinions, a one-I can provide instruction in IMC and the student can log training received.

The only limitation is that instrument instruction by a one-I doesn't count toward the "instrument training" requirements of any certificate or rating. (The 3 hours for the PPL isn't "instrument training", it's "instruction in flight solely by reference to instruments". Sounds similar but is treated differently)

If this was a problem, the FAA has had plenty of chances to correct it. There are more than a few flight schools in which CFI-One-Is are used to provide backup instruction to the IIs, giving the student the benefit of a sort of "safety pilot plus" and the CFI practical training toward the II.

The multi make and model experience you refer to

==============================
A flight instructor may not give training required for the issuance of a certificate or rating in a multiengine airplane, a helicopter, or a powered-lift unless that flight instructor has at least 5 flight hours of pilot-in-command time in the specific make and model of multiengine airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift, as appropriate.
==============================

is much more specific.

 

[lawfly]

cart's original question related to whether a "CFI" could log for currency purposes the approaches performed by the presumably current Pvt-Instrument in the left seat. No further info was given as to whether the CFI was "acting as an authorized instructor" as would be required for the logging of PIC time by the instructor, but I think we reasonably assumed he was aboard in some instructor capacity. The responses applied "PIC" definitions to determine if the "CFI" could log Private's actual IMC approaches for his own currency. Interestingly, although there may interpretive decisions/opinions on the subject(?), the IFR currency requirements set forth in 61.57(c)(1) do not speak of "PIC". Rather, in terms of 61.57(c)(1) currency, the requirement is that the pilot seeking to extablish his currency have "performed" the approaches "for the purpose of obtaining instrument experience in an airraft". 61.57(c)(1). Query: meaning of "performed" for purposes of IFR currency? And in relation to CFI logging thereof for IFR currency on the facts of cart's hypo and generally?
Also: I still find the use of the term "authorized instructor" worthy of note in its various contexts. For example, 61. 195(c) requires the instructor who provides flight training for the issuance of an instrument rating (not cart's hypo where Pvt. already rated) to be CFII, but 61.195(d)(6) does not expressly require the instructor giving an instrument proficiency check to be CFII and 61.57(d)(2)(iv) simply requires IPC endorser to be "an authorized instructor."
The multi make and model requirement 61.195(f) is, as midlifeflyer states, very specific. However, 61.63(c)(1) for multi rating simply requires "an authorized instructor". My point is that the term "authorized" has import. As for CFI single I's teaching in instrument course, I believe in 141-142 schools the courses in each instructor may teach are specified in the school records, etc. I guess the main question this time around is "performed" and "for the purpose of obtaining instrument experience" in 61.57 (c) (1) especially as to cart's hypo. And meaning of "authorized flight instructor" in different contexts.

 

[lawfly]

My final(?) comment: "An authorized instructor may log instrument time when conducting instrument flight instruction in actual instrument flight conditions." 61.51(g)(2)

There's that word "authorized" again. What does it mean in this context? I suggested in an earlier post that it means CFII. However, it has been suggested in response that "authorized" in this context means ANY flight instructor. (We are not talking about the Private-Instrument's log, or whether he is pursuing rating, etc., only about the CFI's logging as to: 1.) PIC 2.) Instrument 3.)Approach/IFR currency)

Additionally, 61.57(c) (2) (IFR currency) requires that a pilot seeking to act as "pilot in command" under IFR have "performed" six approaches, holding procedures, etc. within the preceding 6 calendar months. What does "performed" mean here?

I suggest that these quoted FAR provisions are central to cart's original inquiry (see start of thread).

Does "authorized instructor" for an IPC, 61.57(d)(2)(iv), mean CFII, or does it mean any instructor? To the "any instructor" advocates: Does this all mean that a CFI "single I" can give an IPC in actual IMC and log all the approaches as his own for IFR currency? Is he an "authorized instructor" for IPC purposes? For PIC purposes? For instrument purposes? Did he "perform" the approaches, for currency purposes?

 

[lawfly]

61.193, 61.193(g) shed some light. Would seem to require CFII for IPC. I worked at a 141 place years ago where for a while I was the only available double ii, and I did exclusively instrument instruction. But cart got me looking at the regs. I believe my own practice was to log actual IMC approaches with instrument students for my own currency. But then, they didn't have instrument ratings. So, I was the only one on board who could legally fly IFR and I was a CFII. Usually when the regs want "sole manipulator" they'll say it. But still think the "performed" language is interesting, especially if sole manipulator is instrument rated and current and right seat not a double ii. If training for a type rating and fly in some actual (which I did last year) guess instructor can log everything as left seat driver isn't typed yet and therefore can't be PIC. Oh well...I'm done.

Fly Safe
I'm having a "thread" with myself!! Those who know me well would not be surprised...Hey midlife, I logged my first 2,000 hours while working for Connecticut operators at HVN, BDL, GON. Long tiome ago. Maybe we'll chat sometime. You can teach me how to really fly the mountains. We have some here in CA, too. Visited your website.

 

[lawfly]

As Columbo would say, "One more thing": Want to re-iterate that I don't think the logging of approaches for currency necessarily requires one to be a PIC, but does require one to "perform" the approach (whatever that means). For example, when I was a required SIC under scheduled 135, I flew every other leg as per company policy. However, I was not PIC because my 135 endorsement was for SIC. When weather was down, as it often was, it was not uncommon for each pilot to hand fly 3 actual approaches a day, not infrequently down to 200 and a half. Did I "perform" at least the approaches I flew? I sure thought so. Did I feel current to fly a general aviation airplane single pilot Part 91 in actual? Yes, although I don't think I did during that period. Maybe in a two pilot crew both pilots "perform" every approach. I don't know. We were both double ii's, but weren't acting as instructors. Acting as 2 pilot crew per 135 cert and ops specs. Where that leaves our CFI single i in the original hypothetical, I don't know, but I think he should go get his double ii!

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'm having a "thread" with myself!!

It's been fun watching.