Expired CFI certificate?

[Lear Wanna Be]

So here is my question, I let my CFI/MEI expire. I thought I remembered something in the regs about you could still give instruction and the student could still log the time. However, that flight time logged could not count towards the minimum flight time for a given rating or license. Anybody remember anything like that? Is that true or is an expired CFI basically a worthless piece of paper? Thanks

 

[midlifeflyer]

Worthless piece of paper.

Except that it authorizes you to take a the CFI renewal ride or the CFI add-on rating ride ofyour choice and get back all of your ratings at once.

 

[lawfly]

Strictly speaking, a CFI reval (revalidation) ride. Renewal is if it hasn't yet expired. But I think that's semantics. I've done both renewal and reval. The lawyer in me would also think aloud here that it would not be a good idea to sign a logbook as an "instructor" with an expired CFI. You said the student could log the time (as dual received, apparently) and that implies that you would be signing the entry as an (expired) "instructor".

 

[midlifeflyer]

Strictly speaking, a CFI reval (revalidation) ride. Renewal is if it hasn't yet expired. But I think that's semantics.

True, although, if we are "strictly speaking," it's a CFI "reinstatement" ride Neither the regs nor any FAA reference I am aware of uses the word "revalidation." On the other hand, both the General Aviation Operations Inspector's Handbook and the DPE handbook use the word "reinstatement." (The reg, 61.199, simply refers to it as an "exchange" of the expired certificate for a new one)

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

So here is my question, I let my CFI/MEI expire. I thought I remembered something in the regs about you could still give instruction and the student could still log the time. However, that flight time logged could not count towards the minimum flight time for a given rating or license. Anybody remember anything like that? Is that true or is an expired CFI basically a worthless piece of paper? Thanks

Yikes!!! Where do people come up with this stuff?

Thats like saying "It O.K. to drive my car without a license, because I USED to have one."

Or how about "No No it's OK, I can still go see the movie, bacause I have a ticket stub from last weeks showing."

By the way honey...I can have sex with her, I used to date her after all, so it should not concern you, Tell little Johnny goodnight for me, I'll be back in the morning!

 

[nosehair]

you could still give instruction and the student could still log the time. However, that flight time logged could not count towards the minimum flight time for a given rating or license.

Sure...you can give instruction as a Learned One of The Air, but you can't log it, and he can't log it as dual. He can log it as sole manipultor. It can't count for anything except...uh,.. PROFICIENCY! Is that so wrong??

 

[A Squared]

Yikes!!! Where do people come up with this stuff?

Thats like saying "It O.K. to drive my car without a license, because I USED to have one."

Or how about "No No it's OK, I can still go see the movie, bacause I have a ticket stub from last weeks showing."

By the way honey...I can have sex with her, I used to date her after all, so it should not concern you, Tell little Johnny goodnight for me, I'll be back in the morning!

Agree, Sometimes I have to shake my head at some of the things people come up with.
One of the most bizarre I've seen was a guy on some forum (possibly this one, it's been a while) who swore up and down that the grace month provision for requalification in 61.55 allowed you to act as a required SIC on a large airplane with none of the training or qualifications, just as long as you accomplished the required training within a month of flying. Huhhh???? retroactive training?

Back to the question at hand: Folks, use the common sense test. Ask yourself, "does this make sense?" If not, chances are good that it's not true.

Does signing off dual with an expired CFI make sense? I don't think so.

Does retroactive flight training make sense? No, obviously not.