Ground Instructor

[AC560]

Can a licensed ground instructor endorse a persons log book for simulator time used in conjunction with teaching aeronautical knowledge for a certificate/flight review?

I don't think so but couldn't find anything real clear one way or another.

 

[JediNein]

An advanced ground instructor is god on the ground. They can endorse anyone for anything that they've taught while on the ground in simulators, FTDs, PCATDs, procedure trainers, and regular old-fashioned chalk talks. No type ratings, engine ratings, or even any sort of a pilot certificate is required.

ref 61.215(b)

It's a nice certificate to have if a Fed is questioning your qualifications to conduct any sort of a flight review or IPC. Be aware that the current IFR PTS requires a circle-to-land approach for an IPC, so most FTDs and PCATDs don't qualify.

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein

 

[AC560]

Can you sign off IFR as an advanced ground instructor or do you need to take both the advanced ground instructor and the instrument instructor tests (in addition to the fundamentals of instruction test).

It looks like you can sign off somebody for a knowledge test for a certificate but you need the instrument to sign off for that test.

61.215(b)(3) & 61.215(c)(3)

 

[AC560]

double post

 

[nosehair]

Can you sign off IFR as an advanced ground instructor or do you need to take both the advanced ground instructor and the instrument instructor tests (in addition to the fundamentals of instruction test).

It looks like you can sign off somebody for a knowledge test for a certificate but you need the instrument to sign off for that test.

61.215(b)(3) & 61.215(c)(3)

You are correct in your assesment of the way the regulation reads today.
This is a mistake that showed up in the part 61 re-write a few years ago.
I think they added "or rating" to (b)(1). It used to require an IGI to do any instrument ground instruction, (Gee, imagine that!) but the reg has changed so that it looks like an AGI can give GI for a 'rating', which seems to allow 'instrument instruction', but can not endorse for an instrument knowledge test. I am hopful that the next go-round of reg changes will correct that.

Do the double-eye, be professional; don't take unfair advantage of a regulatory glitch to give unqualified instrument instruction.

 

[JediNein]

Do the double-eye, be professional; don't take unfair advantage of a regulatory glitch to give unqualified instrument instruction.

As the fellow who wrote the reg stated, "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth."

If you want, get the IGI, but it is not required. One can do everything ground-related for any IFR certificates or ratings with an AGI.

Why is complying with a reg unprofessional? The FAA has had 9+ years to change the reg if they didn't like it.

 

[nosehair]

Why is complying with a reg unprofessional? The FAA has had 9+ years to change the reg if they didn't like it.

How can you teach instruments if you don't know them?
Yeah, I know you can be very knowledgeable and very good at teaching without the documentation, but the 'professionals', doctors, lawyers, flight instructors, etc., get the documentation. Maybe you see it only as a necessary inconvienience, but patients, clients, students, etc., rely on these 'papers of qualification' to weed out the 'unprofessionals' that would otherwise feed on the unaware.

I cannot give you an answer about why the FAA hasn't changed the reg.
My gut feeling is that it (ground instruction) is so low on the totem pole of 'important things to do', that they haven't priorotized it at all.

That's also true of most other flight training subjects.

 

[agpilot34]

Ground instruction is low on the "thing's to do" list?? Seems to me from seeing, hearing, and being around some of the pilots come out of training these days it ought to be one of the TOP things on that list. That's where you learn (or are SUPPOSED to learn) the basic fundamentals... basic aerodynamics, flight planning, aviation calculations and formulas, basic navigation fundamentals, etc. But then again, this is the FAA we're talking about.

 

[minitour]

How can you teach instruments if you don't know them?

How do you know the AGI signing off Suzy for her written doesn't know instruments?

The more accurate question is "how can you teach instruments if your knowledge on them wasn't tested?"

-mini

 

[JediNein]

Yeah, I know you can be very knowledgeable and very good at teaching without the documentation, but the 'professionals', doctors, lawyers, flight instructors, etc., get the documentation.

So why aren't more flight instructors Master CFIs through NAFI? It's 'just' more documentation. Are the non-MCFIs any less professional?

FAA doesn't require an IGI, even tried to take mine away when I got the AGI, so why get it?

Besides, the less folks with the IGI, the more will have to scramble for when the FAA ever gets around to re-writing the regs. (PTS re-writes in progress right now, 180 power off accuracy approach and landing will soon be in the Private Pilot PTS)

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein