ifr training question

[avbug]

TDTurbo (& Hovernut),

Your examiner may not have caught the error, but the regulation is quite clear. Only the holder of a flight instructor certificate with an instrument rating ("CFII") may provide instrument instruction toward the instrument rating.

14 CFR 61.195(c) specifically states that a flight instreuctor who provides instrument flight training for the issuance of an instrument rating must hold an instrument rating on his or her flight instructor certificate ("CFII") and pilot certificate (appropriate to the catogory of aircraft to be used).

The cross country requirement found under 61.65(d)(2)(iii) is instrument training for the issuance of the instrument rating. It is required training for this rating, and MUST be provided by the holder of a CFII.

A flight instructor without an instrument rating may not provide the instrument training specified under 61.65. The examiner who recognizes this fact isn't a "dick," but one who understands and observes the regulations which govern his or her job.

To further support this, below is a copied Legal Interpretation by the FAA Chief Counsel, which is an official interpretation on the regulation. It is binding, and defensible.

FEB. 28, 1980

MRS. M. J. RUTH

Dear Mrs. Ruth:

This is in response to your letter in which you ask what are the appropriate instructor ratings required by the Federal Aviation Regulations for flight instruction in a simulator.

The following regulations provide for the crediting of flight instruction in a simulator toward required flight instruction.

Section 61.65 requires an applicant for an instrument rating to have at least 40 hours of simulated or actual instrument time, of which not more than 20 hours may be instrument instruction by an authorized instructor in an instrument ground trainer acceptable to the Administrator. These 20 hours may be given by ground instructor with an instrument ground instructor rating or by an instrument flight instructor.

Section 61.129(b)(2)(i) requires an applicant for a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane rating to have at least 10 hours of instrument instruction, of which 5 hours must be in flight in airplanes. The 5 hours which may be given in a simulator may only be given by a ground instructor with an instrument ground instructor rating or by an instrument flight instructor.

The appendices of Part 141, Schools and Other Certificated Agencies, allow certain flight training and instruction to be given in a pilot ground trainer that meets the requirements of section 141.41(a)(1) or (2). Section 141.33(a)(3) requires that instructors used for this instruction must hold a flight or ground instructor certificate as appropriate. The appropriate certificates and ratings for instruction in a ground trainer are as follows:

1. For a private pilot certification course (airplanes) [section 3(a) of Appendix A], a ground instructor certificate with any rating or a flight instructor certificate with an airplane rating.

2. For an instrument rating course (airplanes) [section 3 of Appendix C], a ground instructor certificate with an instrument ground instructor rating or a flight instructor certificate with an instrument rating.

3. For a commercial pilot certification course (airplanes) or a commercial test course (airplanes) [section 3 of Appendix D and section 4 of Appendix E], a ground instructor certificate with an advanced ground instructor rating or an instrument ground instructor rating, or a flight instructor certificate with an airplane rating.

We hope this information will be helpful to you.

Sincerely,

EDWARD P. FABERMAN
Acting Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division

 

[avbug]

2nd legal interpretation on the subject:

JUNE 20, 1979

MR. GREGORY BRUSH

Dear Mr. Brush:

In your recent letter you pose several questions regarding interpretation of Section 61.65(e) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). First, you ask whether the 20 hours of instrument instruction by an authorized instructor in an instrument ground trainer referred to in FAR Section 61.65(e)(2) may be credited toward the 200 hours total time required by FAR 61.65(e)(1). Assuming an affirmative answer the above question, you then ask whether such time should be logged merely as "total time" or specifically as "ground trainer time." Finally, you ask whether the "authorized flight instructor" referred to in FAR 61.65(e)(3) must be a certificated flight instructor with an instrument rating, and more generally, what type of instructor is required by FAR Sections 61.107 (introductory paragraph), 61.107(a) and (b), 61.127 (introductory paragraph), and 61.129(b)(2)(i).

Up to 20 hours instrument ground trainer time, acceptable as instrument time under FAR 61.65(e)(2), may be credited toward the 200 hours total time required by FAR 61.65(e)(1). Such time should be logged specifically as instrument ground trainer time, since only 20 hours may be credited toward the total time requirement.

Since Section 61.65(e)(2) refers to "instrument instruction" by an authorized instructor, the instructor must have an instrument instruction rating. Section 61.107 refers to "instruction from an authorized instructor" and to "control and maneuvering an airplane solely by reference to instruments," rather than to "instrument instruction;" therefore, any certificated flight instructor (CFI) may give the type of instruction described in FAR 61.107. The instrument instruction required by FAR 61.129(b)(2)(i) must be given by a certificated flight instructor with instrument instruction rating. Other non-instrument instruction required by FAR 61.127 may be given by any CFI.

We hope this information will be of assistance to you.

Sincerely,

EDWARD P. FABERMAN
Acting Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division
Office of the Chief Counsel

 

[TDTURBO]

Sorry avbug but this time I don't get your point.

If anything you just proved mine.

I don't know many CFI's that don't have an instrument rating, do you?

It is my contention that a CFI with an instrument rating can go along the instrument x-country and does not have to be a CFII. Nowhere does it say that the instrument x-country has to be conducted by a CFII, only that 15 hrs of your training towards that rating. Unless I am missing something, I still have to disagree with you avbug.

Regards.

 

[MetroSheriff]

It is my contention that a CFI with an instrument rating can go along the instrument x-country and does not have to be a CFII. Nowhere does it say that the instrument x-country has to be conducted by a CFII, only that 15 hrs of your training towards that rating. Unless I am missing something, I still have to disagree with you avbug.

Regards.

Since Section 61.65(e)(2) refers to "instrument instruction" by an authorized instructor, the instructor must have an instrument instruction rating. Section 61.107 refers to "instruction from an authorized instructor" and to "control and maneuvering an airplane solely by reference to instruments," rather than to "instrument instruction;" therefore, any certificated flight instructor (CFI) may give the type of instruction described in FAR 61.107. The instrument instruction required by FAR 61.129(b)(2)(i) must be given by a certificated flight instructor with instrument instruction rating. Other non-instrument instruction required by FAR 61.127 may be given by any CFI.


My contention would be that, as the ifr x/c is a required element of the training, it must be conducted under the guidance of an authorized instructor. Within that context, authorized means someone holding the CFIAI. I think it would be a strecth to call the x/c "non-instrument" instruction. The hour requirements need to be completed, and so do the specific elements laid out in the regulation. Which includes the ifr x/c.

 

[172driver]

All of those reg citations must be using old numbers as the regs cited say nothing like what is posted. However, the point is still taken. The IFR X-C is 61.65(d)(iii) in my book but specifically states "instrument training" is to be given. This training is required fior the instrument rating.

If such training must be given by a CFI-I, as you seem to imply, then the DPE is correct in his interpretation. I believe the first post by avbug citing 61.195(c) pretty much sums it up correctly.

 

[avbug]

TD,

You're not understanding the regulation.

All flight instructors hold a commercial pilot certificate with an instrument rating. However, this doesn't mean they hold an instrument rating on their instructor certificate.

The pilot certificate and the flight instructor certificate are entirley different certificates. In order to provide instrument instruction for any certificate or rating, a flight instructor MUST hold an instrument rating on his or her pilot certificate, and must also hold an instrument rating on his or her instructor certificate.

One who holds an instrument rating on his or her instructor certificate is commonly referred to as a "CFII." Without a CFII, one CANNOT provide instrument instruction toward any certificate or rating.

A flight instructor who holds only a CFI, but does not hold a CFII, may not provide instrument instruction toward any certificate or rating. The previous legal interpretations were very clear on the subject. It did not prove your point at all; you are wrong.

The flight instructor certificate is just that; a certificate that can have ratings placed upon it. One of those ratings is the instrument rating, commonly known as Instrument Instructor (CFII). 14 CFR 61.183(c)(2) requires that the applicant for a flight instructor certificate already hold an instrument rating on his or her commercial (or higher) pilot certificate. Again, this is not at all the same as holding an instrument rating on the flight instructor certificate. Two separate certificates, two separate ratings. Two separate practical tests, and very different privileges.

 

[Hovernut]

Once again, Avbug to the rescue! Thanks for posting the legal interpretations. **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** that government-speak in the FARs!! Just goes to show you how much "bum dope" and "tribal knowledge" is floating around out there! Thank goodness we have some seasoned and knowledeable people around here to set us pups straight.


Geez! I didn't know dam n was on "the list!"

 

[avbug]

172driver,

The reason that the numerical references to the regulation are different that your current copy, is that the legal interpretations were made ten years ago. Due to recodification and realignment of the various references, the numbers change. However, the interpretation is still of effect, and still legally defensible.

The point of both interpretations is very clear; one must hold a CFII to provide required instrument instruction. In the case of the cross country required under 14 CFR 61.65(d)(2)(iii) , this must be performed by a CFII, as it is instrument instruction for the purpose of meeting the experience requirements for the instrument rating.

 

[TDTURBO]

OK, avbug...so where does that leave me? Is my instrument rating bogus because my x-country was done by a CFI instead of a CFII?

 

[avbug]

TD,

Your instrument rating is valid because it was issued by the Administrator and is in your posession. I would suggest that you don't go down to the local FSDO and point it out, any more than one might offer pictures of one's bachelor party to one's wife...but the rating itself is valid.

An inspector could legally require a retest based on the omission of a qualified instructor on that one requirement, but he or she would have to be really out on a limb with little else in life to worry about (there are quite a few such folks employed by the Administration, incidentally). I really don't think it will ever be an issue, nor do I think anybody will ever look at your log book and know the difference unles you point it out. You'd almost have to have that entry hilighted, and have a big notation there that said something like "This particular entry was used to meet the qualification requirements of 14 CFR 61.65(d)(2)(iii), and doesn't quite cut it..."

In other words, I wouldn't worry about it for a second. It's past, and really doesn't matter any more. I realize that viewpoint isn't consistant in appearance with previouis statements, as it's rather like stating that once someone gets away with something, it's okay...but in this case I really don't think anyone will ever care, and I doubt you ever intended to get away with anything, anyway. You sought qualified instruction, did your part, and here you are.

Most of us have done a rolling stop at an intersection a time or two. Because we're caught doesn't make it legal, but once we're past the intersection, we forget about it and move on. That's probably the best thing to do.