ifr training question

[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.

 

[172driver]

So, am I to take from this that any instrument flight time toward a rating, including pvt and comm, must be given by a CFI-I?

This seems awfully strange since 61.195 specifically states that you must hold a CFI-I to "provide instrument flight training for the issuance of an instrument rating or a type 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 reg says "toward the instrument rating," not any certificate or rating.

Since Section 61.65(e)(2) refers to "instrument instruction" by an authorized instructor, the instructor must have an instrument instruction rating.

61.65(e)(2) says that a maximum of 20 hrs may be performed in in that sim or FTD. The 20 hrs can be counted toward the 40 hrs of actual or simulated time required by 61.65(d)(2). It has always been my impression that this 40 hrs is flight time, not training. If the applicant wishes, he/she may rent an airplane and do the 40 hrs with a safety pilot. This would certainly not be 'instrument training.' So, why would the Administrator require the sim time required by the same reg to be given by a CFI-I? I think a regular CFI would qualify in the sim as well as a safety pilot would qualify in an airplane.

I agree that the instrument x-c must be done with a CFI-I. Same goes for the 15 hrs of instrument training and the 3 hrs within 60 days. Thes are true because 61.195 specifically requires a CFI-I to give instrument training toward the instrument rating .

As far as instrument training toward the pvt and commercial tickets, I see nothing in the regs that supports the assertion that it must be given by a CFI-I. Avbug, maybe you can help me out here. I'm not sure that the interpretations are actually saying this as the reg numbers have changed but I see that you are definitely saying any instrument flight training toward any rating must be given by a CFI-I. I don't buy it yet.

 

[avbug]

172,

Instrument time is not required for the private pilot certificate. Flight by reference to instruments, as required by 61.109(a)(3) is NOT instrument training. Therefore, an instructor certificate with an instrument rating ("CFII") is NOT required. For the purposes of meeting this requirement, a regular old CFI will do the trick.

For the purposes of meeting the instrument training requirements of the commercial pilot certificate as specified under 61.129(a)(3)(i), a CFII is required (technically a CFI-IA, for airplanes). The following quote from the AFS-640 FAQ section addresses this topic. It's authored by the man who wrote 14 CFR 61, Mr. Allen Pinkston.

QUESTION: §61.129(c)(3)(i) is the rule that requires instrument training for a commercial pilot certificate with a helicopter rating and the rule states “10 hours of instrument training in an aircraft” Does this instrument training have to be given by a CFII?

ANSWER: Yes and the CFII must be for the category and class of aircraft that the training is being given in. For example, if the training is being given in an airplane, then the CFII would have to hold an instrument-airplane rating on his or her flight instructor. If the training is being given in a helicopter, then the CFII would have to hold an instrument-helicopter rating on his or her flight instructor certificate.

172, you also asked about instruction provided in a simulator or flight training device. If that instruction is required instrument instruction, then yes, it must be given by the holder of a flight instructor certificate with an instrument rating, or a ground instructor certificate with an instrument rating. This means either CFII, or IGI.

You may not buy the legal interpretations, but that's a little like saying you don't buy the law. There you have it; take it up with the Administrator, because a legal interpretation represents the administrator, is legally binding, and fully defensible in administrative court.

 

[desert pilot]

an agi can give instrument ground training,sorry dont have the book to back it up but thats what my faded memory says,an igi is not needed if you have agi.

 

[avbug]

Desert,

You are correct. However, to clarify, the holder of a ground instructor with an advanced rating (AGI) may give ground instruction for any certificate or rating, but may not endorse or recommend for the instrument rating. The IGI is specifically required to do that, under 61.215(c)(3).

 

[desert pilot]

avbug,a while ago there was a debate and seemed like the agi wins again,igi is history,check it out!

 

[172driver]

It's not that I don't buy the legal interpretations. I fully understand their importance. My point was that any time you spend in the sim for an instrument rating does not have to be instrument training, only instrument time. It counts only toward the 40 hrs of instrument time required by 61.65(d)(2). However, an authorized instructor must be present to log sim time, thus I think a CFI will suffice. If a private pilot can accompany the instrument applicant in the airplane as safety pilot, obviously the 40 hrs doesn't have to be training. The sim time is the same...not training, only loggable instrument time. Agree? The legal interpretation only applies to training in the sim toward the instrument rating (of which none is required), not time.

I buy the CFII giving the instrument training toward the commercial ticket only because I've now seen the interpretation. Thank you avbug. I don't understand how that interpretation can come from the regs, but apparently it does. 61.195 specifically states that a CFI must hold the II in order to give
instrument training toward the instrument rating. Seems pretty clear. Why on earth wouldn't they just say "in order to give instrument training toward a rating" and leave it at that? I believe the interpretation but don't know how anyone would know by looking at the regs alone. Most interpretations are from the grey areas of the regs. This one appears to be pretty much spelled out and yet the interpretation is contradictory. Again, thank you for your continued effort to straighten us out avbug.

 

[Hovernut]

FSDO's Answer

Just got back from a shoot at the safety center. The Orlando FSDO Safety Program Manager said the training's gotta come from a CFII.

 

[avbug]

172,

The last quote I used from the AFS-640 site isn't regulatory, nor is it an interpretation. It's put out by the man who writes Part 61, but his comments are informational only. They don't carry the weight of an interpretation. However, in this case, they fairly clearly define the regulation, and that's the reason I included them.

THe logging of instrument time does not require the presence of a flight instructor. Required instrument training does, however.

Certainly one may credit simulated instrument flight experience toward the total experience, but we've been talking about the required instrument training provided for a certificate or rating, where appropriate. In each case, it must be provided by the holder of a flight instructor certificate with an instrument rating (CFII).

The regulation is always being revised. When what we commonly call the "FAR" was created from the CAR, it was designed to be an open document that will evolve with experience and time. It does just that. The coficiation and the regulation is subject to change and grow with the industry at large. It is indeed a living document.

Accordingly, while it may not always have the language we might prefer, with patience rest assured that you'll see it. Part 61 is undergoing another major re-write, and you'll most likely see changes in wording to close loopholes and clarify common misunderstandings.