Instrument Dual in a Multi

[nosehair]

Right! That's right, Ralgha, under Aircraft Ratings, when you're teaching for the purpose of an aircraft rating, such as a multi-engine rating, then you must have the MEI, but under (C) Instrument Rating, the provision is that, if the instruction is for the purpose of obtaining an instrument rating in a multi-engine airplane, then the instructor must have an instrument rating on his/her pilot and flight instructor certificate that is appropriate to the category and class. But if the training is not for the purpose of obtaining an instrument rating, such as instrument proficiency, then the regulation does not require the CFI to have an MEI. If you are taking (b) alone as justification, then how do you account for (c)?



(and you don't have to shout like that - it's rude.)

 

[midlifeflyer]

No need to yell Ralgha, but I agree with you. There's nothing in (b) that says "except as provided in (c)" and nothing in (c) that says ("notwithstanding anything to the contrary in (b)."

I really think that they are really are pretty simple sentences

(b) says that you can't give =any= instruction in an aircraft unless you have appropriate aircraft category and class ratings.

(c) says that you can't give instruction toward an instrument rating (and some other stuff) in an aircraft unless you have an instrument rating on your CFI certificate and on your pilot certificate that is appropriate to the category or class.

Or maybe FAA legal will come out with an opinion that says that a pilot with a pilot certifciate that says

Commercial ASEL
Private AMEL with a VFR restriction
IA

and a CFI certifciate that says
SEL
IA

can teach single-engine instrument approaches in an Aztec.

 

[Ralgha]

Sorry I didn't intend it to be taken as yelling, just wanted to emphasize (and use the nifty font tools)!

Being able to provide instrument training in a multi-engine airplane without a multi-engine CFI rating would be like flying a multi-engine airplane without a multi-engine rating as long as you had an instrument rating and never looked out the windows.

 

[Ralgha]

No need to yell Ralgha, but I agree with you. There's nothing in (b) that says "except as provided in (c)" and nothing in (c) that says ("notwithstanding anything to the contrary in (b)."

I really think that they are really are pretty simple sentences

(b) says that you can't give =any= instruction in an aircraft unless you have appropriate aircraft category and class ratings.

(c) says that you can't give instruction toward an instrument rating (and some other stuff) in an aircraft unless you have an instrument rating on your CFI certificate and on your pilot certificate that is appropriate to the category or class.

Or maybe FAA legal will come out with an opinion that says that a pilot with a pilot certifciate that says

Commercial ASEL
Private AMEL with a VFR restriction
IA

and a CFI certifciate that says
SEL
IA

can teach single-engine instrument approaches in an Aztec.

To back up Midlife, (b) is not superceeded by (c). (b) says any flight training. It doesn't qualify it at all. If you're acting as an instructor, you're giving training (logging it as dual given). (c) just adds additional requirements to it for the special case of instrument training.

 

[Lead Sled]

Being able to provide instrument training in a multi-engine airplane without a multi-engine CFI rating would be like flying a multi-engine airplane without a multi-engine rating as long as you had an instrument rating and never looked out the windows.

Ralpha, does that mean that it is wrong for two single engine rated pilots to fly a twin as long as one only operates the left engine and the other only operates the right?

Lead Sled

 

[Ralgha]

Ralpha, does that mean that it is wrong for two single engine rated pilots to fly a twin as long as one only operates the left engine and the other only operates the right?

Lead Sled

Nope, that's okay, but only as long as they operate the engine on their side. The pilot on the left can't operate the right engine and vice versa.

 

[gear_guy]

If nothing else, you're gonna piss off the local MEI for taking away the usefullness of his certificate. I'm not an MEI, but I would be pissed if the CFII was getting more multi dual given than me. If you truly can log dual given in ME as a CFII, I would'nt worry about getting an MEI. It would be a waste of time and money. I am pretty sure the feds see this one pretty clearly. As I have said before, log whatever you want but you better be able to back it up in a court of law.

 

[JediNein]

§ 61.195 Flight instructor limitations and qualifications.

A person who holds a flight instructor certificate is subject to the following limitations:

(a) Hours of training. In any 24-consecutive-hour period, a flight instructor may not conduct more than 8 hours of flight training.

(b) Aircraft ratings. A flight instructor may not conduct flight training in any aircraft for which the flight instructor does not hold:


(1) A pilot certificate and flight instructor certificate with the applicable category and class rating; and

(2) If appropriate, a type rating.

So how come a fellah can get a CFII as their inital flight instructor certificate? And what manner of things flying can they instruct in with just that CFII certificate?

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein

 

[JediNein]

That should be "Flight Instructor Instrument-Airplane" for CFII....

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein

 

[Ralgha]

So how come a fellah can get a CFII as their inital flight instructor certificate? And what manner of things flying can they instruct in with just that CFII certificate?

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein

They can't teach in things flying, but they could teach in a sim, an FTD, or ground school.

 

[Iceman21]

You most certainly can teach in an airplane with only a CFI-I. The certificate reads Instrument-Airplane.

 

[Ralgha]

You most certainly can teach in an airplane with only a CFI-I. The certificate reads Instrument-Airplane.

Have you not read this thread?

(b) Aircraft ratings. A flight instructor may not conduct flight training in any aircraft for which the flight instructor does not hold:


(1) A pilot certificate and flight instructor certificate with the applicable category and class rating; and

 

[nosehair]

I know this goes against your grain, and may seem unreasonable and unsafe, but, you do know that a Flight Instructor can give flight instruction without a medical, right? The reasoning is that he can provide instruction while not acting as PIC. Given reasonable prcaution, a experienced instrument instructor can give valuable instrument training to a pilot who is the PIC of his multi-engine airplane. Let's say he doesn't have a medical; he can't be PIC, anyway, even if he had an MEI, so that does nothold as an absolute requirement.

The regulation, the way it is written can be interpreted to mean, under (b) aircraft ratings, that this is instructing for aircraft ratings, which would require an MEI, and under (c) for instrument training for an initial instrument rating in a multi-engine, then an MEI is required.
I keep getting confused on this one, but it is clearly a regulation that is open to interpretation, which is why it is interpreted differently by many.

Another point is the Instrument Instructor Certificate is not engine specific, like the CFI is. We have CFI-Airplane Single Engine, and CFI-Airplane Multi-Engine.

CFI-Instrument is airplane only - not further sub-divided into class. It is a very good argument that I think would hold up in court, looking at the regulation the way it is written, not the way you are reading into it, so that you don't piss off the yard dog MEI BMOC.

 

[midlifeflyer]

It is a very good argument that I think would hold up in court, looking at the regulation the way it is written

Actually, the rule on that part is pretty simple:

If the regulation is open to interpretation, when it comes to the NTSB or a court for a hearing, then it means whatever the FAA says it means.

 

[Ralgha]

I know this goes against your grain, and may seem unreasonable and unsafe, but, you do know that a Flight Instructor can give flight instruction without a medical, right? The reasoning is that he can provide instruction while not acting as PIC. Given reasonable prcaution, a experienced instrument instructor can give valuable instrument training to a pilot who is the PIC of his multi-engine airplane. Let's say he doesn't have a medical; he can't be PIC, anyway, even if he had an MEI, so that does nothold as an absolute requirement.

Yes, I do know that. This discussion has nothing to do with the CFI being PIC or not, and everything to do with whether or not they can give instruction.

Another point is the Instrument Instructor Certificate is not engine specific, like the CFI is. We have CFI-Airplane Single Engine, and CFI-Airplane Multi-Engine.

CFI-Instrument is airplane only - not further sub-divided into class. It is a very good argument that I think would hold up in court, looking at the regulation the way it is written, not the way you are reading into it, so that you don't piss off the yard dog MEI BMOC.

The pilot instrument rating is not engine specific either.

Let's examine a pilot certificate.

COMMERCIAL PILOT
AIRPLANE SINGLE & MULTIENGINE LAND; INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE

This leads us back to a question I asked earlier, if you are rated for instrument airplane, and single-engine, can you then go fly a twin as long as you don't look outside? I think not. Imagine explaining 50 PIC hours in a Baron to the examiner when you go to take your multi-engine add-on ride. "But sir, I didn't ever look out the windows and I'm rated for instrument airplane!"

Now let's examine a CFI certificate.

FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR
AIRPLANE SINGLE AND MULTIENGINE; INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE

Hm, the only difference is the CFI is not restricted to land.

The regulation, the way it is written can be interpreted to mean, under (b) aircraft ratings, that this is instructing for aircraft ratings, which would require an MEI, and under (c) for instrument training for an initial instrument rating in a multi-engine, then an MEI is required.
I keep getting confused on this one, but it is clearly a regulation that is open to interpretation, which is why it is interpreted differently by many.

Let's examine (b) and (c).

(b) Aircraft ratings. A flight instructor may not conduct flight training in any aircraft for which the flight instructor does not hold:

(1) A pilot certificate and flight instructor certificate with the applicable category and class rating; and

(2) If appropriate, a type rating.


(c) Instrument Rating. A flight instructor who provides instrument flight training for the issuance of an instrument rating or a type rating not limited to VFR must hold an instrument rating on his or her flight instructor certificate and pilot certificate that is appropriate to the category and class of aircraft in which instrument training is being provided.

(c) specifically says for the issuance of an instrument rating or a type rating not limited to VFR. (b) provides no such verbage limiting it to instruction for an aircraft rating.