instrument instructor question

[DC8 Flyer]

If a ME rated pilot needs help with GPS approaches in his new Baron, he's not going for an "aircraft rating" or "training required for a certificate or rating". A CFII with a CMEL rating would be able to provide the training.

Thats acting as a safety pilot and not as a CFII, since the person needing help with GPS approaches would already hold a AMEL Instrument ticket.

 

[DC8 Flyer]

Then why, if 61.195 says that, does my instructor certificate say "Instrument - AIRPLANE?" Not, Instrument - Single Engine

Ill post it again:

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.

(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.

Category:

(1) As used with respect to the certification, ratings, privileges, and limitations of airmen, means a broad classification of aircraft. Examples include: airplane; rotorcraft; glider; and lighter-than-air; and....

Class:

(1) As used with respect to the certification, ratings, privileges, and limitations of airmen, means a classification of aircraft within a category having similar operating characteristics. Examples include: single engine; multiengine; land; water; gyroplane; helicopter; airship; and free balloon; and

So, by your logic, you could find someone who is really rich and give them instrument instruction in a Premier Jet, as long as they had a VFR only single pilot type rating?

 

[bobbysamd]

Instrument instruction demo in a twin

The quirky thing is you can get your CFI and MEI then get your CFII in a single engine airplane and never have to demonstrate proficiency in teaching instruments in a twin . . . .

I didn't have to on my MEI ride. I've not heard of others, either.

Perhaps the way to analyze it is that instrument instruction includes such things as BAI, holding, radio navigation, holding and normal approaches. When you, as an instructor, pull an engine for such things as approaches with an engine inoperative, it becomes multiengine instruction.

Think about it. You (or at least me) are coaching your student, "mixtures forward, props forward, throttles forward, identify, verify, feather," etc. after you've pulled an engine. Pulling engines is multiengine instruction and beyond the scope of instrument instruction. Only MEIs should pull engines; non-MEIs have no business pulling engines.

I agree that legally one must also be an MEI as well as CFI-I to give instrument instruction in a twin. I realize that these discussions turn on the desperate need to build multi. But you have to do it legally and not on the edge of legality.

 

[HMR]

I didn't have to on my MEI ride. I've not heard of others, either.

Same here.

I realize that these discussions turn on the desperate need to build multi. But you have to do it legally and not on the edge of legality.

Absolutely. This goes for all the "can I log PIC/SIC?" threads too. For the CFI's looking for twin time: get the MEI. I've never met a pilot who's regretted having it. I never could've gone from a 152 to a piston-twin to a turboprop to a turbojet without it. The time I spent instructing in the Duchess, Seneca, C340 and King Airs was invaluable. I learned more than I taught.

 

[DC8 Flyer]

I didn't have to on my MEI ride. I've not heard of others, either.

You are absolutely right, my apologies. Its been too long since I took either checkride and read either PTS I had the Comm Multi and MEI requirements backwards.

 

[DC8 Flyer]

Perhaps the way to analyze it is that instrument instruction includes such things as BAI, holding, radio navigation, holding and normal approaches. When you, as an instructor, pull an engine for such things as approaches with an engine inoperative, it becomes multiengine instruction.

I have to disagree with you here. If and only if, you are training a student for a Inst/Multiengine ride single engine ops becomes very very important in the scheme of instrument training. But I am talking from experience of teaching students for both their Instrument and Multiengine commercial checkride as one course and not teaching instruments as an addon to an already existing Multiengine ticket. That may be where the confusion lies.

 

[bender]

Thanks for the reg. See post #5 on this thread.

What exactly were you getting at with the post below?

What if the instruction isn't for "the issuance of an instrument rating or a type rating not limited to VFR"?

 

[HMR]

What exactly were you getting at with the post below?

The only instruction I do anymore is FMS/GPS ops in twins. Last year I was training pilots in a new BE20. All we did was shoot FMS-coupled approaches, fly DME arcs and practice holds. The pilots were experienced and current with flying the procedures but when they'd try to enter it all in the box and let the autopilot do it's job, things would get ugly.

Lately, I've been working with a friend in his C340. He's an excellent pilot but doesn't trust himself with his new "next generation" avionics. We've spent hours flying together in every different IFR departure/arrival/approach scenario he can think up.

In both of the above examples nobody was wearing a hood. We'd fly in blue skies or pouring rain. IFR ops aren't a problem for these guys, most of them have been flying a lot longer than me. The problem was flying with the new technology. I did a good amount of ground to explain how everything worked but they didn't want to fly without someone walking them through it in the air.

Sooooooo... How does one log that? I signed their logbooks. I put all of the flight training procedures we did in the remarks section. We didn't do any "multi-specific" training- no engine failures, Vmc demos, etc. I credited them only for the approaches and holds they flew in actual. Was I acting as a CFI, II, MEI, safety pilot or none of the above?

FWIW-I'm not looking to build time in either A/C. I enjoy flying with these pilots and hope I'm "legal" when I sign their logbooks. Besides, have you seen what you can charge for BE20 instruction?

 

[bender]

I see what you mean. From the way the regs are written you still need a MEI to conduct any sort of flight training in a multi. Looking up the definition of flight training in 61.1 it states "that training, other than ground training, received from an authorized instructor in flight in an aircraft." So, with 61.195(b) and the 61.1 flight training definition in mind, even simple GPS/FMS training conducted in a multi-engine aircraft where you aren't doing any multi-specific maneuvers still requires a MEI rating.

 

[bobbysamd]

Instrument v. multi instruction

If and only if, you are training a student for a Inst/Multiengine ride single engine ops becomes very very important in the scheme of instrument training. But I am talking from experience of teaching students for both their Instrument and Multiengine commercial checkride as one course and not teaching instruments as an addon to an already existing Multiengine ticket . . . .

My experience is also from teaching both courses simultaneously. But, I still would submit that any non-MEI who pulls engines is conducting unauthorized multiengine instruction.

 

[Ralgha]

The only instruction I do anymore is FMS/GPS ops in twins. Last year I was training pilots in a new BE20. All we did was shoot FMS-coupled approaches, fly DME arcs and practice holds. The pilots were experienced and current with flying the procedures but when they'd try to enter it all in the box and let the autopilot do it's job, things would get ugly.

Lately, I've been working with a friend in his C340. He's an excellent pilot but doesn't trust himself with his new "next generation" avionics. We've spent hours flying together in every different IFR departure/arrival/approach scenario he can think up.

In both of the above examples nobody was wearing a hood. We'd fly in blue skies or pouring rain. IFR ops aren't a problem for these guys, most of them have been flying a lot longer than me. The problem was flying with the new technology. I did a good amount of ground to explain how everything worked but they didn't want to fly without someone walking them through it in the air.

Sooooooo... How does one log that? I signed their logbooks. I put all of the flight training procedures we did in the remarks section. We didn't do any "multi-specific" training- no engine failures, Vmc demos, etc. I credited them only for the approaches and holds they flew in actual. Was I acting as a CFI, II, MEI, safety pilot or none of the above?

FWIW-I'm not looking to build time in either A/C. I enjoy flying with these pilots and hope I'm "legal" when I sign their logbooks. Besides, have you seen what you can charge for BE20 instruction?

Since you signed the logbook and made it official training, you were acting as an MEI (it's a multi-engine airplane). If you hadn't signed the logbook, then you'd just be a guy that knows a lot about their avionics that's along for the ride to give tips on their operation. The only way you'd have been a safety pilot is if they were wearing a hood. You don't need a II rating for that training because it was not for the issuance of any kind of instrument rating.

So, all you need for those flights is a multi-engine rating on your pilot and CFI certificates. You don't need an instrument rating on the CFI. Had you not signed the logbook, you wouldn't even need to be a pilot, but you couldn't log it either.