instrument instructor question

[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.