I know this is an old topic, but looking back into the archives of
this group, I couldn't find a definitive or current answer. And, this
came up for me yesterday when I booked a simulator for IFR currency.

I called Advanced Aviation Simulators at APA to try out their service.
Based on my understanding of the regs, I also requested an instructor
so I could log at least holding and the 3 approaches I needed. The
instructors there were happy to oblige my request, but insisted I
didn't need an instructor to regain currency for IFR. I showed them
the Part 61 Regs that said that you must *log* 6 approaches, holding,
and intercepting, and that in order to *log* instrument time in a
simulator, you must have an instructor present (interesting to note
the instructor must be present, but apparently need not instruct).

The two instructors there continued to insist an instructor wasn't
necessary. They contend that if I flew solo in the simulator, I would
enter in my logbook the 3 approaches and note the holding and
intercepting in the comments, but not log any flight time. By this
entry in my logbook, I would satisfy the recency of experience
requirement without logging any flight time. This seems dubious logic
to me, so I went ahead and hired the instructor (it was worth it since
I was quite rusty) and now have an instructors entry in my logbook
showing that I have the required recent experience.

Since this company does this as its sole business, I would tend to
believe that they know what they're talking about. But, it doesn't
make any sense to me based on the FAR's. Can anyone point me to an FAA
interpretation, or similar reference that would support their
assertion? I found AC 61-98A which seems to support my position that
an instructor is required. But, that's pretty old (1991?) and still
refers to the old requirement of 6 hours of instrument flight time.

Can anyone help?

Thanks,

Bill Levenson
PP-ASEL-IA

wrote:
> I know this is an old topic, but looking back into the archives of
> this group, I couldn't find a definitive or current answer. And, this
> came up for me yesterday when I booked a simulator for IFR currency.
>
I looked at their web page, lets be clear. There are not approved
simulators. They are level 3 flight training devices.

To my knowldege there is no change. FTD time is still required to be
instruction to be loggable. The only real wording change in this since
eigthies was the replacement of flight instructor with authorized
instructor everywhere so that it was clear that anybody with appropriate
credentials (ground instructors, certain airline pilots) could give
instruction in simulators and FTD's.

There was proposed regulation to allow the mere supervision of an
instructor over FTD training in the NPRM that came out earlier this
year but that rule has not been adopted.

On Nov 17, 9:58 am, Ron Natalie > wrote:
> wrote:
> > I know this is an old topic, but looking back into the archives of
> > this group, I couldn't find a definitive or current answer. And, this
> > came up for me yesterday when I booked a simulator for IFR currency.
>
> I looked at their web page, lets be clear. There are not approved
> simulators. They are level 3 flight training devices.
>
> To my knowldege there is no change. FTD time is still required to be
> instruction to be loggable. The only real wording change in this since
> eigthies was the replacement of flight instructor with authorized
> instructor everywhere so that it was clear that anybody with appropriate
> credentials (ground instructors, certain airline pilots) could give
> instruction in simulators and FTD's.
>
> There was proposed regulation to allow the mere supervision of an
> instructor over FTD training in the NPRM that came out earlier this
> year but that rule has not been adopted.

I think MSFS has provisions for a "remote instructor console" via an
IP network. Does anyone offer "remote" instruction? Would this
qualify for loggable approaches?

--Dan

Dan wrote:

> I think MSFS has provisions for a "remote instructor console" via an
> IP network. Does anyone offer "remote" instruction? Would this
> qualify for loggable approaches?
>
MSFS is not legal for any sort of "countable" instruction as it
currently stands.

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:30:19 -0500, Ron Natalie >
wrote:

>Dan wrote:
>
>> I think MSFS has provisions for a "remote instructor console" via an
>> IP network. Does anyone offer "remote" instruction? Would this
>> qualify for loggable approaches?
>>
>MSFS is not legal for any sort of "countable" instruction as it
>currently stands.

Nor are any other PC sims for currency with or without a CFII unless
they've changed the rules.

IIRC only OnTop and one other are valid for training with a CFI and
the hours are limited.

Roger (K8RI)

On Nov 18, 5:07 pm, "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:30:19 -0500, Ron Natalie >
> wrote:
>
> >Dan wrote:
>
> >> I think MSFS has provisions for a "remote instructor console" via an
> >> IP network. Does anyone offer "remote" instruction? Would this
> >> qualify for loggable approaches?
>
> >MSFS is not legal for any sort of "countable" instruction as it
> >currently stands.
>
> Nor are any other PC sims for currency with or without a CFII unless
> they've changed the rules.
>
> IIRC only OnTop and one other are valid for training with a CFI and
> the hours are limited.

I've never understood the benefit of doing an IPC with the simulator
devices. The approved simulators are almost as expensive as a C-150
rental and require an instructor. It always seemed to me to be less
expensive to get a pilot friend to fly with you and wear the hood in a
C-150. Of course since I've never used such simulators I'm just
guessing.

-Robert, CFII

On Nov 18, 9:30 am, Ron Natalie > wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > I think MSFS has provisions for a "remote instructor console" via an
> > IP network. Does anyone offer "remote" instruction? Would this
> > qualify for loggable approaches?
>
> MSFS is not legal for any sort of "countable" instruction as it
> currently stands.

It can count as ground instruction.

-Robert, CFII

In article >,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> I've never understood the benefit of doing an IPC with the simulator
> devices. The approved simulators are almost as expensive as a C-150
> rental and require an instructor. It always seemed to me to be less
> expensive to get a pilot friend to fly with you and wear the hood in a
> C-150. Of course since I've never used such simulators I'm just
> guessing.

You can try many many different scenarios and simulated equipment
failures in the sim, and reset much quicker.

Of course, it's nowhere as much fun as flying.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

In a sim you can shoot three different approaches in one hour, see
what it's gonna look like if visibility were down to minima, play
around with various system failures etc. Sim is a big time saver.
It can actually be more expensive than a C150, but you'd need to
spend much less time in it, and would get a chance to do a lot more.

Andrey


Robert M. Gary > wrote:
> On Nov 18, 5:07 pm, "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:30:19 -0500, Ron Natalie >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Dan wrote:
>>
>> >> I think MSFS has provisions for a "remote instructor console" via an
>> >> IP network. Does anyone offer "remote" instruction? Would this
>> >> qualify for loggable approaches?
>>
>> >MSFS is not legal for any sort of "countable" instruction as it
>> >currently stands.
>>
>> Nor are any other PC sims for currency with or without a CFII unless
>> they've changed the rules.
>>
>> IIRC only OnTop and one other are valid for training with a CFI and
>> the hours are limited.
>
> I've never understood the benefit of doing an IPC with the simulator
> devices. The approved simulators are almost as expensive as a C-150
> rental and require an instructor. It always seemed to me to be less
> expensive to get a pilot friend to fly with you and wear the hood in a
> C-150. Of course since I've never used such simulators I'm just
> guessing.
>
> -Robert, CFII

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> I've never understood the benefit of doing an IPC with the simulator
> devices.

It's just not as much fun! <G>

Because simulators are far bettter educational tools than airplanes
can possibly be?

Because there is no "taxi-depart-get there-get back-taxi" overhead?

Because the simulator can be paused and errors/procedures discussed
immediately?

Because simulators have fewer distractions of traffic, ATC noise, etc

Because simulators can get back to the beginning of an approach in
seconds instead of minutes?

Because any kind of approach at any airport can be flown?

Because instrument failures can be simulated realistically instead of
the clumsy "I'm putting a disk on yourAH"?

Describe the worst learning environment you can think of. Chances are
you will describe an aircraft in flight.






On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 07:31:41 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote:

>On Nov 18, 5:07 pm, "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:30:19 -0500, Ron Natalie >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Dan wrote:
>>
>> >> I think MSFS has provisions for a "remote instructor console" via an
>> >> IP network. Does anyone offer "remote" instruction? Would this
>> >> qualify for loggable approaches?
>>
>> >MSFS is not legal for any sort of "countable" instruction as it
>> >currently stands.
>>
>> Nor are any other PC sims for currency with or without a CFII unless
>> they've changed the rules.
>>
>> IIRC only OnTop and one other are valid for training with a CFI and
>> the hours are limited.
>
>I've never understood the benefit of doing an IPC with the simulator
>devices. The approved simulators are almost as expensive as a C-150
>rental and require an instructor. It always seemed to me to be less
>expensive to get a pilot friend to fly with you and wear the hood in a
>C-150. Of course since I've never used such simulators I'm just
>guessing.
>
>-Robert, CFII

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 07:31:41 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote:

>On Nov 18, 5:07 pm, "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:30:19 -0500, Ron Natalie >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Dan wrote:
>>
>> >> I think MSFS has provisions for a "remote instructor console" via an
>> >> IP network. Does anyone offer "remote" instruction? Would this
>> >> qualify for loggable approaches?
>>
>> >MSFS is not legal for any sort of "countable" instruction as it
>> >currently stands.
>>
>> Nor are any other PC sims for currency with or without a CFII unless
>> they've changed the rules.
>>
>> IIRC only OnTop and one other are valid for training with a CFI and
>> the hours are limited.
>
>I've never understood the benefit of doing an IPC with the simulator
>devices. The approved simulators are almost as expensive as a C-150

The expensive part is hiring two guys to keep moving your chair around
to simulate the conditions in real life and a third to keep moving the
monitor.

>rental and require an instructor. It always seemed to me to be less
>expensive to get a pilot friend to fly with you and wear the hood in a
>C-150. Of course since I've never used such simulators I'm just
>guessing.

I can't imagine a plane I'd like less for and IPC than a 150. <:-))
Welll...yes I can but it rates right up there in undesirability.
I'd much prefer either a Cessna 182, a Cherokee 180, or at least a
Cessna 172.

The latter part of my training was in actual right down to minimums as
were most of my flights including my first one after getting the
rating. However I was at my most proficient when I went to take the
flight test and my first instrument flights. Now days I'm no where
near that proficient.

Roger (K8RI)
>
>-Robert, CFII