CFI logging requirement

[[email protected]]

I've got a question regarding CFI's logging instruction time that I can't seem
to find in the FAR's. Basically, what constitutes "instruction" for a CFI of a rated
pilot? Aside from primary training or non-category/class rated pilots, the CFI can
provide simply instruction while flying. Here's an example situation with three
people in a high-performance/complex airplane:
#1 PPSEL w/o high-perf/complex endorsement flies left-seat
#2 PPSEL w/ high-perf/complex rating acting as PIC in right-seat
#3 CFI in back providing instruction to #1 regarding high-perf/complex endorsement.

Although it might seem a bit artificial, there are a number of
*insurance-related* reasons why this would be a good situation (if, for instance, #2
is named, but #1 and #3 are not). If all parties involved are willing to agree to
their responsibility (#2 acting PIC, #3 endorsing without flying right-seat, etc),
this doesn't seem to violate and FAA regulations that I can see. Of course, this all
goes under the category of, "if you don't have a problem, we have no problems... but
if there's a problem, we'll find a problem."

Where are the regulations/guidelines for CFI's acting/logging dual
instruction? I have even recently heard that a new ruling specifies that a CFI
providing instruction does not even require a 2nd-class medical since they are not
being paid as a pilot?

Hopefully I haven't kicked a hornet's nest WRT time logging here... :)

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[C J Campbell]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Where are the regulations/guidelines for CFI's acting/logging dual
> instruction? I have even recently heard that a new ruling specifies that
a CFI
> providing instruction does not even require a 2nd-class medical since they
are not
> being paid as a pilot?

There are no FARs governing what constitutes instruction time. The CFI logs
instruction whenever he thinks he is giving instruction, no matter what seat
he is occupying. There is not even a requirement that the CFI be on board
the airplane. Whenever the CFI gives instruction, he must endorse the
logbook of the student and note what instruction was given. The CFI logs PIC
whenever he gives instruction, whether he is able to act as PIC or not. The
CFI does not require a medical at all if someone else is able to act as PIC.
Otherwise the CFI requires only a third class medical; this is not a ruling,
it is in the FARs. It has nothing to do with whether the CFI is being paid
as a pilot.

[[email protected]]

C J Campbell > wrote:
: There are no FARs governing what constitutes instruction time. The CFI logs
: instruction whenever he thinks he is giving instruction, no matter what seat
: he is occupying. There is not even a requirement that the CFI be on board
: the airplane. Whenever the CFI gives instruction, he must endorse the
: logbook of the student and note what instruction was given. The CFI logs PIC
: whenever he gives instruction, whether he is able to act as PIC or not. The
: CFI does not require a medical at all if someone else is able to act as PIC.
: Otherwise the CFI requires only a third class medical; this is not a ruling,
: it is in the FARs. It has nothing to do with whether the CFI is being paid
: as a pilot.

Very concisely sums up what I was thinking. It's apparently one of those
things where I search like hell to find a pertinent regulation, only to discover that
there isn't one.

Thanks,
-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Michael]

The situation you described (almost) was SOP at a flight school in the
Houston area. The specific situation was a hooded pilot in the left
seat of a Seminole flying instruments and logging PIC (as sole
manipulator) and dual received, another pilot in the right seat
watching for traffic and acting as PIC and logging it, and a CFII/MEI
in the back seat giving instrument dual and logging PIC and dual
given.

They did it this way for years. Nobody was busted, nobody lost his
logged time - but once it got out, they stopped doing it.

It's not all that gray an area:
91.109 (a) No person may operate a civil aircraft (except a manned
free balloon) that is being used for flight instruction unless that
aircraft has fully functioning dual controls.

It doesn't actually say that the instructor must sit at the other
control seat, but it's tough to argue that this wasn't the intent of
the regulation.

Michael

wrote in message >...
> I've got a question regarding CFI's logging instruction time that I can't seem
> to find in the FAR's. Basically, what constitutes "instruction" for a CFI of a rated
> pilot? Aside from primary training or non-category/class rated pilots, the CFI can
> provide simply instruction while flying. Here's an example situation with three
> people in a high-performance/complex airplane:
> #1 PPSEL w/o high-perf/complex endorsement flies left-seat
> #2 PPSEL w/ high-perf/complex rating acting as PIC in right-seat
> #3 CFI in back providing instruction to #1 regarding high-perf/complex endorsement.
>
> Although it might seem a bit artificial, there are a number of
> *insurance-related* reasons why this would be a good situation (if, for instance, #2
> is named, but #1 and #3 are not). If all parties involved are willing to agree to
> their responsibility (#2 acting PIC, #3 endorsing without flying right-seat, etc),
> this doesn't seem to violate and FAA regulations that I can see. Of course, this all
> goes under the category of, "if you don't have a problem, we have no problems... but
> if there's a problem, we'll find a problem."
>
> Where are the regulations/guidelines for CFI's acting/logging dual
> instruction? I have even recently heard that a new ruling specifies that a CFI
> providing instruction does not even require a 2nd-class medical since they are not
> being paid as a pilot?
>
> Hopefully I haven't kicked a hornet's nest WRT time logging here... :)
>
> -Cory

[[email protected]]

Michael > wrote:
: The situation you described (almost) was SOP at a flight school in the
: Houston area. The specific situation was a hooded pilot in the left
: seat of a Seminole flying instruments and logging PIC (as sole
: manipulator) and dual received, another pilot in the right seat
: watching for traffic and acting as PIC and logging it, and a CFII/MEI
: in the back seat giving instrument dual and logging PIC and dual
: given.

: They did it this way for years. Nobody was busted, nobody lost his
: logged time - but once it got out, they stopped doing it.

I read about that one. I know it's "frowned upon," but the situation I'm
envisioning isn't to try to get the most loggable PIC time, but rather to keep
insurance requirements from being ridiculous for low-time in type. More of an
insurance requirement than an FAA logging issue.... although I guess one could use it
for that as well.

: It's not all that gray an area:
: 91.109 (a) No person may operate a civil aircraft (except a manned
: free balloon) that is being used for flight instruction unless that
: aircraft has fully functioning dual controls.

: It doesn't actually say that the instructor must sit at the other
: control seat, but it's tough to argue that this wasn't the intent of
: the regulation.

: Michael

My spin on this is that the FAA like to leave the regulations vague enough for
them to weasel out of any wrongdoing should an incident occur. Since they will find
something to bust you for no matter what happened, you might as well interpret the
imprecise legaleeze (sleaze?) to your advantage. Again... if nobody has a problem
then there's no problem.

-Cory

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[WARREN1157]

>It's not all that gray an area:
>91.109 (a) No person may operate a civil aircraft (except a manned
>free balloon) that is being used for flight instruction unless that
>aircraft has fully functioning dual controls.
>

How does a pilot get checked off in a Bonanza???

[Ron Natalie]

WARREN1157 wrote:
>>It's not all that gray an area:
>>91.109 (a) No person may operate a civil aircraft (except a manned
>>free balloon) that is being used for flight instruction unless that
>>aircraft has fully functioning dual controls.
>>
>
>
> How does a pilot get checked off in a Bonanza???

If it involves FAA-required flight instruction (other than the
instrument training specifically exempted), then they need to
get dual controls rather than the throw over.

Getting "checked out" isn't an FAA concept, however.

[C J Campbell]

"WARREN1157" > wrote in message
...
> >It's not all that gray an area:
> >91.109 (a) No person may operate a civil aircraft (except a manned
> >free balloon) that is being used for flight instruction unless that
> >aircraft has fully functioning dual controls.
> >
>
> How does a pilot get checked off in a Bonanza???

Michael did not quote the whole regulation. Nevertheless, I suppose some
twit could make a case that you cannot give a BFR, complex, or high
performance endorsement in a Bonanza or, for that matter, do any instruction
except instrument training. There was a bit of a flap a couple years ago
where some inspector was insisting that unless his side had brakes, the
airplane did not have fully functioning dual controls. Fortunately, the FAA
ruled that it was not essential for both sides to have brakes. This is an
excellent example of a regulation that you could suggest a change.
§ 91.109 Flight instruction; Simulated instrument flight and certain
flight tests.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft (except a manned free balloon)
that is being used for flight instruction unless that aircraft has fully
functioning dual controls. However, instrument flight instruction may be
given in a single-engine airplane equipped with a single, functioning
throwover control wheel in place of fixed, dual controls of the elevator and
ailerons when—

(1) The instructor has determined that the flight can be conducted safely;
and

(2) The person manipulating the controls has at least a private pilot
certificate with appropriate category and class ratings.

[Michael]

"C J Campbell" > wrote
> Michael did not quote the whole regulation. Nevertheless, I suppose some
> twit could make a case that you cannot give a BFR, complex, or high
> performance endorsement in a Bonanza or, for that matter, do any instruction
> except instrument training.

If you had made it down to Houston before the last FSDO shakeup, I
could have introduced you to that particular twit. He was a bigwig at
our FSDO. It was also his position that checkrides are not to be
given in an airplane with a throwover yoke - not even instrument
checkrides. Really he didn't want to see ANY instruction going on
with a throwover yoke, but he couldn't stop instrument instruction
because the part of the reg I didn't quote made it so cut and dried.

Michael

[Ron Natalie]

Michael wrote:
> It was also his position that checkrides are not to be
> given in an airplane with a throwover yoke - not even instrument
> checkrides. Really he didn't want to see ANY instruction going on
> with a throwover yoke, but he couldn't stop instrument instruction
> because the part of the reg I didn't quote made it so cut and dried.

So how does he avoid the similar provision in the checkride reg?