CFI without commercial?

[Jay Honeck]

What are the rules nowadays for getting your CFI? Is a commercial rating
required before you can become a CFI? I imagine it is, since you're
"flying for hire"...?

I know you *used* to be able to get your CFI without an instrument rating,
but I understand that is no longer allowed, right?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:ib%Ud.18361$Ze3.1684@attbi_s51...
>
> What are the rules nowadays for getting your CFI? Is a commercial
> rating required before you can become a CFI? I imagine it is, since
> you're "flying for hire"...?
>

A flight instructor certificate requires either a commercial pilot or
airline transport pilot certificate. You're only flying for hire if you
charge for your instruction.


>
> I know you *used* to be able to get your CFI without an instrument rating,
> but I understand that is no longer allowed, right?
>

Right.

[Bravo8500]

>You're only flying for hire if you
charge for your instruction. <

Oh no, here we go.

[Jim Burns]

Here ya go Jay:

§ 61.183 Eligibility requirements.
To be eligible for a flight instructor certificate or rating a person must:

(a) Be at least 18 years of age;

(b) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language. If
the applicant is unable to meet one of these requirements due to medical
reasons, then the Administrator may place such operating limitations on that
applicant's flight instructor certificate as are necessary;

(c) Hold either a commercial pilot certificate or airline transport pilot
certificate with:

(1) An aircraft category and class rating that is appropriate to the flight
instructor rating sought; and

(2) An instrument rating, or privileges on that person's pilot certificate
that are appropriate to the flight instructor rating sought, if applying
for-

(i) A flight instructor certificate with an airplane category and
single-engine class rating;

(ii) A flight instructor certificate with an airplane category and
multiengine class rating;

(iii) A flight instructor certificate with a powered-lift rating; or

(iv) A flight instructor certificate with an instrument rating.



Sorry for just cutting and pasteing the FARs... hope this helps.

Jim

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 09:10:30 -0600, "Jim Burns"
> wrote in
>::

>Sorry for just cutting and pasteing the FARs...

Why?

[Jim Burns]

....and why I just quoted the regs

"Bravo8500" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> >You're only flying for hire if you
> charge for your instruction. <
>
> Oh no, here we go.
>

[Bob Moore]

"Jay Honeck" wrote

> What are the rules nowadays for getting your CFI? Is a commercial
> rating required before you can become a CFI? I imagine it is, since
> you're "flying for hire"...?

Come-on Jay, I thought that you were an English Major.
It's a "commercial certificate", not rating, and CFIs
don't "fly for hire", they "instruct for hire". :-)

Bob Moore

[Dudley Henriques]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 121...
> "Jay Honeck" wrote
>
>> What are the rules nowadays for getting your CFI? Is a commercial
>> rating required before you can become a CFI? I imagine it is, since
>> you're "flying for hire"...?
>
> Come-on Jay, I thought that you were an English Major.
> It's a "commercial certificate", not rating, and CFIs
> don't "fly for hire", they "instruct for hire". :-)
>
> Bob Moore

True enough , but doesn't "for hire" carry the implication that some actual
money must change hands? :-)))
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> True enough , but doesn't "for hire" carry the implication that some
> actual money must change hands? :-)))
>

I think bartering would still be considered for hire. But if I instruct my
son in my own airplane and receive nothing in return but the joy of sharing
something I love with my child it is definitely not "for hire".

[Bravo8500]

You can get paid all you want instructing, and don't even have to have
a medical unless you are acting as PIC, then only a 3rd class. You not
acting as a commercial pilot instructing, even though the regs say you
need it for the exam.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> True enough , but doesn't "for hire" carry the implication that some
>> actual money must change hands? :-)))
>>
>
> I think bartering would still be considered for hire. But if I instruct
> my son in my own airplane and receive nothing in return but the joy of
> sharing something I love with my child it is definitely not "for hire".

It wasn't meant to be a serious comment Steven :-)
DH

[Dudley Henriques]

"Bravo8500" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> You can get paid all you want instructing,

Now THIS is welcome news!!! :-)))

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)


>

[Robert M. Gary]

Its not considerd flying for hire. That is why you only need a class 3
medical. I suspect that the reason you need a commercial certificate is
because the CFI ticket gives you the priv of training commercial
applicants. I believe the new sport pilot CFI ticket does not require a
commercial but also does not allow you to train commercial apps.
-Robert

[Jose]

> True enough , but doesn't "for hire" carry the implication that some actual
> money must change hands? :-)))

Not the way I heard it.

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[ET]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
link.net:

>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:ib%Ud.18361$Ze3.1684@attbi_s51...
>>
>> What are the rules nowadays for getting your CFI? Is a commercial
>> rating required before you can become a CFI? I imagine it is, since
>> you're "flying for hire"...?
>>
>
> A flight instructor certificate requires either a commercial pilot or
> airline transport pilot certificate. You're only flying for hire if
> you charge for your instruction.
>
>
>>
>> I know you *used* to be able to get your CFI without an instrument
>> rating, but I understand that is no longer allowed, right?
>>
>
> Right.
>
>


Don't know how much it really applies here, but it's interesting that
you CAN get a Sport Pilot Instructor Cert without either a Commercial or
ATP.


--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[John Godwin]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
link.net:

> A flight instructor certificate requires either a commercial pilot
> or airline transport pilot certificate.

Correct.

> You're only flying for hire if you charge for your instruction.

Wrong. You are not flying for hire while giving flight instruction.
You don't even need a current medical unless you're acting as a
required crewmember.

--

[Blueskies]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Bravo8500" > wrote in message ups.com...
>
>> You can get paid all you want instructing,
>
> Now THIS is welcome news!!! :-)))
>
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
> dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
> (take out the trash :-)
>
>


Now that is funny!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Godwin" > wrote in message
. 3.44...
>
> Wrong. You are not flying for hire while giving flight instruction.
>

You are if you're being compensated for it.


>
> You don't even need a current medical unless you're acting as a
> required crewmember.
>

Irrelevant.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bravo8500" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> You can get paid all you want instructing, and don't even have to have
> a medical unless you are acting as PIC, then only a 3rd class. You not
> acting as a commercial pilot instructing, even though the regs say you
> need it for the exam.
>

If you're being paid for instructing you're acting as a commercial pilot.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> It wasn't meant to be a serious comment Steven :-)
>

So responses are not allowed?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Its not considerd flying for hire.
>

It is if you're being paid.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> It wasn't meant to be a serious comment Steven :-)
>>
>
> So responses are not allowed?

Sure. Responses are welcome all the time. Not meaning to be overly critical
as evidenced by the following smiley type thing :-) but It's just that with
you, I never quite know how to take the response. It could be a general
comment. It could be a crack. It's seldom more than one line, and more often
than not can be taken several ways by the reader.
Over the years, I've come to believe you and I don't understand each other
all that well, and you seldom post under me anyway, so when I post a general
comment to someone other than you meant to be "inside humor" on the pay
issues for CFI's, which most of us should already know isn't all that great
a proposition, and you answer that with a typical one liner that diverts
from the humorous intent of the post you are answering, I'm naturally a bit
gun shy with you that's all.
Might I suggest you try attaching something once in a while to indicate you
mean humor. It's allowed in the response you know......Usenet protocol and
all that :-)) See what I mean? Doesn't hurt a bit!!
Dudley

[Jose]

>>Its not considerd flying for hire.
>
> It is if you're being paid.

Not the situation originally discussed, but suppose a non-pilot (who
perhaps reads a lot and plays flight sim) acts as an instructor for a
pilot who wants to learn something about flying from him. What that
might be I will leave to your imagination. The pilot is current and
rated in the aircraft, and acts as PIC. The passenger is being paid to
instruct, the instruction is not logged.

Is the non-pilot paid instructor "flying for hire"?

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[John Godwin]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ink.net:

> You are if you're being compensated for it.

Wrong again. You're being paid to instruct; not to fly.

>> You don't even need a current medical unless you're acting as a
>> required crewmember.
>
> Irrelevant.

Actually, it is. FAR 61.23 states that you must must hold at least a
second-class medical certificate when exercising the privileges of a
commercial pilot certificate. The FAA had to make a special case in
FAR 61.23 in order to state that you don't need a medical unless the
instructor is a required crewmember (i.e., you're not being paid to
fly).

--

[Michelle P]

you are only a required crew member if the student does not have the
rating for the category and class being flown.
Michelle

John Godwin wrote:

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ink.net:
>
>
>
>>You are if you're being compensated for it.
>>
>>
>
>Wrong again. You're being paid to instruct; not to fly.
>
>
>
>>>You don't even need a current medical unless you're acting as a
>>>required crewmember.
>>>
>>>
>>Irrelevant.
>>
>>
>
>Actually, it is. FAR 61.23 states that you must must hold at least a
>second-class medical certificate when exercising the privileges of a
>commercial pilot certificate. The FAA had to make a special case in
>FAR 61.23 in order to state that you don't need a medical unless the
>instructor is a required crewmember (i.e., you're not being paid to
>fly).
>
>
>

[Jose]

> you are only a required crew member if the student does not have the rating for the category and class being flown.

....or for the mission. For example, a safety pilot is a required
crewmember for hood practice.

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Robert M. Gary]

Even when I am being paid, its not commercial. At least in the sense
the the FAA does not require me to told a class 2 medical. The FAA FAQ
said that they consider CFIs as being paid to teach not to fly. Perhaps
we're talking semantics.

-Robert

[John Godwin]

Jose > wrote in
om:

> ...or for the mission. For example, a safety pilot is a required
> crewmember for hood practice.

Exactly, which is why I used Required Crewmember.

--

[John Godwin]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
oups.com:

> Even when I am being paid, its not commercial. At least in the
> sense the the FAA does not require me to told a class 2 medical.
> The FAA FAQ said that they consider CFIs as being paid to teach
> not to fly. Perhaps we're talking semantics.

Actually no. Although the "fly for hire" has clouded the issue
somewhat, one reason that a commercial is required has nothing to do
with compensation.

--

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Godwin" > wrote in message
. 3.44...
>
> Wrong again. You're being paid to instruct; not to fly.
>

Review my previous message. Keep doing so until it sinks in.


>
> Actually, it is. FAR 61.23 states that you must must hold at least a
> second-class medical certificate when exercising the privileges of a
> commercial pilot certificate. The FAA had to make a special case in
> FAR 61.23 in order to state that you don't need a medical unless the
> instructor is a required crewmember (i.e., you're not being paid to
> fly).
>

Find a dictionary, look up the words.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
. net...
>
> Might I suggest you try attaching something once in a while to indicate
> you mean humor. It's allowed in the response you know......Usenet protocol
> and all that :-)) See what I mean? Doesn't hurt a bit!!
>

I don't use smilies. If you have to tell your audience when to laugh your
humor has missed the mark.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Not the situation originally discussed, but suppose a non-pilot (who
> perhaps reads a lot and plays flight sim) acts as an instructor for a
> pilot who wants to learn something about flying from him. What that might
> be I will leave to your imagination. The pilot is current and rated in
> the aircraft, and acts as PIC. The passenger is being paid to instruct,
> the instruction is not logged.
>
> Is the non-pilot paid instructor "flying for hire"?
>

Yup.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
> . net...
>>
>> Might I suggest you try attaching something once in a while to indicate
>> you mean humor. It's allowed in the response you know......Usenet
>> protocol and all that :-)) See what I mean? Doesn't hurt a bit!!
>>
>
> I don't use smilies. If you have to tell your audience when to laugh your
> humor has missed the mark.

Forget it.

[Montblack]

("Dudley Henriques" wrote)
>> I don't use smilies. If you have to tell your audience when to laugh
>> your humor has missed the mark.
>
> Forget it.


ROTFLMAO!!!

"It works on so many levels" - Homer


Montblack

[Dudley Henriques]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Dudley Henriques" wrote)
>>> I don't use smilies. If you have to tell your audience when to laugh
>>> your humor has missed the mark.
>>
>> Forget it.
>
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!

It's nice to know that you're laughing your ass off there ole'buddy, but
before your butt actually falls off your rear end, at least hold it on long
enough to quote the right posters.
I didn't say this.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)

[Montblack]

("Dudley Henriques" wrote)
> It's nice to know that you're laughing your ass off there ole'buddy, but
> before your butt actually falls off your rear end, at least hold it on
> long enough to quote the right posters.
> I didn't say this.


Did so! <g>

I'm pretty careful, and consistent, with my <snipping>. I just did a search
at Google/Groups, thread's flow checks out.

I think it was just a(n) >>>>>> thing. Maybe they didn't show up on your
end?

(You - DH)
Responding to S.P.M ............>>
Your post .................................>
Then my post .........ROTFLMAO

My original Sent Post is copied below. The reason I <snip> this way is: This
is how others were doing it in 1998 when I entered the newsgroups :-)

Catch you in another thread ole' buddy.


Montblack

[Post in Question]
("Dudley Henriques" wrote)
>> I don't use smilies. If you have to tell your audience when to laugh
>> your humor has missed the mark.
>
> Forget it.


ROTFLMAO!!!

"It works on so many levels" - Homer

Montblack

[Dudley Henriques]

Your quote was incorrect as I have stated. You attritubed the entire
statement to me, which is incorrect.
Under your heading "Dudley Henriques said", you include the entire McNichol
quote, then my two word response "Forget it."
Please do not include what other people say leading up to a response, then
add the response under a single heading. This is a Usenet 101 no no, and I
personally don't like what Steven McNichol says being attributed to me at
ANY time!.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)


"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Dudley Henriques" wrote)
>> It's nice to know that you're laughing your ass off there ole'buddy, but
>> before your butt actually falls off your rear end, at least hold it on
>> long enough to quote the right posters.
>> I didn't say this.
>
>
> Did so! <g>
>
> I'm pretty careful, and consistent, with my <snipping>. I just did a
> search at Google/Groups, thread's flow checks out.
>
> I think it was just a(n) >>>>>> thing. Maybe they didn't show up on your
> end?
>
> (You - DH)
> Responding to S.P.M ............>>
> Your post .................................>
> Then my post .........ROTFLMAO
>
> My original Sent Post is copied below. The reason I <snip> this way is:
> This is how others were doing it in 1998 when I entered the newsgroups :-)
>
> Catch you in another thread ole' buddy.
>
>
> Montblack
>
> [Post in Question]
> ("Dudley Henriques" wrote)
>>> I don't use smilies. If you have to tell your audience when to laugh
>>> your humor has missed the mark.
>>
>> Forget it.
>
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!
>
> "It works on so many levels" - Homer
>
> Montblack
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:42:48 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
<dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in
>::

>Your quote was incorrect as I have stated. You attritubed the entire
>statement to me, which is incorrect.

Fortunately, that is not true.

>Under your heading "Dudley Henriques said", you include the entire McNichol
>quote, then my two word response "Forget it."

With all due respect, here is the follow-up article you, Dudley
Henriques, posted:

From: "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: CFI without commercial?
Message-ID: >
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 23:22:57 GMT

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
> . net...
>>
>> Might I suggest you try attaching something once in a while to
>> indicate
>> you mean humor. It's allowed in the response you
>> know......Usenet
>> protocol and all that :-)) See what I mean? Doesn't hurt a
>> bit!!
>>
>
> I don't use smilies. If you have to tell your audience when to
> laugh your humor has missed the mark.

Forget it.

If one notes the attribution lines ('wrote in') and the nested indents
('>'), it's quite clear, that you, Dudley Henriques, posted a two word
follow-up to McNicoll's two sentences, and that you included
McNicoll's two sentences in that follow-up article.

>Please do not include what other people say leading up to a response, then
>add the response under a single heading.

Above you, Dudley Henriques, accuses Montblack of what you in fact did
in your own follow-up article. Ironic. You included text you wrote,
McNicoll's response, and finally your two word response to that.

Such nested attributions are exceedingly ubiquitous in Usenet
follow-up articles. The included text provides a context for the
statement(s) made in the follow-up article(s).

>This is a Usenet 101 no no,

Including attributed text in follow-up articles with nested indents is
not a 'no no.' It is a common, but perhaps cumbersome, and even
confusing mechanism for the Usenet naive, that provides context.

>and I personally don't like what Steven McNichol says being attributed
>to me at ANY time!.
>Dudley Henriques

I feel your pain. :-) But, because that didn't happen, you should be
happy.

What Montblack did was omit the attribution line indicating that
McNicoll said the part behind the double indent marks (>>). However,
it is still quite clear to an experienced Usenet reader, that
Montblack did not attribute McNicoll's statement to you, Dudley
Henriques, by virtue of the nested double indent marks (>>). Despite
Montblack's omission of McNicoll's attribution line, Montblack's
attribution was correct in indicating that you, Dudley Henriques, had
included McNicoll's text in your article, and thus had 'said' what
McNicoll said by quoting him.

So I think the lesson here is to include the necessary _attribution_
-lines_ as well as the indent marks when including text from a
previous article.

(Please don't flame me for attempting to explain the precise nature of
the complaint and my deliberate use of antecedents to overcome pronoun
ambiguity.)

[Dudley Henriques]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:42:48 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in
> >::
>
>>Your quote was incorrect as I have stated. You attritubed the entire
>>statement to me, which is incorrect.
>
> Fortunately, that is not true.
>
>>Under your heading "Dudley Henriques said", you include the entire
>>McNichol
>>quote, then my two word response "Forget it."
>
> With all due respect, here is the follow-up article you, Dudley
> Henriques, posted:
>
> From: "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net>
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
> Subject: Re: CFI without commercial?
> Message-ID: >
> Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 23:22:57 GMT
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> .net...
> >
> > "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
> > . net...
> >>
> >> Might I suggest you try attaching something once in a while to
> >> indicate
> >> you mean humor. It's allowed in the response you
> >> know......Usenet
> >> protocol and all that :-)) See what I mean? Doesn't hurt a
> >> bit!!
> >>
> >
> > I don't use smilies. If you have to tell your audience when to
> > laugh your humor has missed the mark.
>
> Forget it.
>
> If one notes the attribution lines ('wrote in') and the nested indents
> ('>'), it's quite clear, that you, Dudley Henriques, posted a two word
> follow-up to McNicoll's two sentences, and that you included
> McNicoll's two sentences in that follow-up article.
>
>>Please do not include what other people say leading up to a response, then
>>add the response under a single heading.
>
> Above you, Dudley Henriques, accuses Montblack of what you in fact did
> in your own follow-up article. Ironic. You included text you wrote,
> McNicoll's response, and finally your two word response to that.
>
> Such nested attributions are exceedingly ubiquitous in Usenet
> follow-up articles. The included text provides a context for the
> statement(s) made in the follow-up article(s).
>
>>This is a Usenet 101 no no,
>
> Including attributed text in follow-up articles with nested indents is
> not a 'no no.' It is a common, but perhaps cumbersome, and even
> confusing mechanism for the Usenet naive, that provides context.
>
>>and I personally don't like what Steven McNichol says being attributed
>>to me at ANY time!.
>>Dudley Henriques
>
> I feel your pain. :-) But, because that didn't happen, you should be
> happy.
>
> What Montblack did was omit the attribution line indicating that
> McNicoll said the part behind the double indent marks (>>). However,
> it is still quite clear to an experienced Usenet reader, that
> Montblack did not attribute McNicoll's statement to you, Dudley
> Henriques, by virtue of the nested double indent marks (>>). Despite
> Montblack's omission of McNicoll's attribution line, Montblack's
> attribution was correct in indicating that you, Dudley Henriques, had
> included McNicoll's text in your article, and thus had 'said' what
> McNicoll said by quoting him.
>
> So I think the lesson here is to include the necessary _attribution_
> -lines_ as well as the indent marks when including text from a
> previous article.
>
> (Please don't flame me for attempting to explain the precise nature of
> the complaint and my deliberate use of antecedents to overcome pronoun
> ambiguity.)

I'm not going to flame you, and I'm aware of the indents.
The problem is that many of the people who read Usenet never get into these
things this deeply and only react to the words printed in front of them on
the screen. Although you might be technically correct in what you are
saying, to include statements made by two people from different posts under
one heading that plainly mentions just one of the quoted people by name, and
then going pedantic with a highly detailed explanation and justification
because double indents were used is ducking the issue.
You can be technically correct and win the battle on the technically correct
issue, but lose the war on the INTENT issue.
If you're intent is to be a lawyer, you are correct. If your intent is
common sense, and the reality of the actual impression this procedure leaves
on people, then you are in no way serving the intent, which is to CLARIFY.
Personally, I avoid people who will take statements from TWO people and
place them together under a heading that plainly gives the impression that
what was said was said by one person mentioned by name in the heading.
Let me put it this way. You can be technically right. Montblank can be
technically right. But I will avoid both of you in any post I make on Usenet
because you are playing games with my name under a pedantic litany of
technicality that involves something I believe the average reader would miss
when reading something attributed to me that I did not say.
It's THAT simple!
In my opinion, if indents are to be used to separate two individuals in a
quoted text involving both individuals, BOTH people should be named in the
"said" heading; not one. This being done, the indents then serve their
useful purpose as a separator. Naming only one individual, then using a
double indent that can easily be missed is both misleading and disingenuous.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)

[Robert M. Gary]

Technically, he's being being paid to teach. He only needs a class 3
medical.

-Robert, CFI

[Montblack]

("Dudley Henriques" wrote)
<snip>
> Let me put it this way. You can be technically right. Montblank can be
> technically right. But I will avoid both of you in any post I make on
> Usenet because you are playing games with my name under a pedantic litany
> of technicality that involves something I believe the average reader would
> miss when reading something attributed to me that I did not say.
> It's THAT simple!
> In my opinion, if indents are to be used to separate two individuals in a
> quoted text involving both individuals, BOTH people should be named in the
> "said" heading; not one. This being done, the indents then serve their
> useful purpose as a separator. Naming only one individual, then using a
> double indent that can easily be missed is both misleading and
> disingenuous.


Hmm.

First things first. S.P.M. posted a lengthy explanation (for him) and you
shot back with a two word answer - that for me was worth a chuckle.

WRT the above passage <snip>:
I think there is style and then there's general use (SOP). I'm sorry Dudley
ole'buddy, but I think you're not right in this case. I responded to you.
You were responding to someone else.

No need to include all previous information from the thread, just enough to
move it along. S.P.M's name wasn't needed for that end - plain and simple.

>> ....means two posts ago.
> ......means your post.

I think you're grabbing at being wronged here. You've got the 'No One Treats
DH That Way" machinery in place and by gum you're bound and determined to
pull me into it.

This is how I trim my post. This is how I've been trimming my posts.
However...In the future, I will take special care to attribute other
people's quotes when your name is involved.

Now a postscript, as it were.
At first glance I didn't think you had a horse in this race because you
seldom trim your posts. Then I realized that, in a pedantic technicality
kind of way, your bases are covered. <g>


Montblack

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Technically, he's being being paid to teach. He only needs a class 3
> medical.
>

But in reality he's flying for hire.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> Technically, he's being being paid to teach. He only needs a class 3
>> medical.
>>
>
> But in reality he's flying for hire.
>

No he's teaching for hire which is acceptted as OK by the FAA to do with a
3rd class medical.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:_R2Wd.19007$Im.17259@okepread01...
>
> No he's teaching for hire which is acceptted as OK by the FAA to do with a
> 3rd class medical.

So flight instructors don't fly?

[George Patterson]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
> news:_R2Wd.19007$Im.17259@okepread01...
> >
> > No he's teaching for hire which is acceptted as OK by the FAA to do with a
> > 3rd class medical.
>
> So flight instructors don't fly?

No, the flying is incidental to the job, which is teaching. As a PPSEL employed
at one time as a systems engineer, I could draw my salary while flying to a
meeting I had to attend. My employer could even pay the entire cost of the
flight. The CFI is doing exactly the same thing.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, the flying is incidental to the job, which is teaching.
>

What is it that they're teaching?


>
> As a PPSEL employed
> at one time as a systems engineer, I could draw my salary while flying to
> a
> meeting I had to attend. My employer could even pay the entire cost of the
> flight. The CFI is doing exactly the same thing.
>

Doesn't seem to be exactly the same thing to me. You weren't performing
your job while flying, but a flight instructor certainly is.

[ET]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ink.net:

>
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> No, the flying is incidental to the job, which is teaching.
>>
>
> What is it that they're teaching?
>

How to throw yourself at the ground and miss!


--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Robert M. Gary]

That right. An in fact, if the pilot is already rated and qualified as
PIC (perhaps getting a BFR) then the CFI doesn't need *any* medical at
all.

-Robert

[Jim Burns]

Thank you George.

I'll probably regret it, but here's John Lynch's opinion includeing the
questions clarification in the Part 61 Pramble.

QUESTION: Does a CFI even need a medical certificate to give flight
training?



ANSWER: Ref. § 61.23; Depends on the situation. The medical requirements
for a CFI are found in § 61.23.



Reference § 61.3(c)(2)(iv) and § 61.23(b)(5); No, when exercising the
privileges of a flight instructor certificate if the person is NOT acting as
pilot in command or serving as a required pilot flight crewmember.



Reference § 61.3(c)(1) and § 61.23(a)(3)(iv) Yes, at least a current 3rd
class medical certificate when giving instruction to a student pilot
(instructor must be PIC), to anyone while that person is using a view
limiting device (instructor is the safety pilot), or to a pilot that is not
rated in the aircraft (e.g., while preparing a pilot for multiengine,
sea-plane, type rating, etc., the instructor must be the PIC).



QUESTION: Do the rules permit a flight instructor to even receive
compensation for instruction when that flight instructor holds only a third
class medical, or maybe does not even hold a current medical certificate at
all?



ANSWER: § 61.23(b)(5); Yes, in accordance with § 61.23(b)(5), a flight
instructor who does not hold a medical certificate may give flight and
ground training and be compensated for it. In the preamble of the parts 61
and 141 final rule that was published in the Federal Register on April 4,
1997 (62 FR 16220-16367) when the FAA revised the entire Part 61, the FAA
stated the following in the Federal Register on page 16242 in response to
whether a medical certificate is required for a flight instructor to give
ground and flight training:



" With respect to the holding of medical certificates by a flight
instructor, the FAA has determined that the compensation a certificated
flight instructor receives for flight instruction is not compensation for
piloting the aircraft, but rather is compensation for the instruction. A
certificated flight instructor who is acting as pilot in command or as a
required flight crewmember and is receiving compensation for his or her
flight instruction is only exercising the privileges of a private pilot. A
certificated flight instructor who is acting as pilot in command or as a
required flight crewmember and receiving compensation for his or her flight
instruction is not carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire,
nor is he or she, for compensation or hire, acting as pilot in command of an
aircraft. . . . In this same regard, the FAA has determined that a
certificated flight instructor on board an aircraft for the purpose of
providing flight instruction, who does not act as pilot in command or
function as a required flight crewmember, is not performing or exercising
pilot privileges that would require him or her to possess a valid medical
certificate under the FARs."





QUESTION: Isn't it true that if a flight instructor is required to act as
PIC and is compensated, that a 2nd class medical would be required? If
the argument is that the flight instructor is not being compensated as a
pilot, but as an instructor why must they act as PIC? There is no
allowance for a pilot receiving compensation for pilot services to not have
at least a current 2nd class medical. The regulation does not talk about
instructors receiving compensation, so the 2nd class medical requirement
must apply them, also.



ANSWER: An instructor is not necessarily required to act as PIC to give
instruction, but is allowed to log instruction time as PIC per §
61.51(e)(3). The only situations in which an instructor is required to ACT
as PIC are during training of a student pilot or giving instrument
instruction to a non-instrument rated person while operating under
instrument flight rules (on an activated instrument flight plan) regardless
of whether it is instrument meteorological or visual meteorological
conditions (IMC or VMC).



An instructor is not required to act as PIC while giving simulated
instrument instruction to a person using a view limiting device, but the
instructor may be acting as safety pilot during this instruction. In
accordance with § 61.23(3)(iv) the instructor must hold a valid third class
medical to act as PIC or to be the safety pilot. This is because of
required crewmember status, not due to instruction duties.



Note that no medical is required per § 61.23(b)(5) when exercising the
privileges of a flight instructor certificate if the person is not acting as
PIC or serving as a required pilot flight crewmember.



True, the regulation is silent to the issue of compensation for instruction.
The government does not set rates or prevent free instruction. But, as you
say, a pilot receiving compensation for pilot services (Commercial or above)
does have to possess at least a current 2nd class medical. But, note the
emphasis on "pilot services." Instruction is not a pilot service



QUESTION: If a second class medical is not necessary for an instructor to
receive compensation, then it appears that a private pilot can be a flight
instructor, right? For Example a pilot could surrender their commercial
for a private and be a compensated flight instructor working a Part 61 or
141 school. It is possible. Do you have any guidance that I can reference
that allows flight instructors to act without a commercial certificate?



ANSWER: Ref. § 61.183(c); No. That is not possible. To be eligible for a
flight instructor certificate or rating, § 61.183(c) requires a person to
hold a commercial pilot certificate or airline transport pilot certificate
with the appropriate category and class rating. Surrender of the commercial
or ATP certificate to only hold a private certificate would effectively
include the surrender of the instructor certification. There is no
provision for a person to obtain or hold a flight instructor certificate
without a commercial or ATP certificate. But "holding" a commercial or ATP
certificate does not demand a valid medical. Only the performance of given
privileges require a specific class medical per § 61.23(a) (1), (2), or
(3).



QUESTION: Is it permissible to act as CFI with only a 3rd class Medical if
there is no compensation? ... Is it permissible to act as CFII in IMC with
only a 3rd class Medical if there is no compensation?



ANSWER: Ref. § 61.193 for flight instructor privileges; and § 61.195 for
limitations; Yes, to both questions, provided for the flight in IMC you're
current to act as pilot-in-command as required by § 61.57. In fact, you can
receive compensation. Your commercial certificate and instrument rating
provide the flight privileges as a crewmember (PIC while operating on the
IFR flight plan) as well as eligibility to obtain and continue to hold the
instructor certificate, but the third class medical is adequate for the
flight.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
>
> " With respect to the holding of medical certificates by a flight
> instructor, the FAA has determined that the compensation a certificated
> flight instructor receives for flight instruction is not compensation for
> piloting the aircraft, but rather is compensation for the instruction. A
> certificated flight instructor who is acting as pilot in command or as a
> required flight crewmember and is receiving compensation for his or her
> flight instruction is only exercising the privileges of a private pilot.
> A
> certificated flight instructor who is acting as pilot in command or as a
> required flight crewmember and receiving compensation for his or her
> flight
> instruction is not carrying passengers or property for compensation or
> hire,
> nor is he or she, for compensation or hire, acting as pilot in command of
> an
> aircraft. . . . In this same regard, the FAA has determined that a
> certificated flight instructor on board an aircraft for the purpose of
> providing flight instruction, who does not act as pilot in command or
> function as a required flight crewmember, is not performing or exercising
> pilot privileges that would require him or her to possess a valid medical
> certificate under the FARs."
>

Is this the same FAA that deemed "free" flight time to be compensation
itself if it's used to gain another certificate?


>
> ANSWER: An instructor is not necessarily required to act as PIC to give
> instruction, but is allowed to log instruction time as PIC per §
> 61.51(e)(3). The only situations in which an instructor is required to
> ACT
> as PIC are during training of a student pilot or giving instrument
> instruction to a non-instrument rated person while operating under
> instrument flight rules (on an activated instrument flight plan)
> regardless
> of whether it is instrument meteorological or visual meteorological
> conditions (IMC or VMC).
>

How can an instructor log flight time if he isn't flying?

[Jim Burns]

Ask John Lynch.... oh, nevermind... he quit taking questions due to his high
workload.


> Is this the same FAA that deemed "free" flight time to be compensation
> itself if it's used to gain another certificate?

There is no "same" FAA, just ask them.


> How can an instructor log flight time if he isn't flying?

That's the old "Acting as PIC" and being able to "log PIC time". Always
considered two differant things and an FAA'ism.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> How can an instructor log flight time if he isn't flying?
>>
>
> That's the old "Acting as PIC" and being able to "log PIC time". Always
> considered two differant things and an FAA'ism.
>

Considering doesn't make it so. An instructor logs flight time because he's
been flying.

[Jim Burns]

An instructor does not log flight time.

He logs instruction given and he logs PIC time. None of my log books have a
column for "flight time".
Because it is legal to log PIC time for the time during which flight
instruction is given, he is able to log PIC time even if he never acts as
PIC, and even if the aircraft never leaves the ground, thus, he can log PIC
time when he isn't flying and he never logs "flight time".

The fact that the instructor is physically in the airplane does not mean
that the instructor is acting as PIC. The fact that the instructor is able
to log PIC time for that time he gives flight instruction does not mean that
the instructor has to act as PIC in order to log that time.

The fact that the instructor sits in the airplane and that flapping his arms
provides no significant lift is proof that the instructor is not flying,
only the airplane is flying, the student and instructor are acting as
pilots, in one form or another.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
>
> An instructor does not log flight time.
>

Of course they do, don't be silly.


>
> He logs instruction given and he logs PIC time. None of my log books have
> a
> column for "flight time".
>

PIC time is flight time.


>
> Because it is legal to log PIC time for the time during which flight
> instruction is given, he is able to log PIC time even if he never acts as
> PIC, and even if the aircraft never leaves the ground, thus, he can log
> PIC
> time when he isn't flying and he never logs "flight time".
>

PIC time is not the issue. The fact is that flight instructors are flying
for hire because they're flying and they're being paid while they're doing
it. That may bother you no end but that's the way it is, there's simply no
way around the logic.

[Jose]

> That may bother you no end but that's the way it is, there's simply no
> way around the logic.

The FAA finds ways around logic all the time.

<g,d>
Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
>
> That's your opinion, not the FAA's, and yours is not the one that matters.
>

Actually, it's not an opinion at all.

[Jim Burns]

>
> PIC time is not the issue. The fact is that flight instructors are flying
> for hire because they're flying and they're being paid while they're doing
> it. That may bother you no end but that's the way it is, there's simply
no
> way around the logic.
>

That's your opinion, not the FAA's, and yours is not the one that matters.
I'll wait for word from them that you've convinced them to change the
Preamble to Part 61, but I won't hold my breath.

[George Patterson]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > No, the flying is incidental to the job, which is teaching.
> >
>
> What is it that they're teaching?

That's completely unimportant in this discussion. The job is teaching, not
flying.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[George Patterson]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> Considering doesn't make it so. An instructor logs flight time because he's
> been flying.

Not usually. He's been in an aircraft that someone else is flying. IIRC, none of
my instructors have done any flying during any training I've taken since I got
my PPSEL certificate.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
> That's completely unimportant in this discussion. The job is teaching, not
> flying.
>

What are they teaching?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not usually. He's been in an aircraft that someone else is flying.
>

If he's in it he's flying.


>
> IIRC, none of
> my instructors have done any flying during any training I've taken since I
> got
> my PPSEL certificate.
>

Did they not accompany you?

[George Patterson]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Not usually. He's been in an aircraft that someone else is flying.
>
> If he's in it he's flying.

Bull.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[Sylvain]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

>
> No he's teaching for hire which is acceptted as OK by the FAA to do with a
> 3rd class medical.
>

Actually you can do it without any medical at all if your (advanced,
adequately rated and all that) student can act as PIC.

--Sylvain

[Sylvain]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> <snip>

whaow. I really really pity your CFI. Tough to get through to
you, isn't it?

--Sylvain

ps. the CFI might even be sitting in and giving instruction from
the back seat and still log that time as PIC.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
>
> ps. the CFI might even be sitting in and giving instruction from
> the back seat and still log that time as PIC.
>

That's not the issue.

[Robert M. Gary]

Steven,
CFIs log time very differently than other pilots. 61.51(e). Most pilots
log PIC as "sole manipulator". CFIs log time as "providing
instruction". Its a different reg in the FAR for CFI logging PIC.

-Robert, CFI

[Dudley Henriques]

Right and wrong on Usenet is simply a matter of perspective. The reason you
will never be right with me is because I attack the premise as being
incorrect. You are simply stating and restating that the protocols must be
right because they in fact exist.
Based on your logic, and the > protocol itself, someone can write out in
plain English "Dudley Henriques said" followed by a forty page document
written in plain English by someone else showing a >>....followed by a one
word reply by Dudley Henriques showing a > and everything is just fine.
Sorry, but this protocol doesn't pass my smell test, and I'm in total
disagreement with the premise that allows it.
The > and >> protocols are fine, as long as the poster doesn't lead the
reader into the text by using just a single name of the two people being
quoted. If two quotes are involved, it might be protocol to lead in with a
single name, but it's misleading enough that it's at least unethical.
Mentioning someone by name, followed by a long text that was NOT what the
mentioned party said, and justifying this with the > protocol stinks pure
and simple.
You are correct however that this is accepted practice on Usenet. This is
also one of the reasons I have so little respect for Usenet and those who
push this type of unethical nonsense on others.

Common sense dictates that if two quotes are involved, BOTH names should
appear in the heading, not one. Usenet protocol allows otherwise.
I'll go with common sense every time on issues like this.
Usenet isn't my life. Over time it's simply become comic relief :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)



"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Dudley Henriques" wrote)
> <snip>
>> Let me put it this way. You can be technically right. Montblank can be
>> technically right. But I will avoid both of you in any post I make on
>> Usenet because you are playing games with my name under a pedantic litany
>> of technicality that involves something I believe the average reader
>> would miss when reading something attributed to me that I did not say.
>> It's THAT simple!
>> In my opinion, if indents are to be used to separate two individuals in a
>> quoted text involving both individuals, BOTH people should be named in
>> the "said" heading; not one. This being done, the indents then serve
>> their useful purpose as a separator. Naming only one individual, then
>> using a double indent that can easily be missed is both misleading and
>> disingenuous.
>
>
> Hmm.
>
> First things first. S.P.M. posted a lengthy explanation (for him) and you
> shot back with a two word answer - that for me was worth a chuckle.
>
> WRT the above passage <snip>:
> I think there is style and then there's general use (SOP). I'm sorry
> Dudley ole'buddy, but I think you're not right in this case. I responded
> to you. You were responding to someone else.
>
> No need to include all previous information from the thread, just enough
> to move it along. S.P.M's name wasn't needed for that end - plain and
> simple.
>
>>> ....means two posts ago.
>> ......means your post.
>
> I think you're grabbing at being wronged here. You've got the 'No One
> Treats DH That Way" machinery in place and by gum you're bound and
> determined to pull me into it.
>
> This is how I trim my post. This is how I've been trimming my posts.
> However...In the future, I will take special care to attribute other
> people's quotes when your name is involved.
>
> Now a postscript, as it were.
> At first glance I didn't think you had a horse in this race because you
> seldom trim your posts. Then I realized that, in a pedantic technicality
> kind of way, your bases are covered. <g>
>
>
> Montblack
>

[John Godwin]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
nk.net:

> Considering doesn't make it so. An instructor logs flight time
> because he's been flying.

No, Title 14 of the Federal Regulations makes it so.

61.51(e)(3) An authorized instructor may log as pilot-in-command time
all flight time while acting as an authorized instructor.

--

[Jose]

> 61.51(e)(3) An authorized instructor may log as pilot-in-command time
> all flight time while acting as an authorized instructor.

Seems to me this says that it has to be flight time first, he has to be
acting as an authorized instructor =during= that flight time, and =then=
he can log it as PIC time.

If it's not flight time to begin with, this rule does not let him log it
as PIC time. It does not prohibit it either - that prohibition comes
from elsewhere (except as provided in...may log as PIC time only that
time in which...)

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

Jose wrote:
>
> > 61.51(e)(3) An authorized instructor may log as pilot-in-command time
> > all flight time while acting as an authorized instructor.
>
> Seems to me this says that it has to be flight time first, he has to be
> acting as an authorized instructor =during= that flight time, and =then=
> he can log it as PIC time.

Yes, but, if the CFI is not manipulating the controls, then he is not flying the
aircraft. He has been in an aircraft that someone else is flying.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[Jose]

>>> 61.51(e)(3) An authorized instructor may log as pilot-in-command time
>>> all flight time while acting as an authorized instructor.
>> Seems to me this says that it has to be flight time first, he has to be
>> acting as an authorized instructor =during= that flight time, and =then=
>> he can log it as PIC time.
> Yes, but, if the CFI is not manipulating the controls, then he is not flying the
> aircraft. He has been in an aircraft that someone else is flying.

Ok, he's not "flying the aircraft" but he is "flying" (aloft). OTOH,
when a pilot sits back and lets George do the flying, is the pilot
"flying the aircraft"? Does it matter if George is organic or electrical?

So, off to the definitions:
Flight time means: (1) Pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves
under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft
comes to rest after landing; or (2) [glider stuff, ignored]

Pilot time means:.... nothing. It's not defined. No surprise here!

Provisions are made for a safety pilot to log SIC time(*) even when the
safety pilot is not manipulating the controls. Now this time first has
to be "flight time", which means it first has to be "pilot time", which
is undefined. It might make sense that "pilot time" is only that time
in which the pilot in question is piloting the aircraft, but to hold to
that strictly would make the logging of SIC time for a safety pilot
impossible (except perhaps for the one moment where the safety pilot
grabs the controls after seeing the impending collsion hazard :) So,
attractive to logic that that definition might be, it must be
(reluctantly) abandoned for something looser. One candidate would be
"that time in which the aircraft is flying, attempting to fly, or in
continuous motion on the ground after flight, and there is a pilot on
board attempting to maintain control of the situation". If it's pilot
time for someone, it's pilot time for everyone onboard that has some
responsibility for the outcome of the flight. It is then loggable
flight time under the right circumstances (like sole manipulator, giving
flight instruction, etc.)

The CFI, while giving instruction, has some responsibility for the
outcome of the flight. He is actively participating in the flight, even
if only as an observer whose input will be considered later. (If there
is no input, then there is no flight instruction being given. The
granting or denial of a certificate or rating counts as input (+).)

(*) yes, under some circumstances he can also log PIC time, but this is
irrelevant to my point
(+) despite the FAA's contention that a flight test doesn't count as
"instruction"; I'm just keeping things simple for illustration. After
all, I'm making this interpretation up anyway :)

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[John Godwin]

Jose > wrote in
:

> Ok, he's not "flying the aircraft" but he is "flying" (aloft).
> OTOH, when a pilot sits back and lets George do the flying, is the
> pilot "flying the aircraft"? Does it matter if George is organic
> or electrical?

So you say that the instructor must be aloft in the aircraft? (Think
first before replying to this one .. a Pitts Special, for example, only
has one seat). Flight Reviews have been given in cases of this nature.

--

[Jose]

> So you say that the instructor must be aloft in the aircraft? (Think
> first before replying to this one .. a Pitts Special, for example, only
> has one seat). Flight Reviews have been given in cases of this nature.

To log "flight time", I would imagine so. But you raise a good point,
and I'm not sure what the right answer should be.

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Godwin" > wrote in message
. 3.44...
>
> No, Title 14 of the Federal Regulations makes it so.
>
> 61.51(e)(3) An authorized instructor may log as pilot-in-command time
> all flight time while acting as an authorized instructor.
>

If he hadn't been flying he'd have had no flight time to log. You're
proving my point.

[Robert M. Gary]

No one demonstrated lazy 8's etc for you? I don't get on the stick much
as a CFI, but I do usually demo things.

-Robert, CFI

[Rxnichols]

You can get paid all you want instructing, and don't even have to have
a medical unless you are acting as PIC, then only a 3rd class. You not
acting as a commercial pilot instructing, even though the regs say you
need it for the exam.
Is it possible to get the CFI without the Commercial ? Some of us instrument rated pilots would like to get a CFI and don't need / intend to charge.
- Richard Nichols, MD
SEL, Instrument Airplane