CFI in IMC with Student

[Roy Page]

I am sure I can count on this newsgroup to give this question their best !

Would it be legal for a CFI [Not CFII] to act as PIC from the right seat
with a student in IMC ?

In my opinion regardless of the legality, it would be less than sensible,
what say the group ?

--
Roy
N5804F Piper Archer

"I have had some bad landings but I have never missed the runway"

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Roy Page > wrote:
>I am sure I can count on this newsgroup to give this question their best !
>
>Would it be legal for a CFI [Not CFII] to act as PIC from the right seat
>with a student in IMC ?

Yes, assuming the CFI is IFR current.

>In my opinion regardless of the legality, it would be less than sensible,
>what say the group ?

It depends. Is the CFI comfortable flying in IMC? How skilled is the
student? For somebody getting close to being ready for their
checkride, it should be no big deal, especially in relatively benign
conditions, and would be a valuble experience for the student.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 01:01:57 GMT, "Roy Page"
> wrote:

>I am sure I can count on this newsgroup to give this question their best !
>
>Would it be legal for a CFI [Not CFII] to act as PIC from the right seat
>with a student in IMC ?
>
>In my opinion regardless of the legality, it would be less than sensible,
>what say the group ?

So long as said CFI meets the requirements to act as PIC in the a/c under
IMC, the answer has to be "yes" as to the legality.

I'm not aware of any circumstances where a CFI has less privileges than a
non-CFI. And there is nothing I am aware of in the regulations that make
my legality to act as PIC contingent on the ratings of anyone else in the
a/c, or their seat position.

So far as the sensibility, I leave that for others to discuss. But I think
whether or not it is sensible depends on the mission objectives.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Roy Page]

Ron, Thanks for your input.

My own feeling was that it might not be legal.
My reasoning was that a CFII has received a check out flying instruments
from the right seat.
Whereas, a regular CFI has not been checked out flying on the gages from the
right seat.
Am I correct ? I am not sure.

On the sensibility issue, I would agree it depends on the mission.
This particular mission was a jaunt in the clouds with a certified pilot in
the left seat who was having problems controlling the aircraft under the
hood.
So the CFI took that pilot into the clouds saying he was PIC but the pilot
in the right seat did all the flying.
The CFI says it was legal, but in my opinion, this is just another case
where this CFI showed poor judgment.

Roy


"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 01:01:57 GMT, "Roy Page"
> > wrote:
>
>>I am sure I can count on this newsgroup to give this question their best !
>>
>>Would it be legal for a CFI [Not CFII] to act as PIC from the right seat
>>with a student in IMC ?
>>
>>In my opinion regardless of the legality, it would be less than sensible,
>>what say the group ?
>
> So long as said CFI meets the requirements to act as PIC in the a/c under
> IMC, the answer has to be "yes" as to the legality.
>
> I'm not aware of any circumstances where a CFI has less privileges than a
> non-CFI. And there is nothing I am aware of in the regulations that make
> my legality to act as PIC contingent on the ratings of anyone else in the
> a/c, or their seat position.
>
> So far as the sensibility, I leave that for others to discuss. But I
> think
> whether or not it is sensible depends on the mission objectives.
>
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Roy Page]

Sorry I must have worded it poorly,

No, you are in the Left seat and you are having problems controlling the
aircraft under the hood.
Now the point is to help you fly on instruments.

Roy


"Gene Kearns" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 01:01:57 GMT, "Roy Page"
> > wrote:
>
>>I am sure I can count on this newsgroup to give this question their best !
>>
>>Would it be legal for a CFI [Not CFII] to act as PIC from the right seat
>>with a student in IMC ?
>>
>>In my opinion regardless of the legality, it would be less than sensible,
>>what say the group ?
>
> Ok... I'm the student in the right seat... I'm paying for this...what
> is the point?
> --
>
> Homepage
> http://myworkshop.idleplay.net/
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
> Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
> =----

[Roy Page]

Sorry I meant to say that the Pilot did all the flying from the Left [not
right] seat..


"Roy Page" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Ron, Thanks for your input.
>
> My own feeling was that it might not be legal.
> My reasoning was that a CFII has received a check out flying instruments
> from the right seat.
> Whereas, a regular CFI has not been checked out flying on the gages from
> the right seat.
> Am I correct ? I am not sure.
>
> On the sensibility issue, I would agree it depends on the mission.
> This particular mission was a jaunt in the clouds with a certified pilot
> in the left seat who was having problems controlling the aircraft under
> the hood.
> So the CFI took that pilot into the clouds saying he was PIC but the pilot
> in the right seat did all the flying.
> The CFI says it was legal, but in my opinion, this is just another case
> where this CFI showed poor judgment.
>
> Roy
>
>
> "Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 01:01:57 GMT, "Roy Page"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>I am sure I can count on this newsgroup to give this question their best
>>>!
>>>
>>>Would it be legal for a CFI [Not CFII] to act as PIC from the right seat
>>>with a student in IMC ?
>>>
>>>In my opinion regardless of the legality, it would be less than sensible,
>>>what say the group ?
>>
>> So long as said CFI meets the requirements to act as PIC in the a/c under
>> IMC, the answer has to be "yes" as to the legality.
>>
>> I'm not aware of any circumstances where a CFI has less privileges than a
>> non-CFI. And there is nothing I am aware of in the regulations that make
>> my legality to act as PIC contingent on the ratings of anyone else in the
>> a/c, or their seat position.
>>
>> So far as the sensibility, I leave that for others to discuss. But I
>> think
>> whether or not it is sensible depends on the mission objectives.
>>
>>
>> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
>
>

[Roy Smith]

Roy Page > wrote:
>My own feeling was that it might not be legal.
>My reasoning was that a CFII has received a check out flying instruments
>from the right seat.
>Whereas, a regular CFI has not been checked out flying on the gages from the
>right seat.

The FAA doesn't care what seat you're sitting in. While it is
traditional for instructor check rides to be taken from the right
seat (assuming whatever you brought along for the ride has
side-by-side seating), there's nothing that requires you to sit in any
particular seat while exercising the priveleges of your certificates
and ratings.

>On the sensibility issue, I would agree it depends on the mission.
>This particular mission was a jaunt in the clouds with a certified pilot in
>the left seat who was having problems controlling the aircraft under the
>hood.
>So the CFI took that pilot into the clouds saying he was PIC but the pilot
>in the right seat did all the flying.
>The CFI says it was legal, but in my opinion, this is just another case
>where this CFI showed poor judgment.

There's nothing you've described so far which would lead me to believe
it was illegal. As for whether it was poor judgement or not, that's
impossible to say without knowing a lot more about the situation (and
even then, I'm sure any group of 10 pilots would have 12 or more
opinions on the subject).

It does sound like you've got an axe to grind, however. Basicly, this
boils down to you saying, "I think this guy showed poor judgment, don't
you agree with me?" Were you the pilot in question?

[Roy Page]

Yes I do have an axe to grind, this CFI seems to have a habit of doing
things which show poor judgment.
For instance, VOR A circular approaches at absolute minimums to a very small
airport when an ILS is just 10 miles away.
Several local pilots and instructors hold similar opinions and he appears to
be an accident just waiting to happen.
Do you just stand by and do nothing ?

Roy



"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Roy Page > wrote:
>>My own feeling was that it might not be legal.
>>My reasoning was that a CFII has received a check out flying instruments
>>from the right seat.
>>Whereas, a regular CFI has not been checked out flying on the gages from
>>the
>>right seat.
>
> The FAA doesn't care what seat you're sitting in. While it is
> traditional for instructor check rides to be taken from the right
> seat (assuming whatever you brought along for the ride has
> side-by-side seating), there's nothing that requires you to sit in any
> particular seat while exercising the priveleges of your certificates
> and ratings.
>
>>On the sensibility issue, I would agree it depends on the mission.
>>This particular mission was a jaunt in the clouds with a certified pilot
>>in
>>the left seat who was having problems controlling the aircraft under the
>>hood.
>>So the CFI took that pilot into the clouds saying he was PIC but the pilot
>>in the right seat did all the flying.
>>The CFI says it was legal, but in my opinion, this is just another case
>>where this CFI showed poor judgment.
>
> There's nothing you've described so far which would lead me to believe
> it was illegal. As for whether it was poor judgement or not, that's
> impossible to say without knowing a lot more about the situation (and
> even then, I'm sure any group of 10 pilots would have 12 or more
> opinions on the subject).
>
> It does sound like you've got an axe to grind, however. Basicly, this
> boils down to you saying, "I think this guy showed poor judgment, don't
> you agree with me?" Were you the pilot in question?
>
>

[Roy Smith]

In article t>,
"Roy Page" > wrote:

> Yes I do have an axe to grind, this CFI seems to have a habit of doing
> things which show poor judgment.
> For instance, VOR A circular approaches at absolute minimums to a very small
> airport when an ILS is just 10 miles away.
> Several local pilots and instructors hold similar opinions and he appears to
> be an accident just waiting to happen.
> Do you just stand by and do nothing ?

Of course not. You should bitch about him on a newsgroup. If that doesn't
work, try talking to him directly.

To be honest, though, if your level of experience is such that you talk
about "circular approaches", I have to wonder if you're in a position to be
passing judgment on other people's instrument flying.

[A Lieberman]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 03:16:07 GMT, Roy Page wrote:

> Yes I do have an axe to grind, this CFI seems to have a habit of doing
> things which show poor judgment.
> For instance, VOR A circular approaches at absolute minimums to a very small
> airport when an ILS is just 10 miles away.
> Several local pilots and instructors hold similar opinions and he appears to
> be an accident just waiting to happen.
> Do you just stand by and do nothing ?
>
> Roy

Hmm, can't say anything about the instructor you are talking about, but I
had an instructor that had me go to minimums at my own airport (VOR A at
MBO) circle to land.

In fact, one lesson, we tried three times to come back, and was in the clag
for all three missed approaches. Decided at that time, ILS at HKS is our
next option. Little did we know it went down to ILS minimums at HKS. We
broke out exactly 200 AGL at the middle marker.

I had three lessons right at minimums at my own airport, so when it came
for my first single pilot IFR, guess what? It was no big deal! He put me
through the mill, but when the chips (ceilings in this case) were down, I
was trained in the real deal. First day on my single pilot IFR, I went up
with 1000 foot ceilings, shot 3 ILS approaches, and felt like I had a ton
of time when I broke out. By the time I came back to my own airport,
ceilings went up to 1500, again, no biggie having gone through the "worst
case scenario" in my training.

I was thankful this instructor was not afraid to do the real deal IMC. He
went on to the airlines, and I finished up with a second instructor who
would never fly to minimums. My second instructor on the other hand, gave
me the discipline I now have in the cockpit so that I am further ahead of
the plane then I was with the first instructor. A great balance I
thought....

So, in regards to your opinion about doing circling approaches when there
is an ILS near by, well, I'd have to disagree with your opinion. If you do
not go one feet below MDA, then what is the big deal about a circle to land
approach? Bottom line, you still have to fly the plane.

Would you say I had poor judgment just because I enjoy flying in the clag,
and going down to minimums?

Allen

[A Lieberman]

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 22:37:06 -0500, Roy Smith wrote:

> To be honest, though, if your level of experience is such that you talk
> about "circular approaches", I have to wonder if you're in a position to be
> passing judgment on other people's instrument flying.

I second this thought..... Minimums are there for a reason. Now if the
original poster said the instructor went below minimums, then he would have
reason to question him.

For me, there is nothing more magical then breaking out at minimums.

If you go to
http://www.archive.org/details/ALiebermanVORAlphaApproachintoMBO and
download the video, this is a clip of one my circle to land approaches down
to minimums.

Allen

[Roy Page]

Well, I appreciate all the input this evening.
Seems I am on the wrong track and stand corrected.
Thanks to you all I will keep my mouth shut and sulk in the corner :-)

Regards
Roy



"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 22:37:06 -0500, Roy Smith wrote:
>
>> To be honest, though, if your level of experience is such that you talk
>> about "circular approaches", I have to wonder if you're in a position to
>> be
>> passing judgment on other people's instrument flying.
>
> I second this thought..... Minimums are there for a reason. Now if the
> original poster said the instructor went below minimums, then he would
> have
> reason to question him.
>
> For me, there is nothing more magical then breaking out at minimums.
>
> If you go to
> http://www.archive.org/details/ALiebermanVORAlphaApproachintoMBO and
> download the video, this is a clip of one my circle to land approaches
> down
> to minimums.
>
> Allen

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 02:50:34 GMT, "Roy Page"
> wrote:

>Ron, Thanks for your input.
>
>My own feeling was that it might not be legal.
>My reasoning was that a CFII has received a check out flying instruments
>from the right seat.
>Whereas, a regular CFI has not been checked out flying on the gages from the
>right seat.
>Am I correct ? I am not sure.

You asked about legality. There's no requirement in the regulations for
seat specific checkouts in small GA aircraft. There's no regulation
preventing me from flying right seat in IMC with passengers and acting as
PIC. I'm not aware of anything more restrictive for a CFI.

>
>On the sensibility issue, I would agree it depends on the mission.
>This particular mission was a jaunt in the clouds with a certified pilot in
>the left seat who was having problems controlling the aircraft under the
>hood.
>So the CFI took that pilot into the clouds saying he was PIC but the pilot
>in the right seat did all the flying.
>The CFI says it was legal, but in my opinion, this is just another case
>where this CFI showed poor judgment.

Assuming the CFI is rated and current, I see no legal problem with this
scenario. (I assume you meant the pilot in the left seat did the flying).
And, at least from what you present here, *I* would not even consider it to
represent poor judgement. Personally, I think it is an excellent idea for
all pilots to get exposed to IMC and if a pilot is rated, current, and
legal to act as PIC under IMC, it doesn't really matter to me whether or
not that pilot has a II.

I think if you are trying to make a case that this CFI is exercising poor
judgement, you'll need better examples.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[houstondan]

seems that part of the original question tried to ask if it was wise to
try to fly real hard ifr from the right seat. would the instrument
viewing-angle matter much?

dan

[Peter R.]

A Lieberman > wrote:

> Would you say I had poor judgment just because I enjoy flying in the clag,
> and going down to minimums?

If I had performed the VOR approach accurately both times and still could
not get the airport in sight, that would be enough for me and I would have
been gone to another airport. I wouldn't have attempted a third.

Heck, if you have enough fuel, you could fly the VOR approach all day if
you wanted, but in reality, once you start flying for purpose instead of
practice, flying several approaches to the same airport is wishful
thinking... the type that has led to low fuel emergencies and fuel
exhaustion accidents.

--
Peter

[[email protected]]

Roy Page > wrote:
: I am sure I can count on this newsgroup to give this question their best !

: Would it be legal for a CFI [Not CFII] to act as PIC from the right seat
: with a student in IMC ?

: In my opinion regardless of the legality, it would be less than sensible,
: what say the group ?

Others have expressed my sentiment fairly well, but I would just like to
reiterate that given the information you have provided, it's not only legal, but often
a good idea. I think that even primary student pilots taking their checkride never
having seen the inside of a cloud is reckless and irresponsible IMO.... let alone
people taking instrument checkrides with only hoodwork. The hood is *NOT* adequate
training for the disorientation that can arise from being in IMC.

As long as the CFI is IFR current, has received a clearance, and is ensuring
they fly the clearance, it's perfectly legal. The regs do not say which seat one must
fly from. Whether or not it can be logged as dual is another question that I'm not
equipped to answer, but acting as PIC is fine.

WRT your comment about circling approaches, as long as he didn't decend below
minimums it's again not only safe and legal, but a GOOD IDEA to get practice in. The
PTSs (or IPCs?) have recently been updated to require some circling training.

Non-precision vs. ILS is another one. My home field (KBCB) has a LOC/DME
that'll get you down to 400'. The closest ILS (KPSK 16 miles west) only gets you to
300'. IMO, the LOC/DME is easier to fly, and in many ways with the mountains around
here, safer. Not irresponsible at all.

-Cory


--

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

[Roy Smith]

wrote:
> As long as the CFI is IFR current, has received a clearance, and is
> ensuring they fly the clearance, it's perfectly legal. The regs do not
> say which seat one must fly from. Whether or not it can be logged as
> dual is another question that I'm not equipped to answer, but acting as
> PIC is fine.

Yes, the student can log it as PIC (if they are the "sole manipulator of
the controls"). What the student cannot do is count it as part of the
required hours of instrument instruction towards an instrument rating.
It's PIC time, it's instruction received time, it's instrument time, it
just doesn't count towards the rating.

[A Lieberman]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 08:33:19 -0500, Peter R. wrote:

> If I had performed the VOR approach accurately both times and still could
> not get the airport in sight, that would be enough for me and I would have
> been gone to another airport. I wouldn't have attempted a third.

Had I been by myself AND it was not a training (or practice) approaches, I
would have done the same thing Peter. 2 tries and I'm outta here.....

But since I was in a training session, and wanting as much IMC time I can
get with an instructor AND full tanks (58 gallons), I really was in no
hurry to come down. That lesson, I ended up with 1.6 actual. It was this
lesson that built the utmost respect for minimums, and also helped me build
up my confidence in IMC. It's too bad not all IFR students get to
experience going down to minimums.

> Heck, if you have enough fuel, you could fly the VOR approach all day if
> you wanted, but in reality, once you start flying for purpose instead of
> practice, flying several approaches to the same airport is wishful
> thinking... the type that has led to low fuel emergencies and fuel
> exhaustion accidents.

I can see why you say what you do above as all the VOR approaches I have
done required a course reversal (procedure turn). This is not to say all
VOR approaches require a procedure turn, but the ones I have encountered
required it which of course adds to fuel burn time.

Allen

[[email protected]]

Roy Smith > wrote:
: wrote:
: > As long as the CFI is IFR current, has received a clearance, and is
: > ensuring they fly the clearance, it's perfectly legal. The regs do not
: > say which seat one must fly from. Whether or not it can be logged as
: > dual is another question that I'm not equipped to answer, but acting as
: > PIC is fine.

: Yes, the student can log it as PIC (if they are the "sole manipulator of
: the controls"). What the student cannot do is count it as part of the
: required hours of instrument instruction towards an instrument rating.
: It's PIC time, it's instruction received time, it's instrument time, it
: just doesn't count towards the rating.

I never said otherwise. I wasn't sure if there was anything in the
regulations about when an instructor can say he was giving dual. There probably
isn't... so yes... it's dual, it's instrument, it's PIC, but it's not applicable
dual for an instrument rating.

-Cory

--

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

[Matt Whiting]

Roy Smith wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> As long as the CFI is IFR current, has received a clearance, and is
>>ensuring they fly the clearance, it's perfectly legal. The regs do not
>>say which seat one must fly from. Whether or not it can be logged as
>>dual is another question that I'm not equipped to answer, but acting as
>>PIC is fine.
>
>
> Yes, the student can log it as PIC (if they are the "sole manipulator of
> the controls"). What the student cannot do is count it as part of the
> required hours of instrument instruction towards an instrument rating.
> It's PIC time, it's instruction received time, it's instrument time, it
> just doesn't count towards the rating.

I haven't read the regs lately, but do they specifically require
simulated instrument flight in order to count?


Matt

[[email protected]]

: I haven't read the regs lately, but do they specifically require
: simulated instrument flight in order to count?

No... you could do all your IFR training in actual conditions. It *does*
require that the dual you get is from a CFII, however. That's not to say you cannot
get dual instruction in IMC from a CFI as the OP suggested... just that it cannot
count it towards the dual required for an IR. Now there's an alphabet soup... :)

-Cory


--

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

[Peter Clark]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:37:52 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

>: I haven't read the regs lately, but do they specifically require
>: simulated instrument flight in order to count?
>
> No... you could do all your IFR training in actual conditions. It *does*
>require that the dual you get is from a CFII, however. That's not to say you cannot
>get dual instruction in IMC from a CFI as the OP suggested... just that it cannot
>count it towards the dual required for an IR. Now there's an alphabet soup... :)

I don't think we're taking about an *instrument* student. Isn't this
subthread talking about whether IMC encountered whilst a primary
student (flying with a CFI, not CFII) could be countable towards the 3
hours required in 61.109(3)?

And 61.109(3) doesn't say whether the time has to be simulated or
actual, it just says "solely by reference to instruments".

[Robert M. Gary]

Having a CFII provides 3 additional priv over a regular CFI

1) Ability to provide the 15 hours dual required for an instrument
rating
2) Ability to provide IPCs
3) Ability to provide type rating training not limited to VFR.

Other than that, everything else is just a CFI. I try to take my
private students in IMC at least once. It provides two things 1)
Understanding of what its really like and 2) Better, more realistic,
discussions on outs.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

The CFI (or CFII) only must hold CFI priv's in the aircraft in order to
log it as dual. So a CFI, non MEI cannot log dual in a twin. The
language of the FARs reads "within the limitations of the certificate".

-robert

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> : I haven't read the regs lately, but do they specifically require
> : simulated instrument flight in order to count?
>
> No... you could do all your IFR training in actual conditions. It *does*
> require that the dual you get is from a CFII, however. That's not to say you cannot
> get dual instruction in IMC from a CFI as the OP suggested... just that it cannot
> count it towards the dual required for an IR. Now there's an alphabet soup... :)

Ok, for some reason I was thinking this was the few hours of instrument
training needed for the private.

Matt

[Jay Somerset]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 01:24:19 +0000 (UTC), (Roy Smith) wrote:

> In article >,
> Roy Page > wrote:
> >I am sure I can count on this newsgroup to give this question their best !
> >
> >Would it be legal for a CFI [Not CFII] to act as PIC from the right seat
> >with a student in IMC ?
>
> Yes, assuming the CFI is IFR current.
>
> >In my opinion regardless of the legality, it would be less than sensible,
> >what say the group ?
>
> It depends. Is the CFI comfortable flying in IMC? How skilled is the
> student? For somebody getting close to being ready for their
> checkride, it should be no big deal, especially in relatively benign
> conditions, and would be a valuble experience for the student.

It's certainly legal, but can the student count it as "Instrument
Instruction" when adding up the number of required hours before the
checkride? I think not.

--
Jay.
(remove dashes for legal email address)

[[email protected]]

A Lieberman wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 22:37:06 -0500, Roy Smith wrote:
>
> > To be honest, though, if your level of experience is such that you talk
> > about "circular approaches", I have to wonder if you're in a position to be
> > passing judgment on other people's instrument flying.
>
> I second this thought..... Minimums are there for a reason. Now if the
> original poster said the instructor went below minimums, then he would have
> reason to question him.
>
> For me, there is nothing more magical then breaking out at minimums.
>
> If you go to
> http://www.archive.org/details/ALiebermanVORAlphaApproachintoMBO and
> download the video, this is a clip of one my circle to land approaches down
> to minimums.
>

Nice video. Was that the stall horn I heard chirping on your
base-to-final turn? (2:05 and 2:11 in the video). Does that typically
happen?

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Jay Somerset > wrote:

> It's certainly legal, but can the student count it as "Instrument
> Instruction" when adding up the number of required hours before the
> checkride? I think not.

You are correct -- they cannot. One of the few things you get with the II
is the ability to have your instruction count towards the required hours of
instruction for the instrument rating.

[Ben Jackson]

On 2005-12-12, Jay Somerset > wrote:
> It's certainly legal, but can the student count it as "Instrument
> Instruction" when adding up the number of required hours before the
> checkride? I think not.

Even if the CFI was a CFII, the primary student's instrument experience
would not apply to the instrument rating requirements. Would it apply
to the private "flight by reference to instruments" or whatever it's
called? Why not? Part of my private pilot "hood time" was in actual.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Dave S]

Ben Jackson wrote:
> On 2005-12-12, Jay Somerset > wrote:
>
>>It's certainly legal, but can the student count it as "Instrument
>>Instruction" when adding up the number of required hours before the
>>checkride? I think not.
>
>
> Even if the CFI was a CFII, the primary student's instrument experience
> would not apply to the instrument rating requirements. Would it apply
> to the private "flight by reference to instruments" or whatever it's
> called? Why not? Part of my private pilot "hood time" was in actual.
>

Flight experience doesnt expire. If the time is dual given by a CFII,
then that time is loggable towards the eventual completion of an
instrument rating. There is no limitation on the Instrument Instruction
given by an authorized instructor based on the "student" pilot rating or
lack therof.

If your CFI for your private was a CFII as well, that time does count
for instrument instruction. If not, it counts for instrument
experience/training/hood time/whatever name you want to put on the
category. Given that MOST pilots require more than the bare minimums to
earn endorsement as proficient, those 3 hours as a private probably wont
be a deal breaker.

In my case, I have instrument experience and instruction that nearly
completes the requirements for an instrument rating. Its also nearly 4
years old. I wont be starting over, but when all the time is added up
when I finally restart and get the rating, it wont be anywheres near the
minimum required hours.

Dave

[A Lieberman]

On 12 Dec 2005 06:45:26 -0800, wrote:

> Nice video. Was that the stall horn I heard chirping on your
> base-to-final turn? (2:05 and 2:11 in the video). Does that typically
> happen?

Yes, it was the stall horn. Got caught off guard on the winds aloft
blowing me through final. Also, getting thump around in the turbulence
didn't help matters which help triggered the stall horn :-)

You will notice that I took immediate corrective action by reducing my bank
and "accepting" the fact I would have to button hook back to final. Winds
at that level were 40 knots (quartering tail wind on base).

My mistake on that approach was squaring off base in my pattern when I
really should have just kept my turn going on base to final.

Stall horn in my plane starts chirping about 10 knots before stall, which
is fine with me :-)

One of my best landings can be seen at
http://www.archive.org/details/ALiebermanLanding36HattiesburgMSfromMBOavi
I have sized the file down t 13 meg.

For a night touch and go, if you go to
http://www.archive.org/details/ALiebermanNightLandingJackson34LfromMBOavi
Centerline lighting shows up real nice in this video.
This file I have sized it down to 10 meg.

For a night landing at my home airport MBO go to
http://www.archive.org/details/ALiebermanNightLanding17MBO VASI and runway
lighting shows up nicely.
7 meg is this file size.

As you can see, I like to give that stall horn a good workout with my low
and slow landings.

If you have high bandwidth, if you go to
http://www.archive.org/details/ALiebermanILS34LJackson1000ftCeilingfromMBO
this was an ILS where I broke out at 1000 feet AGL. This video is high
resolution so that the instrument panel looks real nice in full screen.
Since I was asked to keep my speed up, stall horn barely chirps on touch
down. File size weighs in at 65 meg after downloading. Not sure why the
web page reports 100 meg.

I like it when someone is with me to video my landings, so I can self
critique my own landings. I am harder on myself for quality of my landings
then passengers are :-)

While, not videos,
http://www.archive.org/details/ALiebermanFlightfromOhiotoMS has pictures of
my last flight from Ohio to MS. I call them the many faces of flight.
File sizes are less then 50kb per picture (5 pics) If experiencing these
pics doesn't give one incentive for getting their instrument rating, I
don't know what would!

Allen

[Ben Jackson]

On 2005-12-13, Dave S > wrote:
> Ben Jackson wrote:
>> On 2005-12-12, Jay Somerset > wrote:
>>
>> Even if the CFI was a CFII, the primary student's instrument experience
>> would not apply to the instrument rating requirements.
>
> Flight experience doesnt expire. If the time is dual given by a CFII,
> then that time is loggable towards the eventual completion of an
> instrument rating.

61.109(a)(3) 3 hours of flight training in a single-engine airplane
on the control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to
instruments...

You can find numerous DE opinions (google groups) saying that is not
equivalent to:

61.65(d)(2) A total of 40 hours of actual or simulated instrument time
on the areas of operation of this section...

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[[email protected]]

A Lieberman wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2005 06:45:26 -0800, wrote:
>
> > Nice video. Was that the stall horn I heard chirping on your
> > base-to-final turn? (2:05 and 2:11 in the video). Does that typically
> > happen?
>
> Yes, it was the stall horn. Got caught off guard on the winds aloft
> blowing me through final. Also, getting thump around in the turbulence
> didn't help matters which help triggered the stall horn :-)

Thanks, I wasn't being critical -- I'm relatively new at instrument
flying and I wondered how people generally flew circling approaches.

> You will notice that I took immediate corrective action by reducing my bank
> and "accepting" the fact I would have to button hook back to final. Winds
> at that level were 40 knots (quartering tail wind on base).

It did seem that you went from downwind to overshot awfully fast! the
winds would explain it. I can seldom fly a square pattern when I do
circle to land -- I usually have to button hook it.

> Stall horn in my plane starts chirping about 10 knots before stall, which
> is fine with me :-)

That is quite a margin. I did notice in the video that your airspeed
needle didn't appear to be in the region were I would expect the stall
horn to be triggered.

> As you can see, I like to give that stall horn a good workout with my low
> and slow landings.

Is that because you are flying a Sundowner? I've never flown one but
I've read that if you're even the slightest bit fast you'll float in
the flare. Of course a 10 kt margin is also unusually wide for a stall
horn.

thanks for all the videos!

[Peter R.]

> wrote:

> Of course a 10 kt margin is also unusually wide for a stall
> horn.

My understanding is that the newer model Cessna 172R's and S's have a 10 kt
margin with their stall warning horns.

--
Peter

[A Lieberman]

On 13 Dec 2005 07:07:26 -0800, wrote:

> Thanks, I wasn't being critical -- I'm relatively new at instrument
> flying and I wondered how people generally flew circling approaches.

On the contrary, I appreciate you taking the time to notice :-) It's small
details like that can make me a better pilot with the input from others.

> Is that because you are flying a Sundowner? I've never flown one but
> I've read that if you're even the slightest bit fast you'll float in
> the flare. Of course a 10 kt margin is also unusually wide for a stall
> horn.

Yes, I am in a 1976 Sundowner. It's designed to fly :-) and excess speed
is your enemy for short field landings. If you fly a Sundowner by the
numbers, the trailing link gear will make you look like a pro!

> thanks for all the videos!

My pleasure. If you see anything to help me improve my landings, please
post! We learn by listening!

Allen

[Dave S]

>
> 61.109(a)(3) 3 hours of flight training in a single-engine airplane
> on the control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to
> instruments...
>
>
> 61.65(d)(2) A total of 40 hours of actual or simulated instrument time
> on the areas of operation of this section...
>

They may not be equivalent to each other, BUT the key here is they are
NOT mutually exclusive. A given experience CAN meet both requirements at
the same time. It wouldnt be the first time a DE has been wrong.

On a side note, I went to look up the part 61 FAQ section for guidance
and have discovered that the FAA has removed it from their website in
favor of issuing personalized opinions to individual questions.

Dave

[Ron Natalie]

Peter R. wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>> Of course a 10 kt margin is also unusually wide for a stall
>> horn.
>
> My understanding is that the newer model Cessna 172R's and S's have a 10 kt
> margin with their stall warning horns.
>
There's a lot of variance in 172 stall horns anyhow. It's adjustable.