Does an IPC count as a BFR?

[Larry Jenkins]

Okay, I've read the regulations and still can't figure out the answer to
this question: If I received an IPC from a CFII one year after my last BFR,
do I need to get another BFR in 12 months or 24 months from now??

Thanks in advance,

Larry

[Brad Z]

An IPC in itself does not. Unless the instructor endorsed your logbook as
having given a flight review at the same time as your IPC, no it does not
count. Not all CFII's can give BFR's.


"Larry Jenkins" > wrote in message
...
> Okay, I've read the regulations and still can't figure out the answer to
> this question: If I received an IPC from a CFII one year after my last
BFR,
> do I need to get another BFR in 12 months or 24 months from now??
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Larry
>
>

[Larry Jenkins]

Thanks for clarifying, Brad.

Larry
"Brad Z" > wrote in message
news:wgb4c.9456$bP2.70125@attbi_s53...
> An IPC in itself does not. Unless the instructor endorsed your logbook as
> having given a flight review at the same time as your IPC, no it does not
> count. Not all CFII's can give BFR's.
>
>
> "Larry Jenkins" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Okay, I've read the regulations and still can't figure out the answer to
> > this question: If I received an IPC from a CFII one year after my last
> BFR,
> > do I need to get another BFR in 12 months or 24 months from now??
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > Larry
> >
> >
>
>

[Teacherjh]

>>
Okay, I've read the regulations and still can't figure out the answer to
this question: If I received an IPC from a CFII one year after my last BFR,
do I need to get another BFR in 12 months or 24 months from now??
<<

Yes. An IPC and a BFR are different, and they cover different aspects of
flying. However, both can be covered in the same flight if you tell the
instructor that's what you want (and he is qualified to do both). The flight
will probably be longer, but not as long as two separate checkrides.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[[email protected]]

In a similar vein, does an instrument checkride count as a BFR? I
thought it did since it added a rating to the ticket.

-Cory

Teacherjh > wrote:
:>>
: Okay, I've read the regulations and still can't figure out the answer to
: this question: If I received an IPC from a CFII one year after my last BFR,
: do I need to get another BFR in 12 months or 24 months from now??
: <<

: Yes. An IPC and a BFR are different, and they cover different aspects of
: flying. However, both can be covered in the same flight if you tell the
: instructor that's what you want (and he is qualified to do both). The flight
: will probably be longer, but not as long as two separate checkrides.

: Jose

: --
: (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Roger Tracy]

I generally just combine the two and request that the BFR be inclusive of an
IPC. That's where I always seem to need the work.


"Brad Z" > wrote in message
news:wgb4c.9456$bP2.70125@attbi_s53...
> An IPC in itself does not. Unless the instructor endorsed your logbook as
> having given a flight review at the same time as your IPC, no it does not
> count. Not all CFII's can give BFR's.
>
>
> "Larry Jenkins" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Okay, I've read the regulations and still can't figure out the answer to
> > this question: If I received an IPC from a CFII one year after my last
> BFR,
> > do I need to get another BFR in 12 months or 24 months from now??
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > Larry
> >
> >
>
>

[Ron Natalie]

"Brad Z" > wrote in message news:wgb4c.9456$bP2.70125@attbi_s53...
> Not all CFII's can give BFR's.
>
You've lost me there. Why not?

[Brad Z]

If your flight instructor certificate only has a "instrument-airplane"
rating (i.e. no airplane single engine or Airplane multi engine)

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Brad Z" > wrote in message
news:wgb4c.9456$bP2.70125@attbi_s53...
> > Not all CFII's can give BFR's.
> >
> You've lost me there. Why not?
>

[Brad Z]

Yes it does, its a rating on a pilot certificate.

14 CFR 61.56(d)
A person who has, within the period specified in paragraph (c) of this
section, passed a pilot proficiency check conducted by an examiner, an
approved pilot check airman, or a U.S. Armed Force, for a pilot certificate,
rating, or operating privilege need not accomplish the flight review
required
by this section.

> wrote in message
...
> In a similar vein, does an instrument checkride count as a BFR? I
> thought it did since it added a rating to the ticket.
>
> -Cory
>
> Teacherjh > wrote:
> :>>
> : Okay, I've read the regulations and still can't figure out the answer to
> : this question: If I received an IPC from a CFII one year after my last
BFR,
> : do I need to get another BFR in 12 months or 24 months from now??
> : <<
>
> : Yes. An IPC and a BFR are different, and they cover different aspects
of
> : flying. However, both can be covered in the same flight if you tell the
> : instructor that's what you want (and he is qualified to do both). The
flight
> : will probably be longer, but not as long as two separate checkrides.
>
> : Jose
>
> : --
> : (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)
>
> --
> ************************************************** ***********************
> * The prime directive of Linux: *
> * - learn what you don't know, *
> * - teach what you do. *
> * (Just my 20 USm$) *
> ************************************************** ***********************
>

[Michael]

wrote
> In a similar vein, does an instrument checkride count as a BFR? I
> thought it did since it added a rating to the ticket.

It does. However, an instrument instructor ride does not - even
though it is the same ride (only from the right seat).

Of course there's no reason for it - it's just our policy.

BTW - there are a handful of CFII's out there who can't do BFR's
(because they only have the IA rating on the CFI certificate, not ASE
or AME) but they are very much the exception rather than the rule.
Further, I can't for the life of me imagine a situation where I would
be comfortable signing off an ICC and being unwilling to sign off a
BFR. In general, if you're doing an ICC and want a BFR as well, just
ask. Most instructors won't think twice about it.

Michael

[Mike Z.]

A buddy of mine actually got his II and had no intention of getting his CFI. He since relented but that is another story.

Mike Z

"Brad Z" > wrote in message news:gTl4c.16400$bP2.83279@attbi_s53...
> If your flight instructor certificate only has a "instrument-airplane"
> rating (i.e. no airplane single engine or Airplane multi engine)
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > "Brad Z" > wrote in message
> news:wgb4c.9456$bP2.70125@attbi_s53...
> > > Not all CFII's can give BFR's.
> > >
> > You've lost me there. Why not?
> >
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"Brad Z" > wrote in message
news:gTl4c.16400$bP2.83279@attbi_s53...
> If your flight instructor certificate only has a "instrument-airplane"
> rating (i.e. no airplane single engine or Airplane multi engine)
>

That is one of the most bizarre things I have ever heard, and that despite
the fact that I have been reading the news groups for years.... :-)

Why on earth would any instructor do that, and how could he possibly do any
CFII instruction in an airplane that he is not allowed to give instruction
in?

[C J Campbell]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> wrote
> > In a similar vein, does an instrument checkride count as a BFR? I
> > thought it did since it added a rating to the ticket.
>
> It does. However, an instrument instructor ride does not - even
> though it is the same ride (only from the right seat).
>
> Of course there's no reason for it - it's just our policy.
>

It may be your policy, but it does not really follow the regs. Yes, I know
the argument that the instructor certificate is not a pilot certificate, but
it sure gets treated as a pilot certificate for all other purposes. I also
know that the policy varies from one FSDO to another. I also know that most
examiners will sign the ride off as a BFR if you ask them to do that.

[Richard Kaplan]

(Michael) wrote in message >...

> Further, I can't for the life of me imagine a situation where I would
> be comfortable signing off an ICC and being unwilling to sign off a
> BFR.


This happens to me sometimes if I do an IPC in the simulator without
also flying in a student's airplane. My sim is certified as a Level 3
FTD and thus legal for an IPC but not for a BFR since it cannot be
used to log landings.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Dave Butler]

C J Campbell wrote:
> "Michael" > wrote in message
> om...
>
wrote
>>
>>>In a similar vein, does an instrument checkride count as a BFR? I
>>>thought it did since it added a rating to the ticket.
>>
>>It does. However, an instrument instructor ride does not - even
>>though it is the same ride (only from the right seat).
>>
>>Of course there's no reason for it - it's just our policy.
>>
>
>
> It may be your policy, but it does not really follow the regs. Yes, I know
> the argument that the instructor certificate is not a pilot certificate, but
> it sure gets treated as a pilot certificate for all other purposes. I also
> know that the policy varies from one FSDO to another. I also know that most
> examiners will sign the ride off as a BFR if you ask them to do that.

Isn't there a requirement, or a guideline, or something, that the BFR should
include an hour of ground instruction? Seems like I've had that requirement put
on me by instructors on the last few BFRs. The time is spent
grilling^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H instructing me on the FARs. I don't remember ever
having any ground instruction component as part of an IPC.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

[Michael]

"C J Campbell" > wrote
> It may be your policy, but it does not really follow the regs. Yes, I know
> the argument that the instructor certificate is not a pilot certificate, but
> it sure gets treated as a pilot certificate for all other purposes. I also
> know that the policy varies from one FSDO to another.

Actually, it varies from one inspector to another.

Not too long ago, we had a jumpship crash. The pilot did all the
right things, but when the engine of a heavy single fails in the climb
at 400 ft, you just don't have many options. The field was wet and
rough, and there was substantial damage but no injuries. The accident
was reported, and the investigation delegated to the FAA. The pilot
made the mistake of noting that he never seems to hear of automobile
engines having catastrophic failures, but certified airplane engines
fail with depressing regularity. Next thing you know, he's written up
for flying with an expired BFR - enven though he had taken his CFII
ride only a few months ago. Your tax dollars at work.

> I also know that most
> examiners will sign the ride off as a BFR if you ask them to do that.

That's another gray area, worse than the original.

61.56 Flight review.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (f) of this section, a
flight
review consists of a minimum of 1 hour of flight training and 1 hour
of ground
training.

The FAA is pretty adamant that a checkride is not instruction.

Personally, I don't understand why the instructor doesn't just sign
the BFR. There's no way I would be comfortable signing someone off
for a CFI ride and not willing to sign off a BFR.

Michael

[Richard Kaplan]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...

> made the mistake of noting that he never seems to hear of automobile
> engines having catastrophic failures, but certified airplane engines
> fail with depressing regularity. Next thing you know, he's written up

What is the relationship between this statement and his being written up?


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Dale]

In article >,
"Richard Kaplan" > wrote:

> "Michael" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> > made the mistake of noting that he never seems to hear of automobile
> > engines having catastrophic failures, but certified airplane engines
> > fail with depressing regularity. Next thing you know, he's written up
>
> What is the relationship between this statement and his being written up?


Wondered that myself. If this is the incident I think it is, the pilots
problems probably stem from him having a bunch of water in the fuel,
which appears to have caused the loss of power.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Michael]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote
> > made the mistake of noting that he never seems to hear of automobile
> > engines having catastrophic failures, but certified airplane engines
> > fail with depressing regularity. Next thing you know, he's written up
>
> What is the relationship between this statement and his being written up?

Oh, I'm guessing the inspector took it as a slight against the FAA -
the implication being that FAA certification hasn't actually made our
airplanes any safer, and in fact has retarded progress. Thus he
decided to teach this pilot with a 'bad' attitude a lesson. Happens
more often than you might think.

Michael

[Mark Kolber]

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 18:53:55 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>but
>it sure gets treated as a pilot certificate for all other purposes.

"All?" I have never seen even one FAR that =does= treat a CFI
certificate as a pilot certificate.

From a pure regulation standpoint, the FAR treats instructor
certificates separately from pilot certificates. Staring with

==============================
§ 61.1 Applicability and definitions.
(a) This part prescribes:
(1) The requirements for issuing =pilot, flight instructor, and ground
instructor certificates= and ratings; the conditions under which those
certificates and ratings are necessary; and the privileges and
limitations of those certificates and ratings.
(2) The requirements for issuing =pilot, flight instructor, and ground
instructor= authorizations; the conditions under which those
authorizations are necessary; and the privileges and limitations of
those authorizations.
(3) The requirements for issuing =pilot, flight instructor, and ground
instructor= certificates and ratings for persons who have taken
courses approved by the Administrator under other parts of this
chapter.
==============================

The differentiation continues throughout the FAR and general FAA
policy with amazing consistency, from medical certificate requirements
(a CFI doesn't need one unless he's also acting as PIC) to the
requirement to have each certificate available when exercising that
certificate's privileges to the requirement that, in order to teach in
an aircraft, a CFI must have both "A pilot certificate =and= flight
instructor certificate with the applicable category and class rating"
(61.195(b)(1).

There may be an FAR that =does= treat the flight instructor
certificate as a pilot certificate, but so far anyway, I haven't seen
one.

[Mark Kolber]

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 18:50:15 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>Why on earth would any instructor do that, and how could he possibly do any
>CFII instruction in an airplane that he is not allowed to give instruction
>in?

I'm surprised you never came across it before.

This is a question that comes up from time to time and the common
wisdom has been that a CFI with only an "instrument airplane" rating,
but no "airplane" rating is permitted to provide instrument training
in an airplane, so long as he doesn't cross the line into teaching how
to fly the airplane itself.

Even John Lynch's Part 61 FAQ has taken this view, saying such things
as a CFII with no MEI =can't= give training in one-engine failure
during takeoff but =can= give instruction in single-engine operations
under instrument conditions.

Those FAQ paragraphs are going to become defunct. As a result of an
inquiry by Ron Levy, an instructor at the University of Maryland and a
regular contributor to Aviation Safety Magazine, the Eastern Region
FAA legal counsel has started the process of putting that one to rest.

There are still some things a CFII with no aircraft rating can do.
Ground instruction and flight training in a simulator are two of them.

As to why, it's pretty hokey, but there's some theory going around
that the CFI-I is easier, so, if you have to have an inspector for the
first ride, it might as well be the easier one.

[Mark Manes]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote
> > It may be your policy, but it does not really follow the regs. Yes, I
know
> > the argument that the instructor certificate is not a pilot certificate,
but
> > it sure gets treated as a pilot certificate for all other purposes. I
also
> > know that the policy varies from one FSDO to another.
>
> Actually, it varies from one inspector to another.
>
> Not too long ago, we had a jumpship crash. The pilot did all the
> right things, but when the engine of a heavy single fails in the climb
> at 400 ft, you just don't have many options. The field was wet and
> rough, and there was substantial damage but no injuries. The accident
> was reported, and the investigation delegated to the FAA. The pilot
> made the mistake of noting that he never seems to hear of automobile
> engines having catastrophic failures, but certified airplane engines
> fail with depressing regularity. Next thing you know, he's written up
> for flying with an expired BFR - enven though he had taken his CFII
> ride only a few months ago. Your tax dollars at work.
>
> > I also know that most
> > examiners will sign the ride off as a BFR if you ask them to do that.
>
> That's another gray area, worse than the original.
>
> 61.56 Flight review.
> (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (f) of this section, a
> flight
> review consists of a minimum of 1 hour of flight training and 1 hour
> of ground
> training.
>
> The FAA is pretty adamant that a checkride is not instruction.
>

But a checkride does count as a BFR

" 61.56 Flight Review
(d) A person who has, within the period specified in paragraph (c) of this
section, passed a pilot proficiency check conducted by and examiner, an
approved pilot check airman, or a US Armed Force, for a pilot certificate,
rating or operating privilege need not accomplish the flight review required
by this section."

Not sure if CFI checkride counts as above, but adding an instrument rating
does count as a BFR. Adding a Multi Engine or MEI counts as a BFR.

Mark


> Personally, I don't understand why the instructor doesn't just sign
> the BFR. There's no way I would be comfortable signing someone off
> for a CFI ride and not willing to sign off a BFR.
>
> Michael


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.614 / Virus Database: 393 - Release Date: 3/5/2004

[C J Campbell]

"Mark Manes" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "C J Campbell" > wrote
> >
> > > I also know that most
> > > examiners will sign the ride off as a BFR if you ask them to do that.
> >
> > That's another gray area, worse than the original.
> >
> > 61.56 Flight review.
> > (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (f) of this section, a
> > flight
> > review consists of a minimum of 1 hour of flight training and 1 hour
> > of ground
> > training.
> >
> > The FAA is pretty adamant that a checkride is not instruction.
> >
>
> But a checkride does count as a BFR

Which is the most stupid thing about the whole idea that a CFI ride does not
count as one. You can go and get your hot air balloon or glider certificate
and that counts as a BFR for your multi-engine seaplane certificate that you
already have, but becoming a MEI with a commercial multi-engine seaplane
certificate does not count as a BFR.

In theory, a private pilot SEL who has not flown in forty years can get his
BFR in a balloon, do his three touch & goes in a Cessna 150, then carry
passengers in his homebuilt Lancair even though he has never in his life
flown anything but balloons and the 150. Apparently some people in the FAA
believe that this pilot is actually more competent than a CFI who just got
his certificate in that Lancair.

[Doug]

Someone getting an instrument rating in a tailwheel aircraft, and the
instructor doesn't have a tailwheel signoff comes to mind.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> "Brad Z" > wrote in message
> news:gTl4c.16400$bP2.83279@attbi_s53...
> > If your flight instructor certificate only has a "instrument-airplane"
> > rating (i.e. no airplane single engine or Airplane multi engine)
> >
>
> That is one of the most bizarre things I have ever heard, and that despite
> the fact that I have been reading the news groups for years.... :-)
>
> Why on earth would any instructor do that, and how could he possibly do any
> CFII instruction in an airplane that he is not allowed to give instruction
> in?

[Matthew S. Whiting]

C J Campbell wrote:
> "Mark Manes" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
>>
>>>"C J Campbell" > wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>I also know that most
>>>>examiners will sign the ride off as a BFR if you ask them to do that.
>>>
>>>That's another gray area, worse than the original.
>>>
>>>61.56 Flight review.
>>>(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (f) of this section, a
>>>flight
>>>review consists of a minimum of 1 hour of flight training and 1 hour
>>>of ground
>>>training.
>>>
>>>The FAA is pretty adamant that a checkride is not instruction.
>>>
>>
>>But a checkride does count as a BFR
>
>
> Which is the most stupid thing about the whole idea that a CFI ride does not
> count as one. You can go and get your hot air balloon or glider certificate
> and that counts as a BFR for your multi-engine seaplane certificate that you
> already have, but becoming a MEI with a commercial multi-engine seaplane
> certificate does not count as a BFR.

It isn't just the checkride that counts as the BFR, it is the fact that
you added a license or rating. Most that I'm familiar with require a
lot of preparation in addition to passing the checkride. I don't think
there is any illusion that the checkride itself contributes to
proficiency, it is the preparation leading up to it that does.

No clue why a CFI doesn't count. That does seem like a dumb one.


> In theory, a private pilot SEL who has not flown in forty years can get his
> BFR in a balloon, do his three touch & goes in a Cessna 150, then carry
> passengers in his homebuilt Lancair even though he has never in his life
> flown anything but balloons and the 150. Apparently some people in the FAA
> believe that this pilot is actually more competent than a CFI who just got
> his certificate in that Lancair.

Few have accused government regulation writers of being paragons of
logic. Unfortunately, many, if not most, regulations are the result of
an accident. Probably haven't yet had a PP SEL with a balloon rating
BFR go out and crash his Lancair....


Matt


Matt

[Michael]

Mark Kolber > wrote
> As to why, it's pretty hokey, but there's some theory going around
> that the CFI-I is easier, so, if you have to have an inspector for the
> first ride, it might as well be the easier one.

The real reason is a little different. For all practical purposes,
you can't rent a complex airplane that isn't decades old. Any
determined fed can ground an airplane that old, and that's normal
practice in many FSDO's. If you go for an initial CFI ride in many
cases you get three inspectors - one ops and two maintenance. The ops
inspector starts your oral, and the maintenance inspectors start going
over the airplane. Oral ends when they ground it, and you get a pink
slip and, if you have the temerity to question their determination
(airplane not airworthy because the placard is curled up/TSO tag on
seatbelt unreadable/repair or alteration logged in logbook is major,
not minor, and requires Form 337) or the inspector just doesn't like
you, you get written up for flying an unairworthy airplane as well. I
know people who have had this happen, and there's at least one CFI on
this newsgroup who has his own story of something very similar.

The CFII ride need not be in a complex airplane - and new full-IFR
C-172's are available for rent all over. It's very difficult to
ground a new airplane. Thus I recommend that anyone doing an initial
CFI go over to a place that rents new C-172's and do the CFII first.

I did my initial CFI in a glider for the same reason - a new glider
was locally available for rent, and there was no way to flunk it
because it was new and completely unmodified - everything was just the
way it came from the factory.

Michael

[David Brooks]

....and they never enter IMC, where there would be no legal PIC.

-- David Brooks

"Doug" > wrote in message
om...
> Someone getting an instrument rating in a tailwheel aircraft, and the
> instructor doesn't have a tailwheel signoff comes to mind.
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Brad Z" > wrote in message
> > news:gTl4c.16400$bP2.83279@attbi_s53...
> > > If your flight instructor certificate only has a "instrument-airplane"
> > > rating (i.e. no airplane single engine or Airplane multi engine)
> > >
> >
> > That is one of the most bizarre things I have ever heard, and that
despite
> > the fact that I have been reading the news groups for years.... :-)
> >
> > Why on earth would any instructor do that, and how could he possibly do
any
> > CFII instruction in an airplane that he is not allowed to give
instruction
> > in?

[Hilton]

Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> No clue why a CFI doesn't count. That does seem like a dumb one.

A CFI checkride does count. It is written as such, and interpreted as such
by (me and) AOPA. Makes sense to me.

Hilton

[Doug]

My take is that any rating requiring a checkride (with an designated
examiner), counts as a BFR. The key is "does it require a checkride?"
If yes then you have two more years. So a tailwheel signoff, by itself
is not a BFR, as it is only a signoff.

Using common sense, the CFI rating certainly should count. It is
pretty intense, requires a written test, ground school and a flight
test. Mine was exhaustive with 75 hours of ground school, 15 hours of
flight training and flying with 5 different instructors. Not all are
that exhaustive, but if someone tried to tell me it didn't qualify as
a BFR, I'd think that was pretty ridiculous. When you compare all that
to a two hour BFR, you see what I mean.

"Hilton" > wrote in message .net>...
> Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> > No clue why a CFI doesn't count. That does seem like a dumb one.
>
> A CFI checkride does count. It is written as such, and interpreted as such
> by (me and) AOPA. Makes sense to me.
>
> Hilton

[Richard Kaplan]

Related to this question of earning a CFII but not a CFI, I have not done
what follows and I am not sure the regs make sense in this area, but from a
strictly legal perspective I believe I can give an instrument proficiency
check in a multi-engine airplane even though I am not a multi-engine pilot.
My certificates are Commercial Pilot (ASEL + Instrument Airplane) and CFI
(Airplane Single Engine + Instrument Airplane).

Again I realize this may not make much sense from an instructional point of
view, but legally I do not see any reason I could not do this except (even
more oddly) that this would have to be done in actual IMC because I would
not be qualified to act as a safety pilot -- correct?

Perhaps somewhat more practically speaking, I see no reason why I could not
sign off an IPC done with my simulator (Level 3 FTD) in twin-engine mode
since I do not need to be PIC to "create" IMC in the simulator and my CFI
instrument privileges refer to instrument airplane and not specifically to
single- or multi-engine airplanes.

Indeed, extending this further, my understanding is that a non-pilot could
pass the written exam to become an Instrument Ground Instructor and then
without ever setting foot in an airplane he could do an IPC in the simulator
(again a Level 3 FTD) and this non-pilot would have the authority to sign
off the pilot of a cabin-class twin as safe to fly in IMC.

Again, I am not proposing any of these tasks as sane -- I am simply asking
whether my interpretation of the FARs is correct.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Brad Z]

Fo me, the airplane was much of the issue. My clubs complex single (Piper
Lance) was pretty solidly scheduled, and when it wasn't scheduled, it was
down for various maintenance issues. Add to that an engine that passed TBO
and my determination was that the risk of the airplane being unavailable
when the checkride was due became too great. The club has two 172's and a
182, so I knew I wouldn't have a problem showing up for the checkride with
an airplane. I'm considering adding my multi-engine airplane rating to my
instructor certificate next, and will finish up with single-engine,
preventing the need to bother with a complex single all together. In the
meantime, I'm instructing instrument students while I work on the rest of my
ratings.

As to the point of taking the CFI-I at the FSDO because it is the easiest,
keep in mind that you are still tested on all of the FOI material and must
plan and conduct a lesson, so its substantially more than a CFI-I add-on.
Maybe a better way to frame this is that it's a matter of dividing the
instructor checkrides into more manageable pieces.

Others have also suggested that starting as an instructor of pilots who
already know how to fly is somehow "easier", or a way to ease into flight
instruction. My experience has been that while this may or may not be true,
an instrument instructor spends a fair amount of time correcting bad habits
formed over the time since the student passed their private checkride (and
in some cases before). Nevertheless, even if I never instruct a primary
student, I will still get my airplane instructor ratings.

Brad Z.

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> Mark Kolber > wrote
> > As to why, it's pretty hokey, but there's some theory going around
> > that the CFI-I is easier, so, if you have to have an inspector for the
> > first ride, it might as well be the easier one.
>
> The real reason is a little different. For all practical purposes,
> you can't rent a complex airplane that isn't decades old. Any
> determined fed can ground an airplane that old, and that's normal
> practice in many FSDO's. If you go for an initial CFI ride in many
> cases you get three inspectors - one ops and two maintenance. The ops
> inspector starts your oral, and the maintenance inspectors start going
> over the airplane. Oral ends when they ground it, and you get a pink
> slip and, if you have the temerity to question their determination
> (airplane not airworthy because the placard is curled up/TSO tag on
> seatbelt unreadable/repair or alteration logged in logbook is major,
> not minor, and requires Form 337) or the inspector just doesn't like
> you, you get written up for flying an unairworthy airplane as well. I
> know people who have had this happen, and there's at least one CFI on
> this newsgroup who has his own story of something very similar.
>
> The CFII ride need not be in a complex airplane - and new full-IFR
> C-172's are available for rent all over. It's very difficult to
> ground a new airplane. Thus I recommend that anyone doing an initial
> CFI go over to a place that rents new C-172's and do the CFII first.
>
> I did my initial CFI in a glider for the same reason - a new glider
> was locally available for rent, and there was no way to flunk it
> because it was new and completely unmodified - everything was just the
> way it came from the factory.
>
> Michael

[Michael]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote
> Related to this question of earning a CFII but not a CFI, I have not done
> what follows and I am not sure the regs make sense in this area, but from a
> strictly legal perspective I believe I can give an instrument proficiency
> check in a multi-engine airplane even though I am not a multi-engine pilot.
> My certificates are Commercial Pilot (ASEL + Instrument Airplane) and CFI
> (Airplane Single Engine + Instrument Airplane).

I do not believe this is correct.

61.195 Flight instructor limitations and qualifications.
A person who holds a flight instructor certificate is subject to the
following
limitations:
(b) Aircraft ratings. A flight instructor may not conduct flight
training in any aircraft for which the flight instructor does not
hold:
(1) A pilot certificate and flight instructor certificate with the
applicable
category and class rating; and

For purposes of an instructor certificate, there are two classes
within the airplane category - ASE and AME. For purposes of a pilot
certificate, there are four classes within the airplane category -
ASEL, ASES, AMEL, and AMES. Thus, since you do not have a pilot
certificate with airplane category and multiengine land class (AMEL)
rating, I do not believe you could legally provide flight training in
a multiengine airplane.

> Perhaps somewhat more practically speaking, I see no reason why I could not
> sign off an IPC done with my simulator (Level 3 FTD) in twin-engine mode
> since I do not need to be PIC to "create" IMC in the simulator and my CFI
> instrument privileges refer to instrument airplane and not specifically to
> single- or multi-engine airplanes.

You may be right, but this would be meaningless.

61.57(d)(1) The instrument proficiency check must be --
(i) In an aircraft that is appropriate to the aircraft category;
(ii) For other than a glider, in a flight simulator or flight training
device
that is representative of the aircraft category;

Note that there is no requirement for the simulator to be
representative of the class of aircraft, only the category. There is
no requirement for a multiengine pilot to take his IPC in a
multiengine airplane - any airplane will do. I see no reason why you
couldn't do this, but I also see no reason why anyone would ever want
to. It would have no regulatory purpose, and if you lack multinegine
experience it would have no practical purpose either.

> Indeed, extending this further, my understanding is that a non-pilot could
> pass the written exam to become an Instrument Ground Instructor and then
> without ever setting foot in an airplane he could do an IPC in the simulator
> (again a Level 3 FTD) and this non-pilot would have the authority to sign
> off the pilot of a cabin-class twin as safe to fly in IMC.

Maybe, but I don't see that as obvious.

61.215 Ground instructor privileges.
(c) A person who holds an instrument ground instructor rating is
authorized to
provide:
(2) Ground training required for an instrument proficiency check;

61.57(d)(2) The instrument proficiency check must be given by --
(iv) An authorized instructor;

So the question would be - is the sim training ground or flight
training? If it's ground training, then an IGI would be an authorized
instructor and this would be legal. If it's flight training, then he
would not be authorized and it wouldn't be legal.

Michael

[Richard Kaplan]

--
--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com
"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "Richard Kaplan" > wrote
> > Related to this question of earning a CFII but not a CFI, I have not
done
> > what follows and I am not sure the regs make sense in this area, but
from a
> > strictly legal perspective I believe I can give an instrument
proficiency
> > check in a multi-engine airplane even though I am not a multi-engine
pilot.
> > My certificates are Commercial Pilot (ASEL + Instrument Airplane) and
CFI
> > (Airplane Single Engine + Instrument Airplane).
>
> I do not believe this is correct.
>
> 61.195 Flight instructor limitations and qualifications.
> A person who holds a flight instructor certificate is subject to the
> following
> limitations:
> (b) Aircraft ratings. A flight instructor may not conduct flight
> training in any aircraft for which the flight instructor does not
> hold:
> (1) A pilot certificate and flight instructor certificate with the
> applicable
> category and class rating; and
>
> For purposes of an instructor certificate, there are two classes
> within the airplane category - ASE and AME. For purposes of a pilot
> certificate, there are four classes within the airplane category -
> ASEL, ASES, AMEL, and AMES. Thus, since you do not have a pilot
> certificate with airplane category and multiengine land class (AMEL)
> rating, I do not believe you could legally provide flight training in
> a multiengine airplane.
>
> > Perhaps somewhat more practically speaking, I see no reason why I could
not
> > sign off an IPC done with my simulator (Level 3 FTD) in twin-engine mode
> > since I do not need to be PIC to "create" IMC in the simulator and my
CFI
> > instrument privileges refer to instrument airplane and not specifically
to
> > single- or multi-engine airplanes.
>
> You may be right, but this would be meaningless.
>
> 61.57(d)(1) The instrument proficiency check must be --
> (i) In an aircraft that is appropriate to the aircraft category;
> (ii) For other than a glider, in a flight simulator or flight training
> device
> that is representative of the aircraft category;
>
> Note that there is no requirement for the simulator to be
> representative of the class of aircraft, only the category. There is
> no requirement for a multiengine pilot to take his IPC in a
> multiengine airplane - any airplane will do. I see no reason why you
> couldn't do this, but I also see no reason why anyone would ever want
> to. It would have no regulatory purpose, and if you lack multinegine
> experience it would have no practical purpose either.
>
> > Indeed, extending this further, my understanding is that a non-pilot
could
> > pass the written exam to become an Instrument Ground Instructor and then
> > without ever setting foot in an airplane he could do an IPC in the
simulator
> > (again a Level 3 FTD) and this non-pilot would have the authority to
sign
> > off the pilot of a cabin-class twin as safe to fly in IMC.
>
> Maybe, but I don't see that as obvious.
>
> 61.215 Ground instructor privileges.
> (c) A person who holds an instrument ground instructor rating is
> authorized to
> provide:
> (2) Ground training required for an instrument proficiency check;
>
> 61.57(d)(2) The instrument proficiency check must be given by --
> (iv) An authorized instructor;
>
> So the question would be - is the sim training ground or flight
> training? If it's ground training, then an IGI would be an authorized
> instructor and this would be legal. If it's flight training, then he
> would not be authorized and it wouldn't be legal.
>
> Michael

[Doug Vetter]

Doug wrote:
> Using common sense, the CFI rating certainly should count. It is
> pretty intense, requires a written test, ground school and a flight
> test. Mine was exhaustive with 75 hours of ground school, 15 hours of
> flight training and flying with 5 different instructors. Not all are
> that exhaustive, but if someone tried to tell me it didn't qualify as
> a BFR, I'd think that was pretty ridiculous. When you compare all that
> to a two hour BFR, you see what I mean.

Just contacted AOPA and my FSDO about this. In short, any practical
exam that tests an applicant's piloting skills qualifies under the 61.56
BFR exemption. I was particularly concerned since my last qualifying
exam was almost two years ago, and if I'd been flying illegally all this
time.....well, I don't want to think about it.

An excerpt from AOPA's response:

'If the examiner also evaluates the applicant's piloting skills then
YES, ". . . a flight instructor practical test (for initial issuance or
a CFI rating addition or for a reinstatement) . . ." would meet the
requirements of a § 61.56 Flight Review.'

My FSDO's examiner did some research and called me back, only to confirm
this. His interpretation is slightly contradictory to what others have
pointed out here, in that he called the CFI certificate a "pilot
certificate" because (and I quote) "we don't give those to truck
drivers". However, he nevertheless agreed with your common-sense
approach. A BFR is a joke compared to the preparation and
demonstrations required for any CFI certificate / rating.

That said, if you choose to renew your CFI certificate without a
practical test, then you would need to accomplish a flight review before
the end of the 24th calendar month since your last practical exam.

Safe flying,

-Doug

--
--------------------
Doug Vetter, CFIMEIA

http://www.dvcfi.com
--------------------

[Richard Kaplan]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...:

> (b) Aircraft ratings. A flight instructor may not conduct flight
> training in any aircraft for which the flight instructor does not
> hold:(1) A pilot certificate and flight instructor certificate with the
> applicabl category and class rating; and

I agree that on first glance this would prohibit me from providing flight
instruction in a twin because both my pilot certificate and my instructor
certificate would need to contain both the Category Airplane and the Class
Single-Engine Land. Yet if this is true, then how can there exist flight
instructor certificates which only state "Instrument Airplane" because a
strict interpretation of the above would render such an instructor
certificate useless.

It would seem to me that by using the term "Instrument Airplane" on pilot
and instructor certificates the FAA has created a Class of airplane simply
called "Instrument."


> For purposes of an instructor certificate, there are two classes
> within the airplane category - ASE and AME. For purposes of a pilot

What happens in the case of a CFII without a CFI. In that case doesn't the
instructor certificate read solely "Instrument Airplane"? In that case,
what is the category and class?

> You may be right, but this would be meaningless.

Meaningless but legal -- yes, I agree. Again, I am not proposing I or any
other single-engine CFI do this. It just seems to be a loophole in the
FARS, probably a dangerous loophole at that.

> So the question would be - is the sim training ground or flight
> training? If it's ground training, then an IGI would be an authorized
> instructor and this would be legal. If it's flight training, then he
> would not be authorized and it wouldn't be legal.

It is ground training but the ground training can serve as a legal IPC so it
does seem to be a loophole again as I understand it.




--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Michael]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote
> I agree that on first glance this would prohibit me from providing flight
> instruction in a twin because both my pilot certificate and my instructor
> certificate would need to contain both the Category Airplane and the Class
> Single-Engine Land. Yet if this is true, then how can there exist flight
> instructor certificates which only state "Instrument Airplane" because a
> strict interpretation of the above would render such an instructor
> certificate useless.

I concur that strict interpretation would render a CFI-IA with no
other ratings useless. In reality, we know the rule is not
interpreted that way. So once again the rules are not clear.

> > You may be right, but this would be meaningless.
>
> Meaningless but legal -- yes, I agree. Again, I am not proposing I or any
> other single-engine CFI do this. It just seems to be a loophole in the
> FARS, probably a dangerous loophole at that.

No, my point is that this loophole - a non-multiengine CFII giving
dual in a sim configured as a twin for purposes of an IPC - is not
dangerous at all. For purposes of legality, an IPC given in a single
also covers you in a twin. The only difference between the single and
twin IPC is the engine-out stuff; otherwise the twin flies just like a
complex single. So my point is that the loophole would allow you to
teach and evaluate the multiengine portion of the ICC, and you
probably could not do that competently, but it's not required anyway.

> > So the question would be - is the sim training ground or flight
> > training? If it's ground training, then an IGI would be an authorized
> > instructor and this would be legal. If it's flight training, then he
> > would not be authorized and it wouldn't be legal.
>
> It is ground training but the ground training can serve as a legal IPC so it
> does seem to be a loophole again as I understand it.

Now this is a dangerous loophole - all you need to do to be an IGI is
take two written multiple-guess tests. I would imagine this would be
well within the capability of most professionals with no flight
experience at all...

Michael

[Richard Kaplan]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...

> complex single. So my point is that the loophole would allow you to
> teach and evaluate the multiengine portion of the ICC, and you
> probably could not do that competently, but it's not required anyway.

OK, I agree there. Maybe this is actually helpful because if a twin-engine
pilot came to me to use my sim specifically so I could teach him how to use
a specific GPS or because he wanted to practice 0/0 landings then I could
put the sim in twin-engine mode to make him comfortable and still legally
log the instruction.

> Now this is a dangerous loophole - all you need to do to be an IGI is
> take two written multiple-guess tests. I would imagine this would be
> well within the capability of most professionals with no flight
> experience at all...

Yes, it is dangerous. I think in practice the way this is mostly used is to
allow rated pilots who are seeking the CFI rating to gain some experience
instructing in a flight training device. But the loophole does exist as you
note for someone who has never been inside an airplane in his life to sign
off an IPC.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Bill Zaleski]

There is no loophole as far as an IGI is concerned with reference to
his signing off an IPC. As per the part 61 regs, he may give the
ground training required for an IPC, but there is no provision that
allows him to give an endorsement for the IPC itself. This has been
answered through the FAQ's before and has been gone over during every
examiner recurrent seminar I have attended. A CFII is given that
privilege, however if you look at the wording of privileges given to
ground instructors, only endorsements for knowledge tests and ground
training are allowed. They are not allowed to endorse for any recency
of experience issue. An IPC consists of both ground and flight
examination, as per the rating task table of the instrument PTS. A
person who has never been in an aircraft, even though he holds a
ground instructor certificate, can not give an IPC any more than he
can give a flight review. Just compare the privileges of a CFII vs. a
ground instructor, as per the Part 61 regs.


On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:22:25 GMT, "Richard Kaplan"
> wrote:

>"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
>
>> complex single. So my point is that the loophole would allow you to
>> teach and evaluate the multiengine portion of the ICC, and you
>> probably could not do that competently, but it's not required anyway.
>
>OK, I agree there. Maybe this is actually helpful because if a twin-engine
>pilot came to me to use my sim specifically so I could teach him how to use
>a specific GPS or because he wanted to practice 0/0 landings then I could
>put the sim in twin-engine mode to make him comfortable and still legally
>log the instruction.
>
>> Now this is a dangerous loophole - all you need to do to be an IGI is
>> take two written multiple-guess tests. I would imagine this would be
>> well within the capability of most professionals with no flight
>> experience at all...
>
>Yes, it is dangerous. I think in practice the way this is mostly used is to
>allow rated pilots who are seeking the CFI rating to gain some experience
>instructing in a flight training device. But the loophole does exist as you
>note for someone who has never been inside an airplane in his life to sign
>off an IPC.
>
>
>--------------------
>Richard Kaplan, CFII

>www.flyimc.com
>

[Richard Kaplan]

"Bill Zaleski" > wrote in message
...

> of experience issue. An IPC consists of both ground and flight
> examination, as per the rating task table of the instrument PTS. A

I agree for the most part with what you are saying. However, a flight
training device may be used as a substitute for the flight portion of the
IPC. The definition of flight time in 1.1 requires an aircraft for flight.
Therefore, it would seem that the training done in a flight training device
is legally ground training rather than flight training.

Let us take the other side of what you are saying and conclude that an IGI
can only perform the ground training elements of the PTS and not the flight
elements. Well there is no mechanism in Part 91 for an IPC to be done by 2
separate instructors; the only way 2 separate instructors can work on an IPC
is through a certified school such as a Part 142 school. So if an IGI
cannot sign off an IPC in a flight training device, then the IGI would have
no role at all for a Part 91 IPC.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Doug]

One scenario you have not considered. A CFII with no Seaplane RATING
giving instrument instruction in a Seaplane (the student has a
Seaplane rating).
Legal? I think so. Advisable? I don't see a problem with it.

(Michael) wrote in message >...
> "Richard Kaplan" > wrote
> > I agree that on first glance this would prohibit me from providing flight
> > instruction in a twin because both my pilot certificate and my instructor
> > certificate would need to contain both the Category Airplane and the Class
> > Single-Engine Land. Yet if this is true, then how can there exist flight
> > instructor certificates which only state "Instrument Airplane" because a
> > strict interpretation of the above would render such an instructor
> > certificate useless.
>
> I concur that strict interpretation would render a CFI-IA with no
> other ratings useless. In reality, we know the rule is not
> interpreted that way. So once again the rules are not clear.
>
> > > You may be right, but this would be meaningless.
> >
> > Meaningless but legal -- yes, I agree. Again, I am not proposing I or any
> > other single-engine CFI do this. It just seems to be a loophole in the
> > FARS, probably a dangerous loophole at that.
>
> No, my point is that this loophole - a non-multiengine CFII giving
> dual in a sim configured as a twin for purposes of an IPC - is not
> dangerous at all. For purposes of legality, an IPC given in a single
> also covers you in a twin. The only difference between the single and
> twin IPC is the engine-out stuff; otherwise the twin flies just like a
> complex single. So my point is that the loophole would allow you to
> teach and evaluate the multiengine portion of the ICC, and you
> probably could not do that competently, but it's not required anyway.
>
> > > So the question would be - is the sim training ground or flight
> > > training? If it's ground training, then an IGI would be an authorized
> > > instructor and this would be legal. If it's flight training, then he
> > > would not be authorized and it wouldn't be legal.
> >
> > It is ground training but the ground training can serve as a legal IPC so it
> > does seem to be a loophole again as I understand it.
>
> Now this is a dangerous loophole - all you need to do to be an IGI is
> take two written multiple-guess tests. I would imagine this would be
> well within the capability of most professionals with no flight
> experience at all...
>
> Michael

[Bill Zaleski]

Let's not make this more difficult that it is. Just check the
limitations section of the FAR's pertaining to flight instructors.
Determine the category and class aircraft that you intend to get into
and perform some type of flight instructor duty in, be it instruction,
flight review, IPC, whatever. If you don't hold that same category
and class rating on both your pilot and instructor certificate, you
can't do it. This also applies to the class rating you hold
instrument privileges in on you pilot cert. If you are not multi IFR
rated, you can't give any type of instruction in a multi, even if it's
instrument instruction. You must hold a sea rating inorder to give
ANY type of instruction in a sea class airplane. It's pretty clear in
FAR 61.195 (b) & (c) Both of these sections must be considered, not
just one of them. Ask your FSDO. There is no loophole or grey area
here.



On 19 Mar 2004 14:02:17 -0800, (Doug)
wrote:

>One scenario you have not considered. A CFII with no Seaplane RATING
>giving instrument instruction in a Seaplane (the student has a
>Seaplane rating).
>Legal? I think so. Advisable? I don't see a problem with it.
>
(Michael) wrote in message >...
>> "Richard Kaplan" > wrote
>> > I agree that on first glance this would prohibit me from providing flight
>> > instruction in a twin because both my pilot certificate and my instructor
>> > certificate would need to contain both the Category Airplane and the Class
>> > Single-Engine Land. Yet if this is true, then how can there exist flight
>> > instructor certificates which only state "Instrument Airplane" because a
>> > strict interpretation of the above would render such an instructor
>> > certificate useless.
>>
>> I concur that strict interpretation would render a CFI-IA with no
>> other ratings useless. In reality, we know the rule is not
>> interpreted that way. So once again the rules are not clear.
>>
>> > > You may be right, but this would be meaningless.
>> >
>> > Meaningless but legal -- yes, I agree. Again, I am not proposing I or any
>> > other single-engine CFI do this. It just seems to be a loophole in the
>> > FARS, probably a dangerous loophole at that.
>>
>> No, my point is that this loophole - a non-multiengine CFII giving
>> dual in a sim configured as a twin for purposes of an IPC - is not
>> dangerous at all. For purposes of legality, an IPC given in a single
>> also covers you in a twin. The only difference between the single and
>> twin IPC is the engine-out stuff; otherwise the twin flies just like a
>> complex single. So my point is that the loophole would allow you to
>> teach and evaluate the multiengine portion of the ICC, and you
>> probably could not do that competently, but it's not required anyway.
>>
>> > > So the question would be - is the sim training ground or flight
>> > > training? If it's ground training, then an IGI would be an authorized
>> > > instructor and this would be legal. If it's flight training, then he
>> > > would not be authorized and it wouldn't be legal.
>> >
>> > It is ground training but the ground training can serve as a legal IPC so it
>> > does seem to be a loophole again as I understand it.
>>
>> Now this is a dangerous loophole - all you need to do to be an IGI is
>> take two written multiple-guess tests. I would imagine this would be
>> well within the capability of most professionals with no flight
>> experience at all...
>>
>> Michael

[Richard Kaplan]

"Bill Zaleski" > wrote in message
...

> Let's not make this more difficult that it is. Just check the
> limitations section of the FAR's pertaining to flight instructors.

I agree this is what the FARs say. However, the FAA then breaks its own
rules when they issue CFII-only certificates bearing "Instrument Airplane"
as the category/class description since "Instrument Airplane" is not a
category/class yet the FARs say an instructor can only instructor in the
category/class on his instructor certificate.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Bill Zaleski]

Category and class does NOT necessarily go on the instructor
certificate. You never see "sea" on one. You must, however, have the
specific class on your pilot certificate for the aircraft you intend
to give instruction in, even if it's instrument instruction. If you
don't hold multi and instrument priviliges on BOTH of your
certificates, you can't give ANY instrument instruction in multi's.
The reason that reference is made to category and class with respect
to flight instructor certificates in the exception in that an
instrument- rotorcraft helicopter rating on an instructor certificate
does not include gyroplane, since it doesn't exist. The same reg
references the need for a type rating, if appropriate, but of course
that doesn't exist either on CFI certificates. You must however, hold
the type rating on the pilot cert in order to give any instruction in
such an aircraft. Again, there is no gray area. FAR 61.195 (b)
(aircraft ratings) is clear that you must comply with both provisions
in entirety, not just one of them. The pre-1997 wording of the FAR
was a grey area loophole that has been plugged.


On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 14:39:37 GMT, "Richard Kaplan"
> wrote:

>
>
>
>"Bill Zaleski" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Let's not make this more difficult that it is. Just check the
>> limitations section of the FAR's pertaining to flight instructors.
>
>I agree this is what the FARs say. However, the FAA then breaks its own
>rules when they issue CFII-only certificates bearing "Instrument Airplane"
>as the category/class description since "Instrument Airplane" is not a
>category/class yet the FARs say an instructor can only instructor in the
>category/class on his instructor certificate.
>
>
>--------------------
>Richard Kaplan, CFII

>www.flyimc.com
>

[Richard Kaplan]

Thanks for the clarification.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Tom Inglima]

If as you say the pilot did take a practical test (flight test) for any
added rating, then they met the requirement for a BFR. End of story. I
have been in this business since 1965.

Second question. Is a Flight Instructor certificate the same as a pilot
certificate. NO! It even has a different number. ie. It has the letters
CFI at the end of the certificate number. Way back when I was a little guy,
there were Flight Instructor "Ratings" on pilot certificates. That ended in
the early sixties I think. There was also a time when anyone with an
Instrument rating on their pilot certificate was also a Instrument flight
instructor. Long gone. Don't get ramped and tell the Feds that you left
your Pilot certificate at home, but you have your Flight instructor
certificate with you and that will cover. Wont work.

Tom
"Mark Manes" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "C J Campbell" > wrote
> > > It may be your policy, but it does not really follow the regs. Yes, I
> know
> > > the argument that the instructor certificate is not a pilot
certificate,
> but
> > > it sure gets treated as a pilot certificate for all other purposes. I
> also
> > > know that the policy varies from one FSDO to another.
> >
> > Actually, it varies from one inspector to another.
> >
> > Not too long ago, we had a jumpship crash. The pilot did all the
> > right things, but when the engine of a heavy single fails in the climb
> > at 400 ft, you just don't have many options. The field was wet and
> > rough, and there was substantial damage but no injuries. The accident
> > was reported, and the investigation delegated to the FAA. The pilot
> > made the mistake of noting that he never seems to hear of automobile
> > engines having catastrophic failures, but certified airplane engines
> > fail with depressing regularity. Next thing you know, he's written up
> > for flying with an expired BFR - enven though he had taken his CFII
> > ride only a few months ago. Your tax dollars at work.
> >
> > > I also know that most
> > > examiners will sign the ride off as a BFR if you ask them to do that.
> >
> > That's another gray area, worse than the original.
> >
> > 61.56 Flight review.
> > (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (f) of this section, a
> > flight
> > review consists of a minimum of 1 hour of flight training and 1 hour
> > of ground
> > training.
> >
> > The FAA is pretty adamant that a checkride is not instruction.
> >
>
> But a checkride does count as a BFR
>
> " 61.56 Flight Review
> (d) A person who has, within the period specified in paragraph (c) of this
> section, passed a pilot proficiency check conducted by and examiner, an
> approved pilot check airman, or a US Armed Force, for a pilot certificate,
> rating or operating privilege need not accomplish the flight review
required
> by this section."
>
> Not sure if CFI checkride counts as above, but adding an instrument rating
> does count as a BFR. Adding a Multi Engine or MEI counts as a BFR.
>
> Mark
>
>
> > Personally, I don't understand why the instructor doesn't just sign
> > the BFR. There's no way I would be comfortable signing someone off
> > for a CFI ride and not willing to sign off a BFR.
> >
> > Michael
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.614 / Virus Database: 393 - Release Date: 3/5/2004
>
>