CFI without commercial?

"George Patterson" wrote in message
...

Not usually. He's been in an aircraft that someone else is flying.


If he's in it he's flying.



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


Did they not accompany you?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"George Patterson" wrote in message
...

Not usually. He's been in an aircraft that someone else is flying.

If he's in it he's flying.

Bull.

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

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:


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


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

--Sylvain

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
snip

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

--Sylvain

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

"Sylvain" wrote in message
...

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


That's not the issue.

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

-Robert, CFI

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

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



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


Hmm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Montblack

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

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

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

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

--

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

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

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

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

Jose wrote:

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

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

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

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