The need for original documents, N-reg aircraft?

Your private pilot has a medical. The CFI in the quoted section above
doesn't.

Yep.. you're right. I was thinking more along the OP (CFI with third
class medical) and didn't read fully. Required crewmembers must have a
current medical, but class III should be ok.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Peter wrote
The funny thing is that anyone can check out any pilot's (whose
identity is confirmed with other means) licensing info via the
internet. Same with aircraft. Sometimes, this digs out funny results,
like a CFII with a 3rd class medical

What's funny about that? I've been a CFII with a Third Class Medical
for the past 10 years. I don't tell the FAA anything about my physical
condition that they don't absolutely demand.

Bob Moore
ATP CFII
PanAm (retired)

CFIs don't need any medical. Many just get a 3rd class
because it is less of a hassle, costs less. As long as the
CFI doesn't act as PIC, he doesn't need the medical. Even
w/o the medical, a CFI can log PIC anytime he is instructing
and makes an endorsement in the pilot's logbook.
What can a CFI w/o a medical do...flight review as long as
the pilot's review is still valid and not expired.
Sport Pilot instruction in a LSA.
Any instruction where the CFI is not a required crewmember,
required crewmembers must have a CFI.
Thus, the CFI w/o a medical cannot be a safety pilot under
simulated instrument conditions.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm




"Peter" wrote in message
...
|
| George Patterson wrote
|
| IME the first thing the insurance company checks is
that all paperwork
| is in order. So, if e.g. the pilot was not licensed to
do the flight,
| the insurer will walk away from it right away.
|
| This is not true. If the aircraft was actually
unairworthy (eg. expired annual),
| then the insurer would walk away. If the pilot did not
have a pilot's
| certificate at all, or was not rated for that category
and class of aircraft,
| then the insurer would walk away. If you have all the
paperwork but don't happen
| to have it in the plane, you're still insured.
|
| I agree with the above.
|
| It's interesting regarding originals. If it is that
important, why
| don't the regs spell it out explicitly? They would just
need to insert
| the word "original" (or the American-English equivalent,
whatever that
| is).
|
| The funny thing is that anyone can check out any pilot's
(whose
| identity is confirmed with other means) licensing info via
the
| internet. Same with aircraft. Sometimes, this digs out
funny results,
| like a CFII with a 3rd class medical

Thus, the CFI w/o a medical cannot be a safety pilot under
simulated instrument conditions.

Uhhh... I'm not so sure about that. If a private pilot with a class III
medical can be a safety pilot, the addition of the CFI endorsement
should not remove that privilage. Could it be that it is merely that a
pilot could not log such flight as =dual=?

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 15:22:52 GMT, Jose
wrote:

Thus, the CFI w/o a medical cannot be a safety pilot under
simulated instrument conditions.

Uhhh... I'm not so sure about that. If a private pilot with a class III
medical can be a safety pilot, the addition of the CFI endorsement
should not remove that privilage. Could it be that it is merely that a
pilot could not log such flight as =dual=?

Your private pilot has a medical. The CFI in the quoted section above
doesn't.

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 13:06:30 GMT, Jose
wrote:

Your private pilot has a medical. The CFI in the quoted section above
doesn't.

Yep.. you're right. I was thinking more along the OP (CFI with third
class medical) and didn't read fully. Required crewmembers must have a
current medical, but class III should be ok.

I figured something like that had happened. Been there, done that,
member of the club

The safety pilot is a required crewmember (observer),
required to be qualified to act as PIC since the pilot can't
see and avoid. The CFI must have the medical if the
"student" is under the hood. On the other hand, a CFI can
instruct in IFR procedures as long as the student is fully
qualified to be PIC (flight review, certificate and required
endorsements) if the student is not under the hood.

If the "student" is a qualified and current Instrument rated
pilot and the flight is conducted in IMC, the CFI would not
be a required crewmember.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Jose" wrote in message
...
| Thus, the CFI w/o a medical cannot be a safety pilot
under
| simulated instrument conditions.
|
| Uhhh... I'm not so sure about that. If a private pilot
with a class III
| medical can be a safety pilot, the addition of the CFI
endorsement
| should not remove that privilage. Could it be that it is
merely that a
| pilot could not log such flight as =dual=?
|
| Jose
| --
| He who laughs, lasts.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Recurrent training is often done for fully qualified and
current pilots. And what I saw is to do with FAA in the
USA, as soon as you go over a border, the rules change.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Peter" wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
|
| CFIs don't need any medical. Many just get a 3rd class
| because it is less of a hassle, costs less. As long as
the
| CFI doesn't act as PIC, he doesn't need the medical.
|
| Indeed. Maybe this doesn't matter in the USA, but surely
it does mean
| that all training must be done such that the pilot being
trained could
| legally be PIC if flying alone. Such a training flight
could not, for
| example, enter Class A airspace (I am thinking of FAA IR
training).
|
| Here in Europe, an instructor is nearly always PIC
(regardless of the
| student's existing privileges). While a CFII training in
an N-reg
| could do it with a Class 3 medical *anywhere* (provided
again the
| student was legal to fly that flight alone) it means one
could never
| carry out e.g. the 250nm IR x/c flight which needs to be
under ATS
| direction, because to get ATS direction one pretty well
needs to enter
| Class A.

Peter wrote:

internet. Same with aircraft. Sometimes, this digs out funny results,
like a CFII with a 3rd class medical

why would that be funny?

--Sylvain

Peter wrote:
internet. Same with aircraft. Sometimes, this digs out funny results,
like a CFII with a 3rd class medical
why would that be funny?


When the CFII in question is offering flight training, in an airspace
(Class A) where he **would have to be** PIC.

so? and what would the problem with this scenario?

completely legal, as least under FAA rules.

--Sylvain