CFI Teaching Instrument

[rossy1163]

Here is a question.. Can a CFI legally log approaches either simulated or practice with a private pilot under the hood working on his instrument rating.. or do you have to log it as a safety pilot? The FARS are very unclear about this subject.. It is my understanding that a CFI can only teach BAI per Private Pilot standards..

[rossy1163]

I answered my own question.. Read 61.195(C).. I states very quickly that a CFI cannot give instrument other than VFR without a CFII.

[MidlifeFlyer]

If the rule about the limitations in who can teach what answered your question, I guess I didn't understand your question. (I won't comment on your interpretation of 61.195(c)).

I thought you were asking whether an instructor can log the approaches that a student flies under the hood toward the instructor's own currency.

The answer to that is no, no matter what ratings the instructor has on the CFI certificate. The Rule is 61.57(c) which requires that for a pilot to log approaches in simulated conditions for currency the pilot logging them has to be under the hood, not someone else in the airplane is in simulated conditions while the pilot claiming them has his eyes wide open in visual conditions.

[dc3flyer]

A CFI CAN give instrument instruction, in VFR or in actual conditions. If someone is training for an instrument rating, they must have at least 15 hours of instruction and the signoff from a CFII. A CFI can give the rest of the training.

If you are a CFI and giving training, if you shoot an approach in actual conditions, you may log the approach.

[wrxpilot]

Originally Posted by dc3flyer

A CFI CAN give instrument instruction, in VFR or in actual conditions. If someone is training for an instrument rating, they must have at least 15 hours of instruction and the signoff from a CFII. A CFI can give the rest of the training.

If you are a CFI and giving training, if you shoot an approach in actual conditions, you may log the approach.

Yep, I did just that this morning... Gave a primary student an introduction to some actual, including an approach. I logged the approach and actual for both of us.

[ElyJs]

Yes I am a single i and have given and logged actual for a PPL. I know you must be a ii for instruction for a rating but where in the regs does it say you can't do IPC's? "Authorized instructor" that means ii? Maybe someone else has the crystal clear reg.

-Jason

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by ElyJs

I know you must be a ii for instruction for a rating but where in the regs does it say you can't do IPC's? "Authorized instructor" that means ii? Maybe someone else has the crystal clear reg.

The issue isn't crystal clear. The regs don't forbid a CFI from doing instrument training, but the FAA has taken a harder line in their interpretation of the regulations. The various FAQs say that it takes a -II to do an IPC and a -II to do the instrument training for the Commercial, but a regular CFI can do the "flight by reference to instruments" for a PPL. When the question was asked to them about using a -II for the 15 hours of required instrument training for the instrument rating, and a regular CFI outside of that, they said "no", but it's not clear that they actually understood the question. Still, none of those interpretations are regulatory and aren't as binding on FSDO's as much as a letter of interpretation from the General Counsel's Ofice.

Based on the trend of the interpretations, the intent appears to be that it takes a -II to do instrument training and that's as it should be, IMO. However, no regulation explicitly says so. My view is that a CFI providing this training would be prudent to log it as "flight by reference to instruments". Hopefully, the future revision of Part 61 regulations will make this clearer, but I'm not counting on it.

[rossy1163]

I dont think u understand the reg!

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by rossy1163

I dont think u understand the reg!

I don't think you understand the reg.

[Chewie von Nubbins]

Originally Posted by rossy1163

I dont think u understand the reg!

Lol. This is gonna be good. Got my popcorn ready!

[butt]

(d) Aeronautical experience. A person who applies for an instrument rating must have logged the following:

(1) At least 50 hours of cross-country flight time as pilot in command, of which at least 10 hours must be in airplanes for an instrument—airplane rating; and

(2) A total of 40 hours of actual or simulated instrument time on the areas of operation of this section, to include—

(i) At least 15 hours of instrument flight training from an authorized instructor in the aircraft category for which the instrument rating is sought;

(ii) At least 3 hours of instrument training that is appropriate to the instrument rating sought from an authorized instructor in preparation for the practical test within the 60 days preceding the date of the test;

This is my interpretation: You need at least 15 hours of instrument instruction with a "authorized instructor", which means a CFII. You also need 40 hours of instrument time. That 40 hours does not need to be from a instructor of any kind. As long as you're flying the plane under the hood, it counts.

As far as the instructor logging it... As long as the instructor is a CFI and is giving instruction, he can log it as dual given and the student can log it as dual received. If the instructor doesn't have the II endorsement, that time can't count towards the 15 hour requirement, but it can still be logged in general and be used towards some other certificate or rating.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by rossy1163

I dont think u understand the reg!

Oh I'm absolutely sure he does (and tgrayson and I disagree on what it means).

In my case, after looking at a whole bunch of rules and official opinions, and applying a bit of lawyer-think, I came up with this (maybe incorrect) paradigm of the requirement for an II:

If an instructor =is not= required by an FAR that talks about instrument training, instrument instruction or instrument currency, any CFI can give the instruction.

If an instructor =is= required by an FAR that talks about instrument training or instrument instruction or instrument currency, a CFII is required.

Butt's interpretation fits squarely into mine.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

If an instructor =is not= required by an FAR that talks about instrument training, instrument instruction or instrument currency, any CFI can give the instruction.

I thought you agreed previously that the instructor should log it as "Flight by reference to instruments", rather than "Instrument Instruction" ?

[rossy1163]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

If the rule about the limitations in who can teach what answered your question, I guess I didn't understand your question. (I won't comment on your interpretation of 61.195(c)).

I thought you were asking whether an instructor can log the approaches that a student flies under the hood toward the instructor's own currency.

The answer to that is no, no matter what ratings the instructor has on the CFI certificate. The Rule is 61.57(c) which requires that for a pilot to log approaches in simulated conditions for currency the pilot logging them has to be under the hood, not someone else in the airplane is in simulated conditions while the pilot claiming them has his eyes wide open in visual conditions.

You obviously don't understand the REG either. However, I called the FSDO today and they told me that a CFI can give instruciton under the hood including approaches. However, they only need the 15 hours with a CFII for the sign-off.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

I thought you agreed previously that the instructor should log it as "Flight by reference to instruments", rather than "Instrument Instruction" ?

I'm not sure I agreed or disagreed with any particular way of writing it up, so long as there is some way to identify what entries are being "counted" instrument training requirements and which entries are not. I haven't seen to many logbooks with separate columns nor have I seen much in the way of even saying "instrument training" in a remarks section, those usually being taken up by a description of the covered maneuvers rather than a catchall phrase.

I really haven't given it much thought, but if I were in one of those teaching environments where one-Is were used to supplement instrument training, I'd probably asterisk or footnote the ones that don't count (with an explanatory note) as being the most efficient way of doing it.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by rossy1163

You obviously don't understand the REG either. However, I called the FSDO today and they told me that a CFI can give instruciton under the hood including approaches. However, they only need the 15 hours with a CFII for the sign-off.

You mean a CFI with his eyes wide open in CAVU conditions =can= log approaches? I think the misunderstanding is on your end my friend.

And any intelligent pilot knows not to call a FSDO for a regulatory interpretation, anyway.