CFI operating under sport pilot restrictions

PA44-LUV

Well-Known Member
I'm having trouble interpreting the regulations and I have found conflicting information on the internet concerning this.

Is the training provided by a CFI (without a valid medical) in an LSA under sport pilot limitations good for only the sport pilot certificate or can this training time be applied towards higher certificates?

Along the same line, can a CFI in this same situation provide private pilot training in an LSA as long as sport pilot conditions are met (day VFR, sunrise to sunset, 10,000 feet MSL or below, etc)?

I was under the impression that the time did count but one of the instructors at the flight school today disagreed. I am in this situation and would like to teach but I don't know if this would be a major drawback if training I provide isn't applicable towards a private license. As far as night ops are concerned, we'd have to send them to another school anyway since the aircraft are not certified for night flight to my knowledge.

Thanks.
 

Old Pete

curmudgeon
I'm having trouble interpreting the regulations and I have found conflicting information on the internet concerning this.

Is the training provided by a CFI (without a valid medical) in an LSA under sport pilot limitations good for only the sport pilot certificate or can this training time be applied towards higher certificates?

Along the same line, can a CFI in this same situation provide private pilot training in an LSA as long as sport pilot conditions are met (day VFR, sunrise to sunset, 10,000 feet MSL or below, etc)?

I was under the impression that the time did count but one of the instructors at the flight school today disagreed. I am in this situation and would like to teach but I don't know if this would be a major drawback if training I provide isn't applicable towards a private license. As far as night ops are concerned, we'd have to send them to another school anyway since the aircraft are not certified for night flight to my knowledge.

Thanks.
I do not know of any regulation that would prevent a cfi/airplane/sel from instructing in a LSA without a medical certificate or those hours not counting towards higher certificates.
 

nosehair

Well-Known Member
Any flight training received by a cfi counts towards whatever the training is for - medical or no medical.

A cfi only has to have a medical when he/she is the acting PIC in a non-LSA. A cfi can give all the dual required for instrument, commercial, atp, etc., without a medical and the time counts.

Your instruction towards a private will count.
 

KSCessnaDriver

Well-Known Member
I'm having trouble interpreting the regulations and I have found conflicting information on the internet concerning this.

Is the training provided by a CFI (without a valid medical) in an LSA under sport pilot limitations good for only the sport pilot certificate or can this training time be applied towards higher certificates?

Along the same line, can a CFI in this same situation provide private pilot training in an LSA as long as sport pilot conditions are met (day VFR, sunrise to sunset, 10,000 feet MSL or below, etc)?

I was under the impression that the time did count but one of the instructors at the flight school today disagreed. I am in this situation and would like to teach but I don't know if this would be a major drawback if training I provide isn't applicable towards a private license. As far as night ops are concerned, we'd have to send them to another school anyway since the aircraft are not certified for night flight to my knowledge.

Thanks.

A Subpart H instructor, that is a real, CFI, can do the training for any rating, regardless of medical or not, as long as someone can legally act PIC in the aircraft.

A Subpart K instructor, that is a sport pilot instructor, can only do instruction for a sport pilot certificate.
 

PA44-LUV

Well-Known Member
Thanks all!

I think the regulations that were causing me issues were 61.23(a)(3)(iv) where it says that a 3rd class medical is required for "exercising flight instructor privileges and acting as PIC" and 61.23(c)(iii) requiring either a medical or drivers license for "exercising the privileges of a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating while acting PIC in an LSA."
 

MidlifeFlyer

Well-Known Member
Here's what might be a helpful way to think of all this. What it comes down to, a CFI has two sets of privileges, as an instructor and as a pilot. A CFI does not need a medical certificate at all unless exercising a pilot privielge that requires one.

Looking at 61.23, for example:

==============================
(b) Operations not requiring a medical certificate. A person is not required to hold a medical certificate--
(4) When exercising the privileges of a flight instructor certificate with--
(i) A sport pilot rating in a glider or balloon (since a sport pilot doesn't require a medical); or
(ii) A glider category rating (since even a commercial pilot with a glider rating does not require a medical);

***
(5) When exercising the privileges of a flight instructor certificate if the person is not acting as pilot in command or serving as a required pilot flight crewmember (when they added the sport pilot information, the FAA probably should have made it clearer but it's really referring to the exercise of private and higher privileges as PIC or as required crew where the pilot or required crewmember would be required to have a medical )
==============================

Someone in a forum came up with this way of thinking of it and while it doesn't track the regulation language and may cause a headache for some (since it requires the same kind of thought as separating "logged" PIC from "acting as" PIC) I haven't come across a scenario where it would not apply.


(c)(iii) is a bit of a unfortunate redundancy but all it really says is , if a medical certificate is not required a drivers license is.
 

MidlifeFlyer

Well-Known Member
Any flight training received by a cfi counts towards whatever the training is for - medical or no medical.

A cfi only has to have a medical when he/she is the acting PIC in a non-LSA. A cfi can give all the dual required for instrument, commercial, atp, etc., without a medical and the time counts.
Slight fix for the underlined portion. Acting as a safety pilot is a private pilot privilege that requires a medical under current* regulations. So a CFI requires a medical when giving the instrument training to a pilot under the hood, whether it be for an instrument rating or the instrument training components of the commercial certificate. 91.109(c) (making the safety pilot a required crewmember exercising at least private pilot privileges) ) and 61.23 (b)(5) (requiring a medical certificate when acting as PIC or reqired crew).

(* I understand there has been some discussion within the FAA about adding hood work to the sport pilot certificate or at least adjusting 61.23 again to add acting as safety pilot in an LSA as an eception, but it hasn't happened yet).
 

PA44-LUV

Well-Known Member
Even if hood work is added to the sport pilot certificate, that shouldn't affect whether the instructor can provide that training because it should still be "flight solely be reference to instruments," not technically "instrument training" as understood for the instrument rating / commercial requirements....
 

MidlifeFlyer

Well-Known Member
Even if hood work is added to the sport pilot certificate, that shouldn't affect whether the instructor can provide that training because it should still be "flight solely be reference to instruments," not technically "instrument training" as understood for the instrument rating / commercial requirements....
The problem isn't the "flight solely by reference" vs. "instrument training" dichotomy. It's that when the "student" is under the hood, the CFI is also a 91.109(c) safety pilot - a required crewmwmber who is exercising at least private pilot privileges and requires a medical certificate.
 

Inverted25

Well-Known Member
There is an instructor here who is a sport pilot only flight instructor. He doesn't have a commercial license even. So the training he gives can only be used towards a sport pilot license.
 

Old Pete

curmudgeon
That is absurd. It seems to be downright nonsensical that someone could legally act as PIC of an LSA, but not have the privilege of acting as a safety pilot.
 

A150K

Well-Known Member
Slight fix for the underlined portion. Acting as a safety pilot is a private pilot privilege that requires a medical under current* regulations. So a CFI requires a medical when giving the instrument training to a pilot under the hood, whether it be for an instrument rating or the instrument training components of the commercial certificate. 91.109(c) (making the safety pilot a required crewmember exercising at least private pilot privileges) ) and 61.23 (b)(5) (requiring a medical certificate when acting as PIC or reqired crew).

(* I understand there has been some discussion within the FAA about adding hood work to the sport pilot certificate or at least adjusting 61.23 again to add acting as safety pilot in an LSA as an eception, but it hasn't happened yet).
Wouldn't a CFI also need a medical to provide the complex training (assuming the student doesnt already hold a complex endorsement) for the comm since the student can't act as PIC of a complex without the endorsement?
 

MidlifeFlyer

Well-Known Member
Wouldn't a CFI also need a medical to provide the complex training (assuming the student doesnt already hold a complex endorsement) for the comm since the student can't act as PIC of a complex without the endorsement?
Yes. That's right. If the stiudent can't be PIC, the CFI needs to.
 

MidlifeFlyer

Well-Known Member
That is absurd. It seems to be downright nonsensical that someone could legally act as PIC of an LSA, but not have the privilege of acting as a safety pilot.
I definitely agree that it should be changed. But keep in mind that there is no hood-training requirements for sport pilots or sport CFIs. And a pilot may not act as a required second crewmember in an operation that requires more than one pilot when only exercising sport privileges, which also means can't act as a safety pilot.

So at least it's consistent. I'm not so sure it's absurd as it is being very careful with this new certificate in terms of pilot privileges. As the certificate proves itself, that may expand.
 

nosehair

Well-Known Member
91.109(c) (making the safety pilot a required crewmember exercising at least private pilot privileges)
I don't see where this applies, since (c) is about an atp test or 121 checks.
61.23 (b)(5) (requiring a medical certificate when acting as PIC or reqired crew).
OK, maybe I'm remembering wrong, and I've been out of the mainstream for a while, but isn't that "required crew" a recent addition? Didn't we always use the medical as a requirement for the safety pilot to log time, as PIC or SIC, but if no time was logged and the safety pilot was not acting in any of those capacities, no medical was required?

I submit that a "safety pilot" is not a "required crewmember".
Maybe there's some legal definition on the subject.

..or my memory is fading...
 

mastermags

Well-Known Member *giggity*
I don't see where this applies, since (c) is about an atp test or 121 checks.


OK, maybe I'm remembering wrong, and I've been out of the mainstream for a while, but isn't that "required crew" a recent addition? Didn't we always use the medical as a requirement for the safety pilot to log time, as PIC or SIC, but if no time was logged and the safety pilot was not acting in any of those capacities, no medical was required?

I submit that a "safety pilot" is not a "required crewmember".
Maybe there's some legal definition on the subject.

..or my memory is fading...
I think the latter... A safety pilot's always been required crew as long as I can remember.
 

MidlifeFlyer

Well-Known Member
I don't see where this applies, since (c) is about an atp test or 121 checks.
Check the currency of your regs. There was an amendment (I think in 2011) that moved some of the subsections. What is now 91.109(c) used to be (b); the ATP test reg is (d).


OK, maybe I'm remembering wrong, and I've been out of the mainstream for a while, but isn't that "required crew" a recent addition? Didn't we always use the medical as a requirement for the safety pilot to log time, as PIC or SIC, but if no time was logged and the safety pilot was not acting in any of those capacities, no medical was required?

I submit that a "safety pilot" is not a "required crewmember".
Maybe there's some legal definition on the subject.

..or my memory is fading...
I think you just have the logging and the acting backwards. The safety pilot may log PIC or SIC time because he's a required crewmember under 61.51(e)(1)(iii) or (f)(2) as applicable. He's not required or not required because of the operation is in when in flight, not because he logs or doesn't write certain things on a piece of paper with a beer in his hand* after the flight. That's been the case at least since the Chief Counsel's 1993 interpretation letter on logging safety pilot time and continues without change into the 2009 and later discussions of logging cross country time by safety pilots. Also, 61.55 has, for as long as I'm aware, had a special provision for excepting safety pilots from certain SIC requirements.


(*you know I can't resist saying that :D )
 
Top