“Ground instruction” scenarios

RyanShort1

RyanShort1

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
5,848
Location
Dallas, Texas
Display Name
Display name:
RyanShort1
If I give an hour of instruction on a boat it still counts, right?

Not asking for a friend.

So could one theoretically give “ground instruction” while airborne?

Discuss...
 
Or ground instruction given while both instructor and student are airborne sitting next to each other while flying as passengers on a commercial airline flight.
 
RyanShort1 said:
If I give an hour of instruction on a boat it still counts, right?

Not asking for a friend.

So could one theoretically give “ground instruction” while airborne?

Discuss...
Click to expand...
I don't see why you couldn't. But I hope you're not also charging for flight instruction at the same time.

And if you are sitting in the right seat with a student in the other seat it might be deemed to be CFI territory instead of ground instructor.
 
TWD87 said:
Or ground instruction given while both instructor and student are airborne sitting next to each other while flying as passengers on a commercial airline flight.
Click to expand...

I have done exactly this, on the way to pick up a new (to him) airplane.
 
RyanShort1 said:
If I give an hour of instruction on a boat it still counts, right?

Not asking for a friend.

So could one theoretically give “ground instruction” while airborne?

Discuss...
Click to expand...

Good question.

61.1 Flight training means that training, other than ground training, received from an authorized instructor in flight in an aircraft.

Ground training means that training, other than flight training, received from an authorized instructor.

61.87 Maneuvers and procedures for pre-solo flight training in a single-engine airplane.
(d) A student pilot who is receiving training for a single-engine airplane rating or privileges must receive and log flight training for the following maneuvers and procedures:

(1) Proper flight preparation procedures, including preflight planning and preparation, powerplant operation, and aircraft systems;

I always wondered why I am required to teach flight preflight planning and preparation in flight.
 
Last edited:
I don’t believe ground instruction is limited to the confines of a room inside an FBO.
 
Well, for instance a commercial pilot, on a photo mission, on autopilot for an hour and a half between targets, with a photographer in the left seat who’s purpose for being on the flight is to take photos, but happens to be a CFI and could easily go over all of the relevant ground material for a flight review via practical discussion... except for the location the training is being given, the intent is being covered, no?
 
Clip4 said:
Good question.

(1) Proper flight preparation procedures, including preflight planning and preparation, powerplant operation, and aircraft systems;

I always wondered why I am required to teach flight preflight planning in flight.
Click to expand...
Right?!
 
RyanShort1 said:
Well, for instance a commercial pilot, on a photo mission, on autopilot for an hour and a half between targets, with a photographer in the left seat who’s purpose for being on the flight is to take photos, but happens to be a CFI and could easily go over all of the relevant ground material for a flight review via practical discussion... except for the location the training is being given, the intent is being covered, no?
Click to expand...

So, when you put the plane on autopilot, you just stop paying attention then? Open the books and let the plane fly itself? Seems to me ground instruction ought to be done in a distraction free environment, whether that is in an FBO, house, boat OR like @RussR said, you are both on a commercial flight as pax. It definitely doesn't have to be inside an FBO in my opinion.

Ground instruction is also usually prep work, or general concepts. Maybe you go through some stuff inside the plane, but the engine does not need to be turning costing you hobbs time or operating time to do ground work.

FAR 61.1:

Flight training means that training, other than ground training, received from an authorized instructor in flight in an aircraft. (Technically @RussR's example would be this as it doesn't say you have to be the one flying the aircraft lol)
Ground training means that training, other than flight training, received from an authorized instructor.
 
I could see ground instruction including a scenario where the student pilot is NOT LOGGING dual time. So if the student pilot is in the right seat and is not a required crew member then they're basically a passenger. They are not manipulating the controls, they're just going for a ride and listening/watching an instructor fly the plane and the instructor, during "appropriate" low-workload times, gives instruction, then that could be seen as ground instruction.

Now, I have a hard time finding, in that scenario, any "appropriate" times where valuable instruction could be given. It seems to me that the scenario painted here just has an instructor getting his student to pay some of his own flying bill, which seems radically inappropriate.
 
Caramon13 said:
So, when you put the plane on autopilot, you just stop paying attention then? Open the books and let the plane fly itself? Seems to me ground instruction ought to be done in a distraction free environment, whether that is in an FBO, house, boat OR like @RussR said, you are both on a commercial flight as pax. It definitely doesn't have to be inside an FBO in my opinion.

Ground instruction is also usually prep work, or general concepts. Maybe you go through some stuff inside the plane, but the engine does not need to be turning costing you hobbs time or operating time to do ground work.

FAR 61.1:

Flight training means that training, other than ground training, received from an authorized instructor in flight in an aircraft. (Technically @RussR's example would be this as it doesn't say you have to be the one flying the aircraft lol)
Ground training means that training, other than flight training, received from an authorized instructor.
Click to expand...
No, au contraire, one could quite well review with questions just as easily as on the ground while paying attention...

"How far are you supposed to be from those clouds over there?"
"What if you see an aircraft head-on?"
"When is our ELT inspection due?"
"Which of these instruments on the panel can we fly without?"
"See that antenna down there? What are your obstacle clearance buffers?"

And no, I'm not actually planning on doing this, but a scenario came up where it would totally have made sense. Could've spread out the material over 3 hours of flying and I'm sure we would have covered everything required of the ground portion of 61.56...
 
AU_James said:
Now, I have a hard time finding, in that scenario, any "appropriate" times where valuable instruction could be given. It seems to me that the scenario painted here just has an instructor getting his student to pay some of his own flying bill, which seems radically inappropriate.
Click to expand...
Nah, it's two buddies on a paid photo mission where there's a long cross-country to go to the target area. Neither is paying the flying bill and the photo guy is essentially dead weight in the left seat, but is a CFI and obviously able to help reduce workload and scan for traffic, etc... The CFI wouldn't even charge the friend for the instruction time.
 
Caramon13 said:
So, when you put the plane on autopilot, you just stop paying attention then?
Click to expand...
Isn't that the whole point of autopilot? Throw the damn thing on, let it follow the magenta line, and if anything bad is about to happen ATC will chime in, or you'll hear a voice (male or female, depending on your configuration settings and preference (see the male or female doctor thread) that will announce "traffic, high," etc.




/S
-obviously a raging joke. That was otherwise an astute point, hence the "like"
 
Ground instruction can occur essentially anywhere. The FAA doesn't care where you are as long as you learn the material.
 
I thought "ground instruction" was some sort of high-fiber substitute for a burger.
 
Given ground on a long car ride.

Don’t read limitations into regs that aren’t there
 
RyanShort1 said:
No, au contraire, one could quite well review with questions just as easily as on the ground while paying attention...

"How far are you supposed to be from those clouds over there?"
"What if you see an aircraft head-on?"
"When is our ELT inspection due?"
"Which of these instruments on the panel can we fly without?"
"See that antenna down there? What are your obstacle clearance buffers?"

And no, I'm not actually planning on doing this, but a scenario came up where it would totally have made sense. Could've spread out the material over 3 hours of flying and I'm sure we would have covered everything required of the ground portion of 61.56...
Click to expand...

Yes, but given what 61.1 states, that's flight instruction if you do it in a plane, not ground. If it's not ground if its flight, that's basically what the FARs state.

The FARs are equally vague when defining what "day" flight time is. In fact there isn't a single place that tells you what "day" flight time is. Rather, they tell you when night flight time is, so you have to infer that if it isn't night, it must be day. Same here. If you are flying it's flight instruction, if you aren't, it's ground. And why would it count for ground if you are flying?

When the FAA goes and says you need x amount of flight time and x amount of ground, they don't mean 2x flight time. 61.1 defines exactly what is ground and what is flight instruction.

Think of it from a logging perspective too. A motivated CFI is going to want dual given time for a number of reasons. If they teach you in flight in an aircraft or on the ground in a sim, that's dual given. Ground isn't dual. When an employer asks about dual given they aren't asking you how much ground instruction you gave, it's how much FLIGHT instruction you gave.
 
Last edited:
Tantalum said:
Isn't that the whole point of autopilot? Throw the damn thing on, let it follow the magenta line, and if anything bad is about to happen ATC will chime in, or you'll hear a voice (male or female, depending on your configuration settings and preference (see the male or female doctor thread) that will announce "traffic, high," etc.




/S
-obviously a raging joke. That was otherwise an astute point, hence the "like"
Click to expand...

:)
 
That’s how I’m reading it, too. Basically the ground can take place anywhere except an airplane, even if it could be done there safely and in a relevant manner... which is honestly waaay too bad for my scenario.
 
Last edited:
I think that ground instruction probably can't be given while actually logging flight time.

MuseChaser said:
I thought "ground instruction" was some sort of high-fiber substitute for a burger.
Click to expand...

Ground instruction is impossible.
 
Is this a joke? To quote Viper, "engage zone 5, extend, and save your $20M airplane."

Shaking my head, laughing my butt off!
 
Clip4 said:
Good question.

61.1 Flight training means that training, other than ground training, received from an authorized instructor in flight in an aircraft.

Ground training means that training, other than flight training, received from an authorized instructor.
Click to expand...

If you couldn't give ground training in flight in an aircraft, then the definition of flight training in 61.1 wouldn't need the "other than ground training" exclusion. It would say, "Flight training means that training received from an authorized instructor in flight in an aircraft." But it doesn't say that -- they clearly make an exception for ground training in case someone is giving ground training in flight in an aircraft.

And the ground training definition is all training, other than flight training, with no restriction on where it is received.

Seems about as clear as FARs can be.
 
I think ground and flight instruction are mutually exclusive in the sense that any ground and flight instruction cannot occur simultaneously. IOW if you're logging flight instruction, you can't log ground instruction at the same time and vice versa. If an appropriately rated instructor wants to do ground instruction while airborne and log that time only as ground instruction then that's permitted. He can't log that same time as dual flight instruction given. Similarly if the time is being logged as flight instruction given, then it can't be logged also as ground instruction given. The airplane is a particularly poor classroom for ground instruction in my opinion.
 
Witmo said:
I think ground and flight instruction are mutually exclusive in the sense that any ground and flight instruction cannot occur simultaneously. IOW if you're logging flight instruction, you can't log ground instruction at the same time and vice versa. If an appropriately rated instructor wants to do ground instruction while airborne and log that time only as ground instruction then that's permitted. He can't log that same time as dual flight instruction given. Similarly if the time is being logged as flight instruction given, then it can't be logged also as ground instruction given. The airplane is a particularly poor classroom for ground instruction in my opinion.
Click to expand...
The truth is that I generally agree, but specifically thought it would work for this scenario.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Neither. A dismissive reply is sillier.
Click to expand...

OK. I really thought it was a tongue-in-cheek question. Apparently so did others.

I'm sorry, but reading your specific scenario, I really do think that, while it might be possible, the idea that "I want to avoid a good venue where attention will not be divided or distracted by the act of flying the airplane" is a bit silly, and not particularly conducive to learning.

As a serious question, I was thinking more in terms of a ground instructor giving ground instruction during a flight with the trainee. I guess that's theoretically possible, but since there is (almost?) nothing that is a ground training subject that is not also a flight training subject, it's not realistic and I think it is subject to an enforcement risk if it is investigated (especially since being investigated means there is a problem). Come to think of it, that may well be the answer, if a ground instructor would not be able to do it in an airplane, it's not ground instruction in an airplane.
 
midlifeflyer said:
OK. I really thought it was a tongue-in-cheek question. Apparently so did others.

I'm sorry, but reading your specific scenario, I really do think that, while it might be possible, the idea that "I want to avoid a good venue where attention will not be divided or distracted by the act of flying the airplane" is a bit silly, and not particularly conducive to learning.

As a serious question, I was thinking more in terms of a ground instructor giving ground instruction during a flight with the trainee. I guess that's theoretically possible, but since there is (almost?) nothing that is a ground training subject that is not also a flight training subject, it's not realistic and I think it is subject to an enforcement risk if it is investigated (especially since being investigated means there is a problem). Come to think of it, that may well be the answer, if a ground instructor would not be able to do it in an airplane, it's not ground instruction in an airplane.
Click to expand...
In this case it had to do with a crazy schedule, lots of dead-time legs, days where 8+ hours of flying actually meant a 12 hour day, and a situation where I thought it could be covered pretty easily and realistically spread out between multiple legs. I've done some flight reviews lately and I figured I could basically take a list of questions that I know generally takes an hour to cover, ask those same questions and some extras and give review points if they weren't answered correctly as needed. It would have been useful to eliminate an extra hour that the other guy needed to pay someone else to do it, too, which would've been helpful to him.
 
Yes, it should probably be called Oral instruction, but I'm not signing anyone's book saying that I gave them oral on such and such date, with my AGI number. :D
 
RyanShort1 said:
In this case it had to do with a crazy schedule, lots of dead-time legs, days where 8+ hours of flying actually meant a 12 hour day, and a situation where I thought it could be covered pretty easily and realistically spread out between multiple legs. I've done some flight reviews lately and I figured I could basically take a list of questions that I know generally takes an hour to cover, ask those same questions and some extras and give review points if they weren't answered correctly as needed. It would have been useful to eliminate an extra hour that the other guy needed to pay someone else to do it, too, which would've been helpful to him.
Click to expand...
I definitely admire the creativity. But I suspect the FAA would be looking for "a minimum of 1 hour of flight training and 1 hour of ground training," not "a minimum of 1 hour of flight training including 1 hour of ground training."
 
midlifeflyer said:
I definitely admire the creativity. But I suspect the FAA would be looking for "a minimum of 1 hour of flight training and 1 hour of ground training," not "a minimum of 1 hour of flight training including 1 hour of ground training."
Click to expand...
I tend to overshoot rather than hit the bare minimums, and this particular exercise would've only been intended to meet the same exact requirements and cover the exact material I would normally cover in a 1.5 hour ground session, which can be compressed if a student is on top of their Part 91 regs. No flight instruction would have been logged.
 
Last edited:
RyanShort1 said:
I tend to overshoot rather than hit the bare minimums, and this particular exercise would've only been intended to meet the same exact requirements and cover the exact material I would normally cover in a 1.5 hour ground session, which can be compressed if a student is on top of their Part 91 regs. No flight instruction would have been logged.
Click to expand...
Me too. Just pointing out another possible problem with ground during flight and trying to separate the two.

Admiring your creativity was not sarcastic.

There are other ways of tossing in some overall time saving efficiencies while meeting or exceeding requirements. For example, group ground. That can work especially well with a club or flight school, but no reason one can't have one ground for 2-3 trainees who are due in the same month. I have also assigned online courses with quizzes as part of ground.
 
RyanShort1, How about clarifying what you are trying to say. Referring your last post, are you talking about giving instruction as part of imparting knowledge or the hour of none flight review as part of a flight review? No reputable CFI should ever sign off a flight review they have not personally conducted per the letter of the law. Actually, I'd say NO CFI should do this but as we know there are a few folks who will do anything for whatever reason suits their purposes.
 
Heck, one of my check rides the DPE did the oral in the air with me. If the DPE says it's good enough for a check ride, it's good enough for a flight review!
 
EdFred, are you willing to disclose this to the FAA? I suspect they would NOT agree. Just because that DPE did it doesn't mean it is ok.
 
Why would I disclose it to the FAA? I'm not a whiny ***** tattle tale.

I've also given a number of flight reviews where I haven't given any ground instruction.
 
EdFred, I'm not sure what you are but if what you said is true about no ground as part of a flight review then you ARE a self confessed ignoramus in addition to your other characteristics. I'll take your word that you're not, as you say, a whiny ***** tattle tale. But, if you are so convinced what you and that DPE or CFIs did is legal and proper what do you have to lose? As to the checkride you describe go look at the applicable ACH which clearly says what you two did was illegal. I don't have an old PTS but I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts it also says certain activities MUST BE DONE PRE-FLIGHT!

Go read the FARs! If there was no ground or pre-flight then legally those reviews do not count as a flight review.

Be legal, smart, and safe...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top