Attention all CFI's and interested parties.

[Greg Bockelman]

Can a CFI who does not have a 61.31 High Performance endorsement give a flight review to someone in that person's 182 or other high performance airplane? Please document your answers with any and all CURRENTLY AVAILABLE references.

Ground rules: For those of you who have been around the block, or have been department heads, or involved in government in some way or otherwise...biased, for lack of a better term...please try to look at it from the point of view of a regular CFI just trying to do the right thing.

 

[poadeleted20]

Since this question has not, to my knowledge, been asked/answered by the FAA Chief Counsel, all any of us can do is guess. The question is whether the FAA considers you an "authorized instructor." It seems hard to imagine how anyone could be an "authorized instructor" for a flight review if they are not legally qualified to act as PIC in the plane (issues of medical certificates aside) since the purpose of the review is to determine the reviewee's ability to act as a PIC. All I have to go on is this question asked of the person who wrote those rules:

QUESTION: The situation is a flight instructor has asked the question whether he can give a flight review in a tailwheel airplane and yet he has not previously met the additional training requirements for operating a tailwheel airplane [i.e., § 61.31(i)].

ANSWER: Ref. § 61.1(b)(2); § 61.56(c)(1); No, a flight instructor cannot give a flight review in a tailwheel airplane unless he has complied with § 61.31(i). Per § 61.56(c)(1), it states, in pertinent part, “. . . by an authorized instructor . . . .” Per § 61.1(b)(2)(ii), it states, in pertinent part, “. . . in accordance with the privileges and limitations of his or her flight instructor certificate . . . .” The flight instructor would not be considered an “authorized instructor” for giving a flight review in a tailwheel airplane.
{Q&A-551}

Since the high performance endorsement is no different from the TW endorsement in terms of the privileges, limitations, or requirement to hold the endorsement in order to give the flight training for the endorsement, I see no reason to believe the Flight Standards Service will see giving a flight review in an HP plane without having an HP endorsement as any different than giving a flight review in a TW plane without a TW endorsement, and if the Asst Chief Counsel for Regulation asks them for their intent in this area, that is what AFS-800 will tell her. Whether she chooses to overrule that intent based on the actual wording is anyone's guess, but it doesn't happen often.

Therefore, a CFI without an HP endorsement who is trying to "do the right thing" should decline to give a flight review in an HP airplane.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

All I have to go on is this question asked of the person who wrote those rules

Ron, you just did what I SPECIFICALLY asked you NOT to do. We don't have access to that information, so your answer is irrelevant.

Besides, as I have pointed out, Lynch's answer contradicts what is specifically written in the regulations.

 

[jmaynard]

Therefore, a CFI without an HP endorsement who is trying to "do the right thing" should decline to give a flight review in an HP airplane.

Ron, if that document is not currently available from the FAA, how do I know it's authentic? (I'm not accusing you of anything; I'm just trying to point out that all we have to go on is your word.) Greg asked for currently available references for a very good reason: a CFI who doesn't read this board has only what's actually available to go on.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Greg asked for currently available references for a very good reason: a CFI who doesn't read this board has only what's actually available to go on.

Even those that DO read this and other boards...

 

[TMetzinger]

Oh, what the hell, I've already drafted on letter to Counsel this week, I'll write another, asking if a flight instructor needs to have endorsements in order to give a flight review when the student is current to act as PIC. I'll specifically bring up tailwheel and high performance - are there any other endorsements for acting as PIC? (CFIs will be qualified in complex airplanes as it's part of the prerequisite commercial certificate)

 

[Everskyward]

I'll play the novice CFI and devil's advocate since I have not been around the block so much in that sense, and I have never seen this secret document you guys refer to all the time. Jay has a good point in that if it's not available for pilots to reference, how can they expect people to follow it?

The reg about flight instructor privileges says:

§ 61.193 Flight instructor privileges.

A person who holds a flight instructor certificate is authorized within the limitations of that person's flight instructor certificate and ratings to give training and endorsements that are required for, and relate to:
<snip>
(g) A flight review, operating privilege, or recency of experience requirement of this part;

You can question what the statement in bold means. If you take everything at face value, neither flight instructors certificates nor pilots certificates say anything about high performance (or tailwheel) on them. All it would need to say on the CFIs flight instructors certificate to give a BFR in a 182 would be "airplane single engine". You can argue about the intent of the rule or whether or not it is smart to give a BFR in an airplane for which you have no endorsement, but the way the rule is currently written, it appears to be legal to do so. I don't have any clue what the FAA would say about this though. Anyone want to experiment? How many CFIs out there don't have a high performance endorsement anyway?

 

[gismo]

Oh, what the hell, I've already drafted on letter to Counsel this week, I'll write another, asking if a flight instructor needs to have endorsements in order to give a flight review when the student is current to act as PIC. I'll specifically bring up tailwheel and high performance - are there any other endorsements for acting as PIC? (CFIs will be qualified in complex airplanes as it's part of the prerequisite commercial certificate)

Why limit the question to flight review qualifications? You might also ask whether appropriate pilot certificate endorsements are required for a CFI to be an "authorized instructor" in all cases and if not what are the exceptions.

 

[Steve Foley]

"within the limitations of that person's flight instructor certificate and ratings to give training"

OK, what are the limitations of a rating?

I know there's a rule someplace that says I can't fly tailwheel. Is that a limitation of my rating (PP-ASEL)?

If that is a limitation, then I think that implies that the CFI cannot instruct without the endorsement.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Can a CFI who does not have a 61.31 High Performance endorsement give a flight review to someone in that person's 182 or other high performance airplane? Please document your answers with any and all CURRENTLY AVAILABLE references.

There are none except the words of the reg itself.

If you read it strictly, you can. Endorsements are required for acting as PIC and so long as the CFI is not... But as Ron's answer points out, that may not be enough.

please try to look at it from the point of view of a regular CFI just trying to do the right thing.

What do you mean by the "right thing?" Regs aside, my definition of "the right thing" is to not do a FR in an airplane I'm not familiar with myself (I have exceptions to my own rule). I'm not sure it gives the pilot any benefit and, in case of a mishap, I don't want to answer the FAA question, "What made you think you were qualified to teach in that airplane?"

 

[Greg Bockelman]

If you read it strictly, you can. Endorsements are required for acting as PIC and so long as the CFI is not...

I agree.

But as Ron's answer points out, that may not be enough.

Well, now, that is the crux of the matter, isn't it? How am I as a CFI supposed to determine what "enough" is?

What do you mean by the "right thing?"

Actually, I am talking about what is legal, not necessarily what is prudent.

Regs aside, my definition of "the right thing" is to not do a FR in an airplane I'm not familiar with myself (I have exceptions to my own rule). I'm not sure it gives the pilot any benefit and, in case of a mishap, I don't want to answer the FAA question, "What made you think you were qualified to teach in that airplane?"

I agree with you on that. But this discussion is about what is legal, not necessarily what is right.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Well, now, that is the crux of the matter, isn't it? How am I as a CFI supposed to determine what "enough" is?

For better or worse, you do something similar to what everyone does in a regulatory environment when there isn't a clear answer:

1. Ask the regulatory authority (here, send a letter to Flight Standards or the Chief Counsel and ask for an opinion).
2. Interpret it in a way that makes sense to you and act accordingly, taking the risk and potential consequences of being wrong if you choose a more permissive interpretation.
3. Personally follow the more conservative interpretation.

Not exactly what the "regular CFI just trying to do the right thing" wants, but I guess we don't all get what we want, do we?

Besides even a clear "yes you can" doesn't help you answer that hypothetical question from the FAA about what you were doing teaching in an airplane you were not even allowed to fly yourself as PIC (from an FAR standpoint).

 

[KennyFlys]

I have to stick with what I mentioned in chat last night.

If you go by the "letter of the law" in the FARs, an act may be legal. But, I sincerely doubt that was intended in the spirit of the law.

I believe John Lynch wrote his FAQ with the spirit of the law in mind.

Unfortunately, many have been badly written. I hope this new re-write addresses all of these issues but I'm not holding my breath. There are still attorneys involved with no real world understanding of what these regulations apply to.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Besides even a clear "yes you can" doesn't help you answer that hypothetical question from the FAA about what you were doing teaching in an airplane you were not even allowed to fly yourself as PIC (from an FAR standpoint).

Every CFI that is instructing without a medical is doing just that.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Every CFI that is instructing without a medical is doing just that.

Yes. I was trying to limit that to situations other than generalized medical incapacity or a current FR but couldn't find a way to do that and incorrectly figured that you'd know what I meant.

and, btw, I'm not saying that the FAA's question would always be unasnswerable.

 

[dmccormack]

Holy Cow...

A CFI without a HP and complex endorsement? What's the point?

 

[TMetzinger]

I too look forward to an official Lynch interpretation.

That's an oxymoron. Only the Chief Counsel can give official interpretations.

 

[jmaynard]

A CFI without a HP and complex endorsement? What's the point?

A (non-SP) CFI-Airplane without a complex endorsement Isn't possible, since it requires a commercial pilot ticket and that requires a complex aircraft. A CFI-A without a HP endorsement, OTOH, is possible, if he did his training and checkride in an Arrow or 172RG...

 

[dmccormack]

A (non-SP) CFI-Airplane without a complex endorsement Isn't possible, since it requires a commercial pilot ticket and that requires a complex aircraft. A CFI-A without a HP endorsement, OTOH, is possible, if he did his training and checkride in an Arrow or 172RG...

Right -- those are the legal twisties caused by the HP/complex distinction.

My point is: If you're a CFI -- good grief -- get yourself minimally trained up. (and yes, I consider a HP endorsement minimal)

 

[TMetzinger]

Here's the relevant sections from the Q&A:

QUESTION: The situation is a flight instructor has asked the question whether he can give flight training in a high performance airplane and he has not previously met the additional training requirements for operating high performance airplanes [i.e., § 61.31(f)]. And neither has the person who the flight instructor is giving training to? So the scenario would be neither person is qualified to act as PIC in a high performance airplane.
ANSWER: Ref. § 61.31(f) and § 61.195(b);; No, a flight instructor cannot give flight training in a high performance airplane unless he has complied with § 61.31(f) first. As per § 61.31(f) which states in pertinent part, “. . . no person may act as pilot in command of a high performance airplane . . . unless that person has . . .” So, For the scenario you’ve given me, WHO IS GOING TO ACT AS THE PIC! I realize § 61.195(b) merely states “. . . category and class . . .” but that is going to be changed in an upcoming rulemaking action, so we can quit being asked these ridiculous questions. I can’t imagine somebody wanting to flight instruct in an aircraft they’re not qualified in!
QUESTION: A similar situation in that the flight instructor is still not qualified to act as PIC in a high performance airplane because he has not previously met the additional training requirements for operating a high performance airplane [i.e., § 61.31(f)]. But the person who the flight instructor is giving training to is qualified to pilot a high performance airplane, because he has previously met the training and endorsement requirements of § 61.31(f)? Now, can that flight instructor give flight training to that person in this scenario?
ANSWER: Ref. § 61.31(f) and § 61.195(b); Again, the answer is no. Even though § 61.195(b) doesn’t specifically deny this flight instructor from doing something stupid, I believe the word “applicable” in § 61.195(b)(1) [i.e., “A pilot certificate and flight instructor certificate with the applicable category and class rating”] does have some significance and purpose. And as I stated previously, I hope to have a rulemaking action completed that will create a new subparagraph (3) to § 61.195(b) that will establish the provision “(3) If required, an endorsement to serve as pilot in command in that aircraft.” Then, without question, the rule will definitely prevent this kind of idiotic scenario! Anyway, what kind of worthwhile training could this flight instructor think he could provide when he/she is not even qualified in the aircraft. The flight instructor certainly could not provide the training and endorsement required by § 61.31(f), because the flight instructor would not be considered an “authorized instructor.”

Now, if the 61 rewrite that should be coming out this quarter actually DOES add 61.195.b.3 to require the endorsement, that will put this to rest. If it doesn't, then I'll send a letter to Counsel.

Note however, John's logic "Even though § 61.195(b) doesn’t specifically deny this flight instructor from doing something stupid..." is clearly indicative that he understands the reg he wrote doesn't strictly mean what he wanted it to mean.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Here's the relevant sections from the Q&A:

Tim, where is that document available to me from the FAA? It isn't. Therefore, for my purposes it does not exist and cannot be used.

Now, if the 61 rewrite that should be coming out this quarter actually DOES add 61.195.b.3 to require the endorsement, that will put this to rest. If it doesn't, then I'll send a letter to Counsel.

I hope so. Until then...

Note however, John's logic "Even though § 61.195(b) doesn’t specifically deny this flight instructor from doing something stupid..." is clearly indicative that he understands the reg he wrote doesn't strictly mean what he wanted it to mean.

Then he should have to live with it until it gets fixed. Who gave him sole authority to write all these regs in the first place?

 

[TMetzinger]

Tim, where is that document available to me from the FAA? It isn't. Therefore, for my purposes it does not exist and cannot be used.



I hope so. Until then...



Then he should have to live with it until it gets fixed. Who gave him sole authority to write all these regs in the first place?

The FAQ is stored on the ASA pro flight library CD - that's where I found my copy.

As for his authority, he's in flight standards, it's perfectly reasonable for him to write the regs and promulgate them through the normal rulemaking process.

No argument that the FAA should interpret the regs as written, not as they WISH they were written.

 

[dmccormack]

I understand the attraction for some to word-parsing, but quite frankly I think conservative caution/common sense/basic smarts would counsel that a CFI not instruct what he/she has not been qualified in him/herself.

Call me crazy.

 

[flhrci]

Holy Cow...

A CFI without a HP and complex endorsement? What's the point?

I hope a CFI with a complex and without a HP is still ok. I can't get a HP to save my life. Can't afford to.

David

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron, if that document is not currently available from the FAA, how do I know it's authentic?

You can call the person whose name and phone number is on the front -- which is where I got it.

 

[poadeleted20]

A (non-SP) CFI-Airplane without a complex endorsement Isn't possible

Actually, it is, but only if s/he got that CFI back before the mid-70's when the complex requirement for CFI was instituted, and has not had to do a reinstatement/renewal ride since. I got mine in 1973 in a 140 Cherokee, but had to do complex on my reinstatement ride in 1977 (ticket had expired in the middle of the Pacific Ocean).

 

[poadeleted20]

Tim, where is that document available to me from the FAA? It isn't. Therefore, for my purposes it does not exist and cannot be used.

It can be used by those to whom it is available, i.e., Flight Standards personnel.

 

[jestertoo]

Why not do the BFR in a rental 172?

Or was all of this to get someone to tell him he was ok doing something he read as wrong in the rules? Seems like the only answer that will satisfy the OP was "It's ok".

 

[jmaynard]

Tim, where is that document available to me from the FAA? It isn't. Therefore, for my purposes it does not exist and cannot be used.

It can be used by those to whom it is available, i.e., Flight Standards personnel.

So, in other words, those of us who do not have access to the document (i.e., those of us who are not Flight Standards personnel) cannot be expected to know what is in it, and yet we're held to regulations we cannot discover, cannot read, cannot comment on, and cannot petition to be changed? Do you see what's wrong with this picture yet?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

It can be used by those to whom it is available, i.e., Flight Standards personnel.

So, in other words, those of us who do not have access to the document (i.e., those of us who are not Flight Standards personnel) cannot be expected to know what is in it, and yet we're held to regulations we cannot discover, cannot read, cannot comment on, and cannot petition to be changed? Do you see what's wrong with this picture yet?

In other words, Jay, we are all screwed because we have NO FRICKING IDEA to what standards we are being held.

 

[jmaynard]

In other words, Jay, we are all screwed because we have NO FRICKING IDEA to what standards we are being held.

Yes, that's my point.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Why not do the BFR in a rental 172?

That is not the point of this discussion.

Or was all of this to get someone to tell him he was ok doing something he read as wrong in the rules? Seems like the only answer that will satisfy the OP was "It's ok".

I am not saying it is ok or not ok. But using the references WE NORMAL PILOTS have, not Flight Standards, not Ron Levy's personal library, not any of that other stuff,

if you use the regulations AS WRITTEN in black and white,

and then go to the FAA's official website that has Chief Councel official opinions,

you come away with the answer that it is legal to do a Flight Review in a plane you are not endorsed for, as long as the other pilot is able to be the legal PIC.

It is black and white.

I CANNOT interpret intent.

I CANNOT anticipate what John Lynch or anyone else who writes regulations intended.

I SHOULD NOT be subject to action for something that is clearly allowable in writing in the regulations.

 

[poadeleted20]

In other words, Jay, we are all screwed because we have NO FRICKING IDEA to what standards we are being held.

That's been true and approved by the US Court of Appeals ever since Administrator v. NTSB and Merrell, in which the court held that the FAA need not present its interpretation of a rule in advance of enforcement action on that rule. Thus, if you want to be as sure as you can be that you don't get in trouble, you either get a Chief Counsel opinion or, as suggested by another poster above, you make the most conservative possible interpretation of the rules when doing it yourself.

However, all that stuff about John Lynch and the Court of Appeals aside, on this particular issue, do you think that giving a review to determine PIC competency in an airplane that (medical issues aside) you're not qualified to fly as PIC yourself passes the "sniff" test? I don't.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

However, all that stuff about John Lynch and the Court of Appeals aside, on this particular issue, do you think that giving a review to determine PIC competency in an airplane that (medical issues aside) you're not qualified to fly as PIC yourself passes the "sniff" test? I don't.

Is it legal? Or isn't it? Sniff test aside, how can I tell?

 

[EdFred]

Reading only the FARs with no other references...

Yes, you could give a FR to someone in an HP w/o having the endorsement, provided that the person receiving the FR before the 24 months was up and was acting as PIC. However, also reading just the FARs there is nothin that precludes me from giving a HP endorsement without actually having one of my own. The only things the FARs say is "authorized instructor" but they do not define "authorized instructor"

That being said, I believe that in order to give any training/endorsement/FR in a HP/tailwheel/pressurized aircraft, then you should be required to have said endorsements. But my opinion doesn't count since I am a liar.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

The only things the FARs say is "authorized instructor" but they do not define "authorized instructor"

Sure they do. Look at 61.1(b)(2)

That being said, I believe that in order to give any training/endorsement/FR in a HP/tailwheel/pressurized aircraft, then you should be required to have said endorsements.

GENERALLY speaking, I do to. Are there specific instances to do otherwise? I believe so on that score also.

But my opinion doesn't count since I am a liar.

LOL. No, not because you are a liar. Just on general principle. I AM JUST KIDDING. I think too much is being made out of not much on that thread.

 

[EdFred]

Sure they do. Look at 61.1(b)(2)

What I meant was they don't reference anything about needing endorsements to be authorized.


And like you said earlier, I have no limitations or prvileges listed on my flight certificate. Just says airplane, single engine and only if accompanied by my pilot cert.

 

[poadeleted20]

Is it legal? Or isn't it? Sniff test aside, how can I tell?

Write a letter to the Chief Counsel. You'll get an answer back from Ms. McPherson in about four months. But before embarking on something that doesn't seem right, a good, smart CFI should be asking that very question -- does it seem right to do this? If that instructor thinks it seems right to be giving a PIC competency evaluation in an airplane that CFI isn't allowed to fly by him/herself, I have to question that CFI's judgement, no matter what the rules appear to say.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Write a letter to the Chief Counsel. You'll get an answer back from Ms. McPherson in about four months. But before embarking on something that doesn't seem right, a good, smart CFI should be asking that very question -- does it seem right to do this? If that instructor thinks it seems right to be giving a PIC competency evaluation in an airplane that CFI isn't allowed to fly by him/herself, I have to question that CFI's judgement, no matter what the rules appear to say.

Won't commit to a straight answer, will you?

 

[gismo]

Is it legal? Or isn't it? Sniff test aside, how can I tell?

How about we declare that this is NOT ILLEGAL but smells bad enough that none of us would do it and get on to more important things like calling ground from the runnup area in Denver.