By an Authorized Instructor...

drgwentzel

drgwentzel

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
287
Location
NJ
Display Name
Display name:
Kobra
Flyers and fellow CFI's:

I am a CFI and training for the CFII.

I have a student I am training for his instrument rating and was questioned as to how I can train an instrument student without being a CFII. Although I do not have Instrument Airplane on my instructor's certificate, I interpret the reg's to state that of the 40 hours of instrument time required for the practical test, only 15 need be with an "Authorized Instructor". Also, it appears that the cross country requirements must also be flown and logged by an authorized instructor. Lastly, obviously the FAR's state that an "authorized instructor" must be the one to endorse the student's logbook for the ground or home study review, knowledge test and practical test. Therefore, it appears I can train this student under simulated instrument conditions and log the instrument time toward his 40 required hours for his instrument rating. I assume that as long as the last 15 hours are done after I become an "authorized instructor" I can endorse him for the knowledge test, practical test and cross country training and flights?

Gene
 
While the above is true, to play "Devil's Advocate", a savy instrument student may have issues with taking instrument instruction from an instructor who wasn't "fully trained" to give instrument instruction.

Just saying.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
While the above is true, to play "Devil's Advocate", a savy instrument student may have issues with taking instrument instruction from an instructor who wasn't "fully trained" to give instrument instruction.

Just saying.
Click to expand...

My response is... you can do those 40 hours (minus the 15 with the authorized instructor) with a safety pilot, another instrument rated pilot in actual who serves as a PIC, a CFI or a CFII..

If the CFII is not available, which of those would you prefer to be in the plane with you for those 40 (erm.. 25) hours of instrument experience?

You can be a "Fully trained" instructor and not be an authorized instructor. Likewise you can be an authorized instructor yet somehow never fully trained.

I never finished my instrument rating, but I have about 15 hours of actual on the books including takeoffs and approaches into low IMC. Much of it with a CFI, not a CFII. I didn't feel shortchanged one bit.
 
It doesn't say "last 15 hours," just "15 hours." However, those 15 hours, including the 3 hours of test preparation in the 2 calendar months to the test (which again, by reg, need not be the last 3 hours) must be from a CFI-IA.

That said, I would suggest you have to ask yourself if you feel that what you are doing is ethical, not just legal, as well as whether you really are competent to provide that training. If you can honestly answer "yes" to both questions, fine, go ahead, although I think you should explain this carefully to the trainee so s/he is making an informed decision to train with you. If not, you might want to consider either delaying giving this training until you earn your -IA rating or else handing this trainee to a fully qualified instrument flight instructor.
 
Ron Levy said:
That said, I would suggest you have to ask yourself if you feel that what you are doing is ethical, not just legal, as well as whether you really are competent to provide that training. If you can honestly answer "yes" to both questions, fine, go ahead, although I think you should explain this carefully to the trainee so s/he is making an informed decision to train with you. If not, you might want to consider either delaying giving this training until you earn your -IA rating or else handing this trainee to a fully qualified instrument flight instructor.
Click to expand...

Seeing as a lot of CFIIs have no business flying in clouds, much less teaching about flying in them, I'd agree. The ethical question to me is whether or not our CFI in question is a compent instrument pilot with good experience and good habits to pass on than whether or not his piece of plastic says he is.

This is the question all instructors should ask themselves prior to agreeing to do instruction of a given type.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Seeing as a lot of CFIIs have no business flying in clouds, much less teaching about flying in them, I'd agree. The ethical question to me is whether or not our CFI in question is a compent instrument pilot with good experience and good habits to pass on than whether or not his piece of plastic says he is.

This is the question all instructors should ask themselves prior to agreeing to do instruction of a given type.
Click to expand...

Ted types faster than I do, but I couldn't agree more. So much instruction is based on shooting approaches, they leave out all the other stuff that really matters. One other thing I wish more instructors would go out with their students on any reasonable IFR day and fly cross countries instead of just repeatedly practicing the local approaches that the examiner will fly. In my amateur (non-instructor) opinion everyone should have real world experience with STARS, DP's, airways, clearances, weather, non-familiar approaches, etc. before they get out there alone.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Seeing as a lot of CFIIs have no business flying in clouds, much less teaching about flying in them, I'd agree. The ethical question to me is whether or not our CFI in question is a compent instrument pilot with good experience and good habits to pass on than whether or not his piece of plastic says he is.
Click to expand...
Just being a "a compent instrument pilot with good experience and good habits to pass on" isn't enough -- you also have to have the ability to teach those skills to the trainee, and do so safely, which is neither as easy as it sounds nor implicit in the mere ability to perform the tasks to be taught.
 
Ron Levy said:
Just being a "a compent instrument pilot with good experience and good habits to pass on" isn't enough -- you also have to have the ability to teach those skills to the trainee, and do so safely, which is neither as easy as it sounds nor implicit in the mere ability to perform the tasks to be taught.
Click to expand...

Agreed. A lot of people get hung up on the rating itself, though, and that says about nothing for whether or not you actually are good enough to teach this stuff.
 
I went up with another instructor and our Chief today for a 141 CFI proficiency check - I was getting my initial checkout in the airplane and the other CFI(IA) was getting a recurrent.

I taught him some VFR stuff from the private and commercial syllabus, and then he taught me some instrument stuff, and we were set. I got to fly an approach from the right seat (tough but in a different way than I anticipated it).

I'm an IGI and have taught instrument ground school stuff before, so I'm comfortable with the terminolgy and principles that an instrument student needs to learn. I wouldn't feel comfortable teaching instrument flight in the airplane yet until I get a little more right seat time, preferably in actual. My Chief figures four flights and the checkride for the CFI-IA and by then I think I'll be comfortable.

Our school policy is that only CFI-IAs can provide instrument instruction - that's in our 141 ops manual and our part 61 guidance too. It's the way the owner wants to do business and I don't disagree.
 
Disagree. Flying's easy. Regs are hard. If you can learn the regs, you can fly a plane in your sleep.

No need for an extra "i" on the certificate, if I (as a private pilot, mind you) would fit the bill of safety pilot just fine.
 
TMetzinger said:
I went up with another instructor and our Chief today for a 141 CFI proficiency check - I was getting my initial checkout in the airplane and the other CFI(IA) was getting a recurrent.

I taught him some VFR stuff from the private and commercial syllabus, and then he taught me some instrument stuff, and we were set. I got to fly an approach from the right seat (tough but in a different way than I anticipated it).

I'm an IGI and have taught instrument ground school stuff before, so I'm comfortable with the terminolgy and principles that an instrument student needs to learn. I wouldn't feel comfortable teaching instrument flight in the airplane yet until I get a little more right seat time, preferably in actual. My Chief figures four flights and the checkride for the CFI-IA and by then I think I'll be comfortable.

Our school policy is that only CFI-IAs can provide instrument instruction - that's in our 141 ops manual and our part 61 guidance too. It's the way the owner wants to do business and I don't disagree.
Click to expand...

I know that you fly in actual, Tim, and I'd believe you to be someone with good experience that doesn't fall into what I'm talking about.

But now, let's take on the case of what actually happens sometimes.

Someone bucking for ratings gets his IR completely under the hood, focusing on approaches at the home airport. Passes the checkride. Zero actual. Only knows how to fly in and out of a towered airport, can't even pick up a clearance from the ground. Never had to deal with things like whether fuel was an issue, routing changes, weather, etc. because they just flew in the same area all the time, and never had to shoot an approach that actually had a potential of going missed for real. Knows the book.

Same person gets his CFII, still with zero actual (it's legal!). Knows the book still, and is now teaching people how to fly in clouds, but doesn't even know enough to explain how to deal with thunderstorms, when to expect icing, or that what the METAR is telling you isn't always accurate, and how things can pop up that surprise you, or how to get what you want out of ATC.

That person is legally capable of providing all necessary instruction and signing someone off for an instrument rating. That person also has absolutely no business doing so.

This isn't confined to instrument flight. All instructors have areas that we don't know enough about to teach. I wouldn't be competent to teach anyone about mountain flying, since the extent of my experience there has been flying on the edges of the Rockies. I can read all the books I want on it, but I don't want to do it myself until I fly with someone who knows what he or she is doing, and would be doing the student (and the pilot community) a disservice if I thought otherwise.
 
SkyHog said:
Disagree. Flying's easy. Regs are hard. If you can learn the regs, you can fly a plane in your sleep.
Click to expand...

Experience has shown you have plenty of people who are good sticks and can't do the regs. Conversely, I've seen more people who are good at regs, and terrible sticks.

Both are important. One does not necessarily imply capability of the other.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Experience has shown you have plenty of people who are good sticks and can't do the regs. Conversely, I've seen more people who are good at regs, and terrible sticks.

Both are important. One does not necessarily imply capability of the other.
Click to expand...

Exactly! A rating is all about regs. If it weren't so expensive, I'd have gotten all of my ratings about 6 years ago, but I haven't.

Am I the world's greatest pilot? No (I'll admit it, but I'll deny it later). I can, however, read a book. I can also, however, make a plane move through the sky the way it should (as can 95% of non-disabled humans above the age of 8).
 
As far as endorsing for knowledge exams, you should be an authorized instructor just by being a CFI.

A ground instructor with an instrument rating (more or less the same exact exam as the instrument rating written, just 10 questions shorter) is authorized to give the written exam endorsement. And keep in mind, a ground instructor doesn't have to be a pilot in any way, so I would have no problem believing a CFI is more than authorized to provide such an endorsement (you've taken the FOI, and the instrument rating exam, which is more or less the same thing as what an instrument ground instructor takes).

As Ron stated, I think you would be fine, however, the checkride preparation and checkride recommendation has to be from a CFII
 
Ron Levy said:
Only for those knowledge tests covered by the rating(s) on your CFI ticket.
Click to expand...

I know you can get a commercial license without an instrument rating, but can you become a CFI without an instrument rating as well?
 
ajstoner21 said:
I know you can get a commercial license without an instrument rating, but can you become a CFI without an instrument rating as well?

Andrew
PP-ASEL/AMEL, AGI, IGI
Click to expand...

You didn't really just ask this question did you?

61.183 What does it say?
 
EdFred,
61.183 is kind of confusing. So, why don't you tell me what it says?

61.183 Eligibility requirements
To be eligible for a flight instructor certificate or rating a person must:
(a) Be at least 18 years of age;
(b) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language. If the applicant is unable to meet one of these requirements due to medical reasons, then the Administrator may place such operating limitations on that applicant's flight instructor certificate as are necessary;
(c) Hold either a commercial pilot certificate or airline transport pilot certificate with:
(1) An aircraft category and class rating that is appropriate to the flight instructor rating sought; and
(2) An instrument rating, orprivileges on that person's pilot certificate that are appropriate to the flight instructor rating sought, if applying for—
(i) A flight instructor certificate with an airplane category and single-engine class rating;
(ii) A flight instructor certificate with an airplane category and multiengine class rating;
(iii) A flight instructor certificate with a powered-lift rating; or
(iv) A flight instructor certificate with an instrument rating.
Click to expand...

Doesnt exactly clearly answer the question to me. The "or" leads me to think its not required, but if it wasn't required, why state it at all, when it is clearly required for a CFII (in addition to the CFII training).
 
Last edited:
Understand the question, and I think you're legally safe. OTOH, when I got my instrument rating, I had a very experienced CFI-IA (also a fighter pilot) who had a lot of tales to tell. One of the best lessons I EVER had was sitting at a table as he described an inadvertent flight into icing in a non-FIKI twin. He drove his point home, and in a way, that lesson sticks with me more in the past several years than any of the "by-the-book" lessons did. Oh, he definitely overprepared me for the by-the-book lessons--but that "I learned flying from that" lesson sticks with me!

So, I guess I'm saying: you're fine. Teach him and help him (and get your -IA!), but also help him with real-life scenarios. :)

drgwentzel said:
Flyers and fellow CFI's:

I am a CFI and training for the CFII.

I have a student I am training for his instrument rating and was questioned as to how I can train an instrument student without being a CFII. Although I do not have Instrument Airplane on my instructor's certificate, I interpret the reg's to state that of the 40 hours of instrument time required for the practical test, only 15 need be with an "Authorized Instructor". Also, it appears that the cross country requirements must also be flown and logged by an authorized instructor. Lastly, obviously the FAR's state that an "authorized instructor" must be the one to endorse the student's logbook for the ground or home study review, knowledge test and practical test. Therefore, it appears I can train this student under simulated instrument conditions and log the instrument time toward his 40 required hours for his instrument rating. I assume that as long as the last 15 hours are done after I become an "authorized instructor" I can endorse him for the knowledge test, practical test and cross country training and flights?

Gene
Click to expand...
 
EdFred said:
You didn't really just ask this question did you?

61.183 What does it say?
Click to expand...


He sure did.... and you could have answered it with some substance. It's too bad a person can't ask a good question without having to defend oneself.
 
Andrew, a CFI-non-I can give Instrument instruction but, toward the IR, at least 15 hours has to be from a CFI-I. So better get -"I" added pretty quick or you'll have a pretty mad student.
 
It says you need an instrument rating for your CFI. You are an AGI and IGI, you should know this.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
While the above is true, to play "Devil's Advocate", a savy instrument student may have issues with taking instrument instruction from an instructor who wasn't "fully trained" to give instrument instruction.

Just saying.
Click to expand...

Greg,

I can see how you'd think this way and no one can argue your point. In truth the CFII training is really just proving, first to an instructor and then to a DE, that you can teach the instrument tasks required while flying the airplane and while in a classroom during a ground lesson.

I'm already a CFI and I'm already instrument rated, so I know the foundations of the material and I’ve proven I can teach. Where I find that it’s really helpful is learning from my instructors real world experience teaching the instrument lessons to real students. I have learned many nice pieces of information from my instructor on how to demonstrate a particular maneuver superior than I had considered doing it. At the same time, sometimes he shows me how to teach a maneuver that I think works, but I feel the way I would do it is better. Personal preference I guess.

 
ajstoner21 said:
Doesnt exactly clearly answer the question to me. The "or" leads me to think its not required, but if it wasn't required, why state it at all, when it is clearly required for a CFII (in addition to the CFII training).
Click to expand...
Yes, it is possible to get the Airplane category and Instrument-Airplane instrument ratings on your CFI certificate without an instrument rating on your pilot certificate...

...if you have an ATP-Airplane, which automatically gives you instrument privileges in airplanes without having an explicit instrument rating on your pilot certificate. That is the "or" part to which the "privileges" clause refers. See also 14 CFR 61.3(e)(2). I believe the same is true for the Instrument-Helicopter instructor rating if you hold ATP-RH (not limited to VFR as, IIRC, some helo ATP's are).
 
drgwentzel said:
In truth the CFII training is really just proving, first to an instructor and then to a DE, that you can teach the instrument tasks required while flying the airplane and while in a classroom during a ground lesson.
Click to expand...
Actually, that's what the CFI-IA additional rating practical test is for, not the training. The training is to learn how to teach instrument flying in the aircraft and on the ground -- there's a lot you need to learn about that which isn't taught as part of either the CFI-Airplane or pilot Instrument rating programs. As stated above, just because you can fly instruments and teach flying doesn't mean you know how to teach instrument flying. That's the same as why the addition of a rotorcraft-helicopter rating to your pilot certificate doesn't automatically make you qualified to instruct in helicopters just because you already hold a CFI-Airplane certificate.
 
Ron Levy said:
That's the same as why the addition of a rotorcraft-helicopter rating to your pilot certificate doesn't automatically make you qualified to instruct in helicopters just because you already hold a CFI-Airplane certificate.
Click to expand...
True, but I'm automatically qualified to instruct in sea planes if I add a sea rating to my commercial certificate. The rules don't always make sense.
 
jesse said:
True, but I'm automatically qualified to instruct in sea planes if I add a sea rating to my commercial certificate. The rules don't always make sense.
Click to expand...
Concur. Sometimes the FAA will let the industry regulate itself, as with the question of additional training endorsements for glass panel airplanes -- the FAA took a "wait and see" attitude, and ten years later they're still waiting because what they saw didn't scare them. Perhaps in the seaplane case, the folks operating the seaplanes aren't dumb enough to (or their insurers won't let them) use brand-new seaplane pilots as instructors, and there hasn't been a significant number of problems with folks trained by low ASES-time instructors. OTOH, I remember back before instrument instructor ratings were category-specific, and someone who got his instrument instructor rating in an airplane was legal to give instrument training in helos immediately upon receiving his additional RH rating on his CFI. That changed due to bad experiences, which is why there are separate instrument instructor ratings for airplanes, helicopters, and powered-lift (even if there aren't yet any P/L aircraft out there in which to get or use the rating).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top