61.311 spells it out. There is no flight by instruments in a-l, nor are there instrument requirements in 61.309 (KNOWLEDGE).
One reason I do the Gleim FIRC to renew my CFI every two years even though I could do it on activity is to stay up with little-used portions of my CFI privileges -- especially those relating to Sport Pilot.
I've often wondered about that. I know Sport Pilots aren't allowed to fly at night, so that takes away half the problem, but perhaps the FAA figures are not going to be flying in marginal conditions?
Might be interesting to see if there is any significant number of LSA's getting into "VFR into IMC" accidents, and whether those pilots involved are PP's using only Sport privileges or actual Sport Pilots.Not all Student Sport Pilots -- only those who will solo XC in an LSA with a max Vh greater than 87 knots CAS. See 61.93(e)(12).
But thanks to what it says in 61.93(e)(12), if you're taking an over-87 knot LSA on your solo XC in preparation for that ride, it is necessary to do some training on instrument flying before that solo XC. That will take both at least one gyro instrument and a CFI-ASE with a medical.
Yes, it does. Subpart J only applies to the issuance of the Sport Pilot certificate and the holders thereof. Subpart C Student Pilots applies to all Student Pilots, including those seeking only a Sport Pilot certificate. See 61.81, 61.87(a), and 61.93(a)(1). Note that certain sections (like 61.93(a) subparagraphs (9) and (12)) speak specifically to those training for Sport Pilot. While we often speak of "Student Sport Pilots", that is not an official FAA term, and the certificate those folks training only for a Sport Pilot certificate have in their pocket says "Student Pilot", just like those initially training for Recreational or Private.
The minimum weather conditions are higher under sport pilot rules - they are required to have three miles no matter what airspace they are in (63.315 c 12) and you can't fly over the top (63.315 c 13). That will keep them safe.I've often wondered about that. I know Sport Pilots aren't allowed to fly at night, so that takes away half the problem, but perhaps the FAA figures are not going to be flying in marginal conditions?
We know how well that works for PP's.
right
Where does it say that a higher level CFI than a Sport pilot CFI needs to have a medical if their student is under the hood in a sport plane?
14 CFR 91.109(c) and 61.23.
No. Just that the safety pilot rule has nothing to do with whether or not one is a CFI.
I agree, but it does disqualify one from acting as a safety pilot required by 91.109(c).
BTW, those are references to 61.315, not 63.15, right?
I thought that crap and all the debates about it here were *important*. Hell. Now I need to go rock back and forth in a corner somewhere and cry. 
Now that's an excellent question. A question the's being asked by EAA.
Be fair. Ron also consistently points out that legal does not equal safe.
I've run out of ways to explain to you that acting as a flight instructor and acting as a safety pilot are separate issues governed by separate sections of the regulations - just like logging PIC time versus being the PIC. As long as you think they are somehow joined at the regulatory hip, you won't understand the issue.
I didn't say that. I do agree that just printing a bunch of rules doesn't improve safety if people don't follow them, and that some rules have little or no safety value in and of themselves. However, when you look at pretty much any accident in the NTSB files, somebody broke a rule that was intended to keep aviation safer.
...nor do you have to be legal to be safe (e.g., the rule about not hiding the airworthiness certificate behind the registration certificate). Further, while I encourage people to be both legal and safe, I've always said that if a situation arises in flight where you find you can't do both, then do whatever it takes to stay safe and worry about the legalities later -- but then again, that's what 14 CFR 91.3b says, too. :wink2:
You're correct. Subpart C is entitled "Student Pilots".
According to 91.109(c) the "operator", must have a safety pilot during simulated instruments. Since the CFI is the operator and is not under simulated instruments, no safety pilot is required.
You can try that argument if you get caught doing it, but the Chief Counsel's position on the matter is already clear. And I won't be responding to any further posts which propose anyone else's personal opinion which contradicts the Chief Counsel's reading of those regulations, which I have already explained several times.
If you're going to attribute non-sensical ideas to the Chief Counsel, you ought to provide the reference for it. I've provided one where they discussed the levels of CFI certification required to teach certain maneuvers, such as private pilot instrument flying, but on the medical requirements that letter is silent. I'm not saying they're beyond nonsense, just that I'm never going to simply take your word for it.
A couple things...
Only if the person flying the aircraft is wearing a vision restricting device.
Of course I read it. Every word of it.
I am agreeing not disagreeing. My point was that it doesn't apply to the scenario we're discussing which is flight training given in an LSA by a subpart H CFI. The question in the link deals with a non-LSA airplane and a CFI sans medical. Although the question included a reference to "Sport pilot", it isn't germane.
Why would it? The CFI isn't wearing one and s/he is the operator in the business of supplying flight instruction. The salient paragraphs are the ones on subpart H CFIs and their qualifications to teach certain private pilot maneuvers, one of which is basic instrument flying. The CFI is not even required to be a CFII for that, of course, but Sport pilot CFIs are not tested on their ability to conduct that training at all, hence they aren't of a high enough level to give it.
As the regulations read, that is true.
As the regulations read, if the person flying is hooded, a safety pilot is required, and the safety pilot must hold at least a PP with category and class, and a valid medical. There is no exception or condition in 91.109(c) covering the certification status of the person operating the controls.
Personally, I agree -- I see no safety reason why a CFI-ASE with a DL rather than a medical certificate should not be allowed to act as a safety pilot in an LSA while giving training on flight solely by reference to instruments. However, that is not permitted by the rules as the currently stand. I do have some concerns about letting a CFI-SP give any sort of training on flight solely by reference to instruments, since that's not part of the instructor training they've received or the instructor skills on which they've been tested, so I'm not sure that's something which should be permitted regardless of whether or not that CFI-SP holds a medical certificate or not.
I thought you said it was the Chief Counsel who says all this. You mean this is what you personally see in the regulations, not what the Chief Counsel saw?
Well, we know of one person who thinks that, does anybody else think so too, including the Chief Counsel?
