CFI without a medical

In the old days CFIs w/out medicals simply specialized on instrument training. Was sop, never heard any nonsense about it.
 
MikeELP said:
Well, if the student is under the hood it only follows that SOMEONE needs to be looking out the window. That makes the CFI both an instructor AND a safety pilot and the appropriate regs regarding safety pilots apply.
Click to expand...
I get it. So then if the CFI has a student who is NOT under the hood, then the CFI doesn't need to be looking out the window? :rolleyes:

I like Jim's idea best. $100 user fee to get an answer from the Chief Counsel. Better yet, $1000.
 
azure said:
I get it. So then if the CFI has a student who is NOT under the hood, then the CFI doesn't need to be looking out the window? :rolleyes:

I like Jim's idea best. $100 user fee to get an answer from the Chief Counsel. Better yet, $1000.
Click to expand...

I thought pilots hated user fees. User fees for everyone.
 
azure said:
No, but what you said implied either that, or that the CFI with a non-hooded student would also be a safety pilot.
Click to expand...

Please go back and re-read my post. More than once if needed.

I said IF THE STUDENT IS UNDER THE HOOD.

Caps added not to yell, but rather to help you with reading comprehension. :wink2:

Mike
 
Ron Levy said:
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.
Click to expand...

OK. Here it is. The Chief Counsel's opinion is just that. An opinion. Not the law. The law is in the regulations. As printed.

The Chief Counsel's office is more concerned with regulatory readings concerning airline passengers. ' nuff said.

We, here, in the grass roots of learning to fly, cannot expect to receive adequate regulatory oversight.
That is my personal observation of the system over 50 years.
No big deal as long as the Flight Instructor is takin care of bizness without the legal beagles buttin in.

Keep in mind that Pilot regs and Flight Instructor regs are separate.
Safety pilot and Flight Instructor are not the same and never were intended to be so.

Ron, stop trying to group them under the same regs.
It isn't under the same intent.
That's why the cfi renewal isn't the same as.a pilot flight review.
 
Last edited:
nosehair said:
OK. Here it is. The Chief Counsel's opinion is just that. An opinion. Not the law. The law is in the regulations. As printed.
Click to expand...
...and as interpreted by the agency whose regulations they are, unless/until a Federal court overturns that interpretation. Lots of case law on that point, all of which says it's an uphill battle rarely won to accomplish that.
 
MikeELP said:
Please go back and re-read my post. More than once if needed.

I said IF THE STUDENT IS UNDER THE HOOD.

Caps added not to yell, but rather to help you with reading comprehension. :wink2:
Click to expand...
My reading comprehension is just fine, thank you. Maybe your writing needs a little proofreading? :wink2:

You wrote,
Well, if the student is under the hood it only follows that SOMEONE needs to be looking out the window. That makes the CFI both an instructor AND a safety pilot and the appropriate regs regarding safety pilots apply.
Click to expand...
i.e., not the fact that the student is under the hood makes the CFI also a safety pilot, but the fact that someone needs to be looking out the window.

If you meant to say that the student being under the hood implies by itself that the CFI is also a safety pilot, then you should have said that.

And actually, I would argue that if the CFI needs a medical with a hooded student, then he should need one with an unhooded one as well. I can't imagine any possible situation where the medical would be any more relevant if the person with their hands on the yoke was wearing a hood vs. not.

If the PIC (required crewmember) of a LSA doesn't need a medical, I don't see any logical reason why a safety pilot (required crewmember) of a LSA should need one.
 
MikeELP said:
Well, if the student is under the hood it only follows that SOMEONE needs to be looking out the window. That makes the CFI both an instructor AND a safety pilot and the appropriate regs regarding safety pilots apply.
Click to expand...
Why isn't the "operator" the one who needs a safety pilot if under a hood? Why isn't an instructor the one operating the aircraft instead of the student?

dtuuri
 
nosehair said:
What is your opinion on that interpretation..?
Click to expand...
That it is what it is. I think we can agree there is no sound reason, apart from the language of the regs, why a CFI with no medical but having a drivers license should not be able to teach a hooded pilot, especially in an aircraft that requires no medical to act as PIC. Or, for that matter, why the sport pilot training requirements don't include emergency flight solely by reference to instruments.

Not having read through the preamble to the sport pilot rule I don't know whether it was intentional or just an oversight.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I think we can agree there is no sound reason, apart from the language of the regs, why a CFI with no medical but having a drivers license should not be able to teach a hooded pilot, especially in an aircraft that requires no medical to act as PIC.
Click to expand...
I'll drink (coffee) to that, except that the "language of the regs" doesn't seem to prevent it the way I read them. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I sup with the Chief Counsel and know their thoughts, so pardon me if my continued mentioning of the word "operate" in 91.109(c) isn't worthy of legal consideration:
(c) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless—​
How can a student, say one who is up for the very first time in an airplane, possibly be considered the operator--even if that student owned it? To my legally-naive, ill-informed mind the CFI is "operating" the aircraft, without a hood, and doesn't need a safety pilot. How can any other conclusion be drawn? If the Chief Counsel did draw another one, where is it? When I asked for a cite, Cap'n Ron pulled his ostrich act on me.

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
I'll drink (coffee) to that, except that the "language of the regs" doesn't seem to prevent it the way I read them. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I sup with the Chief Counsel and know their thoughts, so pardon me if my continued mentioning of the word "operate" in 91.109(c) isn't worthy of legal consideration:
(c) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless—​
How can a student, say one who is up for the very first time in an airplane, possibly be considered the operator--even if that student owned it? To my legally-naive, ill-informed mind the CFI is "operating" the aircraft, without a hood, and doesn't need a safety pilot. How can any other conclusion be drawn? If the Chief Counsel did draw another one, where is it? When I asked for a cite, Cap'n Ron pulled his ostrich act on me.

dtuuri
Click to expand...
It's simply a lack of precision and foresight in the writing of regulation writers. They don't or sometimes can't envision every permutation that the regulated can come up with. So agencies interpret the regs to cover them. Agency interpretations are a mix of the language of the regs and the underlying policy. The regulated may disagree with the interpretation but principles of legal deference to agency interpretations tend to upholding these interpretations in administrative hearings and the courts unless completely out of whack.

We see this all the time just looking at forum discussions. But it is definitely not limited to aviation administrative law.

I agree you can read the reg as you do. The question is how the FAA reads it.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
The question is how the FAA reads it.
Click to expand...
There are several folks posting here who have indicated they think that with the passage of the PBOR, the Federal courts will give equal consideration to the interpretation of any given pilot or other individual compared to the FAA's interpretation, so the Chief Counsel's interpretation can be safely ignored if you think it's bogus. Any comment on that, Counselor?
 
I don't think there would be a risk of a logbook or instructor violation on this point, because of the currently conflicting regulations.
The question is; how the examining DPE will interpret the confusion.
Which has been an ongoing problem ever since.....
...since these danged computers showed up and ruined my life.
 
nosehair said:
I don't think there would be a risk of a logbook or instructor violation on this point, because of the currently conflicting regulations.
Click to expand...
Problem is proving before a judge that they really are conflicting after the FAA counsel presents a reasonable explanation of how they don't.
The question is; how the examining DPE will interpret the confusion.
Click to expand...
DPE's don't have the authority to interpret regulations. If they have a question, they are supposed to contact their POI at the FSDO. If their POI doesn't have an approved answer, the POI is supposed to run it up the chain to get one.
 
Ron Levy said:
Problem is proving before a judge that they really are conflicting after the FAA counsel presents a reasonable explanation of how they don't.
DPE's don't have the authority to interpret regulations. If they have a question, they are supposed to contact their POI at the FSDO. If their POI doesn't have an approved answer, the POI is supposed to run it up the chain to get one.
Click to expand...

Please define "approved answer". When an Inspector is asked a regulation question he is not permitted to comment before seeking legal advice?
 
Ron Levy said:
There are several folks posting here who have indicated they think that with the passage of the PBOR, the Federal courts will give equal consideration to the interpretation of any given pilot or other individual compared to the FAA's interpretation, so the Chief Counsel's interpretation can be safely ignored if you think it's bogus. Any comment on that, Counselor?
Click to expand...
The PBOR removed the mandatory deference the NTSB had to give to agency interpretations. Only time will tell but I don't see anything in the statute to change general principles of administrative law that agencies are considered by courts to be experts with respect to their own regulations and therefore to be given some deference.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Please define "approved answer".
Click to expand...
Whatever satisfies the AFS-1 memo of June 3, 2004, in which he said, "Only the Office of the Chief Counsel and Regional Counsel provide legal interpretations," as well as the third paragraph of the attached AFS-1 memo of March 31, 2006.

When an Inspector is asked a regulation question he is not permitted to comment before seeking legal advice?
Click to expand...
I am well aware that many Inspectors will provide "comments" on the regulations, but I am equally aware that they always warn that these are their own personal opinions, and not official FAA policy.
 

Attachments

Ron Levy said:
Whatever satisfies the AFS-1 memo of June 3, 2004, in which he said, "Only the Office of the Chief Counsel and Regional Counsel provide legal interpretations," as well as the third paragraph of the attached AFS-1 memo of March 31, 2006.
Click to expand...

You have routinely twisted that memo into saying what you want it to say.

Ron Levy said:
I am well aware that many Inspectors will provide "comments" on the regulations, but I am equally aware that they always warn that these are their own personal opinions, and not official FAA policy.
Click to expand...

Comments?? An operator (121,135,141,133, etc) calls his POI and ask about a regulation and how it applies to his certificate. The POI looks at the regulation and gives guidance on how the operator may proceed. Since not each and every regulation written has an "interpretation" attached to it under your world the POI would be required to get an official "interpretation" before proceeding, which is absolutely untrue.
 
Ron Levy said:
DPE's don't have the authority to interpret regulations. If they have a question, they are supposed to contact their POI at the FSDO. If their POI doesn't have an approved answer, the POI is supposed to run it up the chain to get one.
Click to expand...
uuuum...right. We all know how well that works.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Comments??
Click to expand...
Your word, not mine. Every time I've asked an Inspector about the regs, they have always either pointed to some written guidance or made clear they are giving their own opinion, not an official FAA position. You are the only person with FAA experience I've ever heard tell me that an Inspector can do otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Your word, not mine. Every time I've asked an Inspector about the regs, they have always either pointed to some written guidance or made clear they are giving their own opinion, not an official FAA position. You are the only person with FAA experience I've ever heard tell me that an Inspector can do otherwise.
Click to expand...

So a POI cannot advise his operator on use of the regulations without consulting legal first? Really?

While I was working GA I had the 135 operator consult with us (POI, PMI and PAI) on several regulatory issues. I don't recall having to preface everything with "this is just my opinion" or having to contact Region Legal before giving an answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top