CFII lost his medical...Can he do IPC in FTD

[El Reverendo]

Hey long time lurker here

My favorite CFII lost his medical sadly. He is currently doing some Instrument training for IFR students in an approved AATD.

Wondering if he can do an IPC in this sim. Also, can I do approaches for currency in the sim with him?

As usual the FAR is cryptic to me on this. I do see that to perform an IPC an instructor must be a double I, which he is. I also see that this can be performed in a Sim. What I don’t see is anything stating that the instructor must have a current medical.

If we were in the a/c then certainly he would need a medical but is this true for sim based training approaches or IPC?

Thanks for any feedback or info!

Rev.

 

[stratobee]

As I understand it, no medical needed. However, that means you need to be qualified in plane as he can not act as safety pilot anymore.

 

[NoHeat]

As I understand it, no medical needed. However, that means you need to be qualified in plane as he can not act as safety pilot anymore.

The OP mentioned a simulator, not a plane. So no safety pilot would be needed.

 

[stratobee]

OK, missed that. Good to go!

 

[Ravioli]

Could you have the out of medical CFII in the back seat, a safety pilot in the right seat, and do an IPC?

For that matter, is the safety pilot required to sit in the right seat?

 

[NoHeat]

Could you have the out of medical CFII in the back seat, a safety pilot in the right seat, and do an IPC?

For that matter, is the safety pilot required to sit in the right seat?

It’s a sim, not a plane. The instructor can stand, or sit, anywhere. And the safety pilot is not needed.

 

[El Reverendo]

Could you have the out of medical CFII in the back seat, a safety pilot in the right seat, and do an IPC?

For that matter, is the safety pilot required to sit in the right seat?

Good question. Would be cool if I could do this in the plane with another pilot as safety and the instructor backseat.

 

[RussR]

Since it may affect how you pursue this, be aware that an IPC can not be completely performed in an AATD. From the Instrument ACS, page A-18:

Instrument Proficiency Check If a person fails to meet the experience requirements of 14 CFR part 61, section 61.57(c), a pilot may only establish instrument currency through an instrument proficiency check as described in 14 CFR section 61.57(d). An FSTD may be used as part of an approved curriculum to accomplish all or portions of this check. If specified in its LOA, an AATD may be used to complete most of the required Tasks. However, the circling approach, the landing Task, and the multiengine airplane Tasks must be accomplished in an aircraft or FFS (Level B, C, or D). A BATD cannot be used for an instrument proficiency check. See the Instrument Proficiency Check table in Appendix 5 for additional information.

(my emphasis added)

 

[midlifeflyer]

As I understand it, no medical needed. However, that means you need to be qualified in plane as he can not act as safety pilot anymore.

You're may be incorrect on two things.

One, already pointed out, we're talking a device on the ground, not an airplane.

The other is, a CFII with the flying pilot under the hood, is a safety pilot and subject to all the medical certificate rules applicable to any other safety pilot.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Good question. Would be cool if I could do this in the plane with another pilot as safety and the instructor backseat.

Theoretically yes, in can be done. The catch might be finding a CFII who is comfortable enough with the idea of accepting full PIC-like responsibility while sitting in the back seat.

 

[flyingron]

Why would he have "PIC Like" anything. He can't be like a PIC without a medical no matter where he sits.

 

[RussR]

I suspect Mark's point was that the instructor, by virtue of being an instructor and acting in that capacity on that flight, has some "PIC-like" responsibilities to the safety of the flight - whether legal, moral, ethical, etc. The instructor may be the only instrument-rated person on board, safety pilot not needing an instrument rating to fulfill that role. With two potentially "inexperienced" pilots up front and no way to directly intervene, I can see why an instructor may be hesitant.

Whether or not the instructor is willing to do this depends greatly on the exact specifics of the scenario.

@midlifeflyer did I get that right?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Why would he have "PIC Like" anything. He can't be like a PIC without a medical no matter where he sits.

I say that because there is NTSB caselaw saying a CFI giving instruction is always considered to be PIC. (Interesting case. After saying that, the NTSB finds the CFI not responsuble for the student's bad landing).

As you point out, that can't always be true from a pure regulatory standpoint. My WAG is, if faced with a situation in which the CFI were not PIC, whether due to regulatory disability or simply pilot/CFI agreement, the NTSB would backtrack and say a CFI giving instruction is held to PIC standards, or at least to the so-far undefined standards of a competent, responsible, CFI.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I suspect Mark's point was that the instructor, by virtue of being an instructor and acting in that capacity on that flight, has some "PIC-like" responsibilities to the safety of the flight - whether legal, moral, ethical, etc. The instructor may be the only instrument-rated person on board, safety pilot not needing an instrument rating to fulfill that role. With two potentially "inexperienced" pilots up front and no way to directly intervene, I can see why an instructor may be hesitant.

Whether or not the instructor is willing to do this depends greatly on the exact specifics of the scenario.

@midlifeflyer did I get that right?

Essentially, yep.

If nothing else, think of it as an example if #3 in my signature block.

 

[dmspilot]

Interestingly the tasks that must be performed in an airplane rather than an AATD are visual, thus don't require a hood, and thus don't require a safety pilot (assuming we are talking single-engine).

 

[MauleSkinner]

Interestingly the tasks that must be performed in an airplane rather than an AATD are visual, thus don't require a hood, and thus don't require a safety pilot (assuming we are talking single-engine).

Except that landings and the CTL are transitions from an approach. You need the approach to do a transition to the visual maneuver.

 

[dmspilot]

Except that landings and the CTL are transitions from an approach. You need the approach to do a transition to the visual maneuver.

They are separate tasks. You can do them separately. To satisfy your point, you could do an approach without a hood to MDA/DA, then circle and land. The approach would not satisfy a task, but you did those in the AATD. The circle and land would satisfy the circling and landing tasks.

 

[MauleSkinner]

They are separate tasks. You can do them separately. To satisfy your point, you could do an approach without a hood to MDA/DA, then circle and land. The approach would not satisfy a task, but you did those in the AATD. The circle and land would satisfy the circling and landing tasks.

Wouldnt satisfy my point, but I guess I don't have to worry about it til they start flying the airplane I train.

 

[dmspilot]

Wouldnt satisfy my point, but I guess I don't have to worry about it til they start flying the airplane I train.

Read that as "address your point".

What difference would it make if the Task begins from the same point in space in either case? Can you not perform the Tasks in any order?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Read that as "address your point".

What difference would it make if the Task begins from the same point in space in either case? Can you not perform the Tasks in any order?

I can see MauleSkinner’s point. The transition from IMC to Visual can be a challenge. Real world isn’t as cut and dried as simulated is when you just take off the hood, but there is just a moment of transition between IMC and visual that you don’t get doing it your way.

Your way may serve the letter of the law, but it might not be the best training.