Not exactly right - you're making the same mistake Grayson made - conflating the 15-hours dual instruction, with the 40-hours actual or simulated.
See the first half of the paragraph you quoted: (Emphasis added)
"Your letter appears to suggest that (SECT) 61.65(d)(2) requires 15 hours of instrument training from a CFI with an instrument rating on the flight instructor and pilot certificates and 25 hours of other instrument training. Section 61.65(d)(2) does not require 40 Hours of instrument training; it requires 40 hours of actual or simulated instrument time. As part of those 40 hours of instrument time, 15 must be completed with a CFI who has an instrument rating (In other words, instrument training). A pilot seeking an instrument rating also must receive 3 hours of instrument training within 2 calendar months preceding the practical test and instrument training on cross-county flight procedures, which may be part of the 40 and 15 total hours required. Under the regulations, the required instrument time other than instrument training does not require the presence of a CFI but only the presence an individual qualified to act as safety pilot or as pilot in command of an operation in actual instrument conditions."
I flew a couple of hours doing several dozen approaches in actual during my instrument training with a non-CFI, IFR pilot - all of which counted to my 40 hours of instrument time (but did not, of course, count towards the 15-hours of instruction time).
I was very clear - I said it wouldn't count for the Instrument rating TRAINING. Grayson is BEFORE this letter, not after. This letter clarifies Grayson. Not the other way around.
I wasn't arguing that he can't get "trained" by anyone. The better word is "experience" from anyone.
I was pointing out that he'll have to do some of it with a CFI-I, later. FAA is very clear in the second paragraph about that.
They even say that your 40 shouldn't have included that time with the non-CFI-I but some examiners miss it because of the way it's logged. AND it can be logged anyway with the CFI simply acting as PIC under their pilot certificate. But technically the CFI (non-I) can only give "instruction" on "basic instrument maneuvers". Approaches aren't really that.
With this letter in hand there's no way to justify it, because of the paragraph I quoted. If you go by the direct wording of the second paragraph.
(Frankly I think they've made a mess of it with all these letters, but that's par for the course these days. And honestly I'm not even sure the lawyer who wrote it gets what he wrote really. But it's there now and it's the latest word on the topic.)
In other words, he can get Instrument EXPERIENCE just fine from anyone qualified to be PIC, and even log it if there's a CFI (non-II) on board, and he MUST get some for the Private certificate from a CFI (non-II) -- it's just not allowed to be called Instrument TRAINING for the rating. In the sheer legal sense.
It's a nitpicky mess -- but the paragraph I quoted is very clear about it. The core thought in he paragraph you quoted is the lawyer is explaining how those "cut outs" for a CFI do NOT apply to anything other than "basic instrument maneuvers". The sentences before that are simply setting the stage that a Private candidate can be trained for "basic instrument maneuvers" and the lawyer is making sure his letter doesn't change that law, while explaining how it does NOT apply for TRAINING for the Instrument rating.
When you move away from the law, back to the real world, in reality, all Instrument work is "training" in the non-law sort of real-world way.
ANY exposure to it is a net benefit to the pilot, IMHO.
But a CFI (non-I) is not supposed to be teaching anything other than "basic Instrument maneuvers".
My warning was simply that read at face value, an examiner must follow this letter and could reject anything that say, said, "taught Instrument approach procedures" in the logbook with a "CFI" number next to the signature of a CFI with no Instrument privileges.
But also in the real world, many wouldn't notice it. Like yours.
They'd see a signature and miss that it wasn't signed by a CFI who has Instrument privileges on their CFI cert, because the certificate number doesn't change.
All the logbook says is "John Doe (signature) nnnnnnnCFI".
Some CFIs sign with "MEI" or "CFII" but it's absolutely not a requirement and technically isn't correct.
So there's no real world way other than researching the CFI number or the examiner KNOWING the CFI -- AND the examiner paying close attention to who signed what -- to catch it at the logbook review. By this letter they're probably SUPPOSED to disqualify anything a CFI (non-I) does beyond "basic instrument maneuvers" but I bet many miss it.
Plus most are pragmatic: Like I said, I think any exposure at all to the real world of Instrument flying is ultimately good for any pilot. I suspect everyone else involved in the training process would generally agree.
The law and this letter both agree, that I as a CFI (non-I) should not be teaching beyond that fuzzy "basic instrument maneuvers" line nor signing off on any "instrument training" beyond that. Law also says I MUST sign if ANY training is given. Catch-22.
Comes down to this: Would I want to defend in court that flying approaches with any student was only "basic instrument maneuvers"? No. I'm surprised your CFI (non-I) signed next to approaches in your logbook. If I did that, I'd do it under my pilot certificate and Instrument privileges you'd be a safety pilot. I'd be PIC for the flight. I wouldn't sign that flight with my CFI privileges or certificate. I'd be outside the bounds of what I'm officially certificated to teach. Make sense?
Still counts for your 40... just in a different way. Doesn't count for your 15.
Which all goes to show: Be careful about what CFIs of any flavor write in your logbook. But in the end, that CFI that wrote that they did approaches with you without being a -I, didn't follow this guidance. And the examiner missed it. (Which is easy to do.)
