How Do I Log This?

Skid

Skid

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
195
Display Name
Display name:
Skid
Say I’m a CFI and I’m flying with a commercial student. We’ve flown 1.7 hours and at the end of the lesson he wants to shoot an approach or practice general sim instrument stuff for a remaining .3.

Since I’m not a instrument instructor and can’t provide the instrument training for commercial (or really anything past private), how should this be logged?

Can it be written as 2.0 Total, Dual Received 2.0, and Sim Inst 0.3, with just him knowing he can’t count it towards the aeronautical experience requirements.

Or should it be logged as 2.0 Total, Dual Received 1.7, Sim inst 0.3 and then a notation of safety pilot? Seems odd to do it this way, but curious what you think.
 
Assuming the student is instrument rated I’d say the latter.
But you don’t need to be a CFII to do the dual for a private pilot student’s small amount of hood time right??
 
Skid said:
Say I’m a CFI and I’m flying with a commercial student. We’ve flown 1.7 hours and at the end of the lesson he wants to shoot an approach or practice general sim instrument stuff for a remaining .3.

Since I’m not a instrument instructor and can’t provide the instrument training for commercial (or really anything past private), how should this be logged?

Can it be written as 2.0 Total, Dual Received 2.0, and Sim Inst 0.3, with just him knowing he can’t count it towards the aeronautical experience requirements.

Or should it be logged as 2.0 Total, Dual Received 1.7, Sim inst 0.3 and then a notation of safety pilot? Seems odd to do it this way, but curious what you think.
Click to expand...

As long as the student is aware that he can't count it towards his instrument rating you can log it either way. If he already has an instrument rating, then it is a moot point.
 
sarangan said:
As long as the student is aware that he can't count it towards his instrument rating you can log it either way. If he already has an instrument rating, then it is a moot point.
Click to expand...

To further clarify, the instruction given would not count toward the 15 hours with an appropriately rated instructor necessary for the instrument rating but it would count toward the 40 hours of required instrument experience. The instrument instruction required to earn a commercial pilot certificate also needs to be done with a rated instructor as well.

But if the OP is giving instruction it can be logged as such.
 
The CFI is required to record/endorse the 1.7 hour instructional time in the commercial student’s logbook and prohibited from endorsing the .3 as instrument instruction.

In a separate entry, the commercial student may log .3 instrument with the CFI’s name as safety pilot in his logbook if he wants to use the time to document instrument experience.

The record is clear the CFI was not giving instrument instruction and commercial student is logging experience with a safety pilot.
 
Last edited:
Shuswap BC said:
IMO the last .3 the student is PIC.
Click to expand...
Not relevant to the logging question under US rules. The "student" in this case logs PIC for the whole time. The instructor logs the 1.7 as PIC because he's acting as an authorized instructor. he might log the other 0.3 as PIC or not - it depends,

Assuming the "One-I" is actually providing instruction to the pilot under the hood, the extra 0.3 on the instructor's end is problematic. It is not countable as "instrument training" toward future certificates and ratings. But there is no prohibition on a One-I providing instruction in "control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to instruments," which includes the use of navigation systems. (yes, I am familiar with the Chief Counsel letter on this one. I even spoke with the author about it)

Strictly IMO, sometimes it's more a matter of bookkeeping than regulation. Given that (1) the student is working toward his commercial, and (2) there is an "instrument training" task for the commercial which requires a II, the cleanest way to do this is for the One-I to treat the extra 0.3 as safety pilot duty. Another alternative is to make clear in the comments the nature of the time as "not counting," but unless the CFI needs that 0.3 to count as instructional time for some reason, treating it as safety pilot time is cleaner bookkeeping.
 
sarangan said:
As long as the student is aware that he can't count it towards his instrument rating you can log it either way. If he already has an instrument rating, then it is a moot point.
Click to expand...
Sadly, if he already has an instrument rating and the instrument training for the instrument rating were logged in a way which shows they count toward commercial requirements.

One of the most nonsensical Chief Counsel letters on the "double dipping" subject - that somehow getting an instrument rating does not automatically cover the tasks a non-instrument pilot would get if seeking a commercial VFR-only certificate.
 
If I were you I wouldn't worry so much about such trivial bs. Log it all as dual given / PIC and apply to the airlines.
 
I think the cleanest way is to just make it two lines in the logbook. The first ones gets signed as Dual Received, the second line gets no dual, but with Safety Pilot.

But the next most obvious solution is to become a CFII so none of this matters!

midlifeflyer said:
(yes, I am familiar with the Chief Counsel letter on this one. I even spoke with the author about it)
Click to expand...

Careful, Mark, that's treading dangerously close to "he who shall not be named" territory!
 
midlifeflyer said:
Not relevant to the logging question under US rules. The "student" in this case logs PIC for the whole time. The instructor logs the 1.7 as PIC because he's acting as an authorized instructor. he might log the other 0.3 as PIC or not - it depends,

Assuming the "One-I" is actually providing instruction to the pilot under the hood, the extra 0.3 on the instructor's end is problematic. It is not countable as "instrument training" toward future certificates and ratings. But there is no prohibition on a One-I providing instruction in "control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to instruments," which includes the use of navigation systems. (yes, I am familiar with the Chief Counsel letter on this one. I even spoke with the author about it)

Strictly IMO, sometimes it's more a matter of bookkeeping than regulation. Given that (1) the student is working toward his commercial, and (2) there is an "instrument training" task for the commercial which requires a II, the cleanest way to do this is for the One-I to treat the extra 0.3 as safety pilot duty. Another alternative is to make clear in the comments the nature of the time as "not counting," but unless the CFI needs that 0.3 to count as instructional time for some reason, treating it as safety pilot time is cleaner bookkeeping.
Click to expand...

You made me look up the FARs. For instrument rating, it specifically says "authorized instructor who holds an instrument-airplane rating". For the commercial, it only says "instrument training using a view-limiting device". There is no mention of the instructor requiring an instrument rating. So at least in principle, a CFI (not CFI-I) could provide that instrument training towards a commercial pilot certificate, no?
 
sarangan said:
You made me look up the FARs. For instrument rating, it specifically says "authorized instructor who holds an instrument-airplane rating". For the commercial, it only says "instrument training using a view-limiting device". There is no mention of the instructor requiring an instrument rating. So at least in principle, a CFI (not CFI-I) could provide that instrument training towards a commercial pilot certificate, no?
Click to expand...
No. In addition to 61.195(c), there are a few Chief Counsel letters on the subject, the most recent I think being Jablecki. Essentially, when the phrase "instrument training" is used (compare the language for the private) it means CFII.

Side note. 61.195(c) was amended last year to return the ability of a CFI-I to teach in some aircraft without having a CFI-A. But it did not change this part.
 
Last edited:
It’s just spiffy that Facebook is more organized than the Chief Counsel website with a better search engine. LOL.

Want to find a letter that references or clarifies a particular FAR by FAR number and publication date of the FAR? Good luck with that! LOL. :)

You’d think there might be some kind of technology for that. Maybe something with records and tables and indexes...

Or even better, an old skool thing with topics and letter number references next to the topics. Maybe like a Table that has something about the Contents of a larger body of work?

Wait a second! You can number documents?! Holy cow we might be having a major breakthrough here! Almost like someone may have actually done that before with things called Advisory Circulars!

LOL LOL LOL. I’ll keep dreaming. :)

It’s far better to memorize “Mr Frumplepuss” wrote the letter asking a question about logging time. Hahahahaha.

Beat. Head. Here.
 
denverpilot said:
It’s just spiffy that Facebook is more organized than the Chief Counsel website with a better search engine. LOL.
Click to expand...
It really is a ****-poor search engine. I can usually find what I'm looking for but that's from a lot of experience.

I have come up with a work-around though. The interpretation site is https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...c/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/. As it turns out, all the pdfs are under that path. So I use Google's site search functionality. I search the interps using Google, not their search engine.
 
midlifeflyer said:
No. In addition to 61.195(c), there are a few Chief Counsel letters on the subject, the most recent I think being Jablecki. Essentially, when the phrase "instrument training" is used (compare the language for the private) it means CFII.

Side note. 61.195(c) was amended last year to return the ability of a CFI-I to teach in some aircraft without having a CFI-A. But it did not change this part.
Click to expand...
So i take it I was wrong?
 
midlifeflyer said:
It really is a ****-poor search engine. I can usually find what I'm looking for but that's from a lot of experience.

I have come up with a work-around though. The interpretation site is https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...c/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/. As it turns out, all the pdfs are under that path. So I use Google's site search functionality. I search the interps using Google, not their search engine.
Click to expand...

Ahhh you did share that trick with me a while back. I forgot. But probably good for others to know.

Remember when we were going to get “Google for Government”? Pepperidge Farm remembers. LOL.

Google did it for them anyway. Nice of that new nation-state to build search engines for the old governments isn’t it? :)

LOL.
 
denverpilot said:
Ahhh you did share that trick with me a while back. I forgot. But probably good for others to know.

Remember when we were going to get “Google for Government”? Pepperidge Farm remembers. LOL.

Google did it for them anyway. Nice of that new nation-state to build search engines for the old governments isn’t it? :)

LOL.
Click to expand...
Found a better trick since. I have a javascript bookmarklet that does it for me.
 
sarangan said:
You made me look up the FARs. For instrument rating, it specifically says "authorized instructor who holds an instrument-airplane rating". For the commercial, it only says "instrument training using a view-limiting device". There is no mention of the instructor requiring an instrument rating. So at least in principle, a CFI (not CFI-I) could provide that instrument training towards a commercial pilot certificate, no?
Click to expand...
61.195
c) Instrument rating. A flight instructor may conduct instrument training for the issuance of an instrument rating, a type rating not limited to VFR, or the instrument training required for commercial pilot and airline transport pilot certificates if the following requirements are met:

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the flight instructor must hold an instrument rating appropriate to the aircraft used for the instrument training on his or her flight instructor certificate, and—
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top