Instrument Training With CFI

jordane93

jordane93

Touchdown! Greaser!
PoA Supporter
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
10,673
Location
Long Island, NY
Display Name
Display name:
Jordan
I am only a CFI and I've been flying with this kid doing IFR cross countries who has his Private. Some have been in actual and some have been on clear days. There's another CFI who is challenging me if the student can log actual instrument with me because I'm not a CFII. I told him that there's a difference between logging and acting as PIC. I also told him that logging PIC has nothing to do with flight conditions under the solo manipulator. He thinks because I wasn't a CFII, the student can not log actual. I then brought up how a Private pilot can log actual and be in IMC on a legal VFR day such as a moonless night. Also the definition of logging instrument is clear and doesn't say anything that the student needs to be with a CFII. I am aware 15 hours need to be with an authorized instructor for the IR and he does have a main CFII but likes to do cross countries with me. Am I missing something? Where's EdFred's chart?!
 
Last edited:
This situation is not as clear as some might think.
Subscribing.
And no, sorry, I don't have the link to the chart. I am sure somebody will chime in shortly and post it.

:popcorn:
 
I believe he can, but I don't have the reference handy. Looking forward to hearing what others have to say.
 
Refer to CFR 61.65 (d) (2) Forty hours of actual or simulated instrument time in the areas of operation listed in paragraph (c) of this section, of which 15 hours must have been received from an authorized instructor who holds an instrument-airplane rating, and the instrument time includes:

Ask them how they would log those other 25 hours since only 15 are required with a CFII?

Also, look up the Walker 2011 letter from the FAA Chief Counsel website which addresses the logging of PIC and actual instrument time without an instrument rating.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/Interpretations/
 
Guy is rated in the airplane right? He is sole manipulator right? He can log actual And PIC
 
Gucci Pilot said:
Guy is rated in the airplane right? He is sole manipulator right? He can log actual And PIC
Click to expand...
Exactly. That's what I keep explaining to them. The regs say nothing about being with a CFII to log actual or PIC time.
 
jordane93 said:
Exactly. That's what I keep explaining to them. The regs say nothing about being with a CFII to log actual or PIC time.
Click to expand...

That's exactly right.
The only thing a CFI can't do is where it explicitly requires a CFII in the regs.
 
RotorDude said:
That's exactly right.
The only thing a CFI can't do is where it specifically requires a CFII in the regs.
Click to expand...
Yep. And I've made it clear to the student that the cross countries we do DO NOT count towards the instrument rating cross countries because I'm not a CFII. However, the PIC and instrument time is all legal.
 
jordane93 said:
Yep. And I've made it clear to the student that the cross countries we do DO NOT count towards the instrument rating cross countries because I'm not a CFII. However, the PIC and instrument time is all legal.
Click to expand...

Correct. And I agree that your CFI friend needs some remedial training on his FARs.
 
You aren't missing anything. The other CFI is a moron.
 
jordane93 said:
Sad thing is he's a gold seal ATP CFI, II, MEI with thousands of hours of dual given.
Click to expand...
...and your point is...?

I saw a recent discussion in which the applicant for a certificate claimed he was rejected by a DPE on an incorrect reading of the logging PIC rules (I obviously don't know if the applicant is correct about the reason). A bunch of certificates and ratings do not mean a complete lack of ignorance.
 
midlifeflyer said:
...and your point is...?

I saw a recent discussion in which the applicant for a certificate claimed he was rejected by a DPE on an incorrect reading of the logging PIC rules (I obviously don't know if the applicant is correct about the reason). A bunch of certificates and ratings do not mean a complete lack of ignorance.
Click to expand...

They generally mean more ignorance. The more crap you see behind someone's name the less you should listen to them - especially when they make sure you know they have all those letters behind their name.
 
EdFred said:
They generally mean more ignorance. The more crap you see behind someone's name the less you should listen to them - especially when they make sure you know they have all those letters behind their name.
Click to expand...
Now, now, that's not always true. There's definitely a small percentage of folks who have lots of things after their name who behave poorly because of them, but a number of the most humble and willing-to-be-wrong people I've flown with also had the whole back of their little green plastic card covered in all sorts of things, and were totally normal folks.
 
It's legal for an instrument student to fly in actual with any other instrument rated private pilot (who is also instrument current and otherwise legal to act as PIC under IFR) in the right seat. He can't log dual received, but he can log actual instrument time and even PIC time (under the sole manipulator clause).
 
midlifeflyer said:
...and your point is...?

I saw a recent discussion in which the applicant for a certificate claimed he was rejected by a DPE on an incorrect reading of the logging PIC rules (I obviously don't know if the applicant is correct about the reason). A bunch of certificates and ratings do not mean a complete lack of ignorance.
Click to expand...
Usually that means they have more experience and knowledge. In this case, it doesn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top