Please clarify this FAR for Multi-Engine training

[AggieMike88]

In the Sheppard Air FIA test prep, this question and answer pair appears

The minimum pilot-in-command time requirement for a flight instructor with multiengine privileges to give flight training to a student for a multiengine rating is

A) 5 hours in make and model of aircraft in which training is to be given


Am I interpreting this correctly that if I had all of my multiengine time in a Seneca, but then I join on with a school that uses Twin Comanches or Aztecs or other light twin, then I would need to have 5 hours of PIC time in that new to me twin before I could provide instruction in that new to me twin?

I want to say that's a yes since the reg is saying "Make and Model" and the purpose is so I gain familiarity on the "new to me" aircraft's systems and flight characteristics.

 

[dmspilot]

What other way could it be interpreted?

 

[Dave Theisen]

The 5 hours only applies to instruction given towards a rating or certificate. You could give a flight review or recurrent training without the time in type. Not saying it’s smart, just legal.

 

[mondtster]

The 5 hours only applies to instruction given towards a rating or certificate. You could give a flight review or recurrent training without the time in type. Not saying it’s smart, just legal.

Yep. Helicopters are the same way.

 

[TommyG]

It’s clearly stated in the FARs. Not too much to interpret.

 

[ja_user]

Yep you got it. After I got my MEI in the seneca, I went and did 5 hours to get familiar with the Baron. So you are always going to be on the hunt for new twins to fly

 

[midwestpa24]

And honestly is a good idea. Hard to a be a competent and confident instructor in a plane you've never flown. The only way that works is if the "student" already knows the plane and you aren't showing them how to run it.

 

[MauleSkinner]

And honestly is a good idea. Hard to a be a competent and confident instructor in a plane you've never flown. The only way that works is if the "student" already knows the plane and you aren't showing them how to run it.

...and even then, many pilots could still learn something useful about their airplanes from an instructor who is familiar with the make/model.

 

[midwestpa24]

...and even then, many pilots could still learn something useful about their airplanes from an instructor who is familiar with the make/model.

That was even a question on my CFI checkride.

Could I as a newly minted CFI, give a bi-annual to a guy that has a certain rare high performance aircraft that I have zero experience in?

Legally yes. But is it smart or wise?

 

[RussR]

@AggieMike88 - real-life example - I am working with a guy who has a Cessna 340, on regaining instrument currency after many years. I had zero hours in a 340, and let him know it. But I am very instrument current and do a lot of this kind of instruction, so he still wanted to fly with me. And so we have been. At the end of this, I will have at least 5 hours in the Cessna 340.

So:
Was it legal? Yes, since I was not providing instruction towards a rating.
Was it smart? I think so, since he already knows how to fly the plane.

Now, here's follow-up food for thought - I now have 5 hours PIC in the 340. Let's say he gets a partner in the airplane who wants to use it to get his multiengine rating. Can I do it legally? Yes. Would it be smart? That's a different story. Since all of my time has been instructional, I have never (other than brief periods of him putting on the hood or setting up unusual attitudes) actually flown the airplane. I've never landed it. I've never even started the engines.

 

[ja_user]

More food for thought.

Make and Model requires 5 PIC, if you are giving instruction for a rating.
But is a Seneca II different than a Seneca 1 or 3? What about a Baron 55 or 58?

Or do we go back to the PA-34 is a PA-34 definition? Same for the PA-23

 

[EdFred]

I think that would be if they have the same TCDS or not. I think the TCDS would determine make and model, no?

 

[ja_user]

I'd hope so, but who knows.

 

[murphey]

I think that would be if they have the same TCDS or not. I think the TCDS would determine make and model, no?

Well....a cherokee and an arrow are defined on the same TCDS.....would you give instruction in the Arrow is you’d only flown an archer or cherokee?

 

[muddy00]

I’m running into this now. I just bought a Grumman Cougar with only around 43 of them in the USA it’s thought finding a local MEI that has even heard of them let alone has 5 hours in one.

 

[mondtster]

I’m running into this now. I just bought a Grumman Cougar with only around 43 of them in the USA it’s thought finding a local MEI that has even heard of them let alone has 5 hours in one.

Are you trying to get a multi rating or just get checked out? Big difference.

Perhaps figure out who was working with the previous owner and get training before moving the airplane.

 

[midwestpa24]

@AggieMike88 - real-life example - I am working with a guy who has a Cessna 340, on regaining instrument currency after many years. I had zero hours in a 340, and let him know it. But I am very instrument current and do a lot of this kind of instruction, so he still wanted to fly with me. And so we have been. At the end of this, I will have at least 5 hours in the Cessna 340.

I've done similar. I've been helping a guy learn about his newly installed GTN650. Technically I have 5 hours PIC in his aircraft as a CFI so far, but have never once touched the controls.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I’m running into this now. I just bought a Grumman Cougar with only around 43 of them in the USA it’s thought finding a local MEI that has even heard of them let alone has 5 hours in one.

Ron Levy (who used to be a very active member here) used to own a Cougar. Where are you located? I bet if you could track him down he could give you some excellent instruction in it. He's likely still active in the Grumman group.

 

[EdFred]

Well....a cherokee and an arrow are defined on the same TCDS.....would you give instruction in the Arrow is you’d only flown an archer or cherokee?

Yep. Heck, almost 100% of my Mooney time is instruction given. (I think I have 0.3 that isn't)

I am also unaware of any fixed gear Senecas, Apaches, etc, variants.

 

[MauleSkinner]

@AggieMike88 - real-life example - I am working with a guy who has a Cessna 340, on regaining instrument currency after many years. I had zero hours in a 340, and let him know it. But I am very instrument current and do a lot of this kind of instruction, so he still wanted to fly with me. And so we have been. At the end of this, I will have at least 5 hours in the Cessna 340.

So:
Was it legal? Yes, since I was not providing instruction towards a rating.
Was it smart? I think so, since he already knows how to fly the plane.

Now, here's follow-up food for thought - I now have 5 hours PIC in the 340. Let's say he gets a partner in the airplane who wants to use it to get his multiengine rating. Can I do it legally? Yes. Would it be smart? That's a different story. Since all of my time has been instructional, I have never (other than brief periods of him putting on the hood or setting up unusual attitudes) actually flown the airplane. I've never landed it. I've never even started the engines.

Follow-up to the follow-up...Are you qualified to act as PIC in the 340?

 

[muddy00]

Ron Levy (who used to be a very active member here) used to own a Cougar. Where are you located? I bet if you could track him down he could give you some excellent instruction in it. He's likely still active in the Grumman group.

Already been in talks with him.thanks.

 

[Clip4]

What I find amazing is the FAA allows an instructor with all their training in a 360-400 hp Multi with counter rotating props to jump into a 600 hp multi without counter rotating props and give flight instruction with nothing more than 5 hours PIC.

 

[ja_user]

FOr every example of a bad idea, you can find an example where it wouldn't be that big of a deal.

 

[midwestpa24]

What I find amazing is the FAA allows an instructor with all their training in a 360-400 hp Multi with counter rotating props to jump into a 600 hp multi without counter rotating props and give flight instruction with nothing more than 5 hours PIC.

And this is another situation the insurance industry regulates better than the FAA. Legally speaking nothing prevents me from jumping in a TBM-900 tomorrow with zero time, but just try to get insurance.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

And this is another situation the insurance industry regulates better than the FAA. Legally speaking nothing prevents me from jumping in a TBM-900 tomorrow with zero time, but just try to get insurance.

That's not "regulating," though, because you're not required to get insurance.

 

[Brad Z]

And this is another situation the insurance industry regulates better than the FAA. Legally speaking nothing prevents me from jumping in a TBM-900 tomorrow with zero time, but just try to get insurance.

Or more precisely, the FAA abstaining from additional regulation where there are already mechanisms in the industry to limit the safety risk.

 

[ja_user]

That's not "regulating," though, because you're not required to get insurance.

You also aren't required to keep from killing yourself. But most people error on the side of caution. Regulations don't stop either method.

 

[EdFred]

You also aren't required to keep from killing yourself. But most people error on the side of caution. Regulations don't stop either method.

Aren't there laws on the books that make suicide attempts criminal? So, you sort of are required by law to keep from killing yourself, no?

 

[midwestpa24]

That's not "regulating," though, because you're not required to get insurance.

True, but few people are willing to not insure more expensive aircraft. Now I've known a few guys with uninsured 172s or Cherokees. Lenders tend to want insurance as well, to protect their investment.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

True, but few people are willing to not insure more expensive aircraft. Now I've known a few guys with uninsured 172s or Cherokees. Lenders tend to want insurance as well, to protect their investment.

You might think... But there are a fair number of people in the US who have so much money it's meaningless. There was a guy who crashed his C400 at DLL a decade or so ago and didn't have it insured. He just shrugged it off and said he'd go buy another one. Even then, that was easily a half million down the tubes.

 

[Clip4]

And this is another situation the insurance industry regulates better than the FAA. Legally speaking nothing prevents me from jumping in a TBM-900 tomorrow with zero time, but just try to get insurance.

With zero time you would have would not have a certificate with the proper privileges to fly a TBM900 and you would have to demonstrate skills to at least solo level first, which may be better than jumping in one with 100 hours with a HP, complex, and high altitude endorsement.

 

[midwestpa24]

With zero time you would have would not have a certificate with the proper privileges to fly a TBM900 and you would have to demonstrate skills to at least solo level first, which may be better than jumping in one with 100 hours with a HP, complex, and high altitude endorsement.

I meant time in Type. Otherwise I have all the prerequisite endorsements and ratings.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I meant time in Type. Otherwise I have all the prerequisite endorsements and ratings.

Depending on pressurized turboprop time in general, I've often been amazed at what insurance companies sometimes allow.

 

[ja_user]

Aren't there laws on the books that make suicide attempts criminal? So, you sort of are required by law to keep from killing yourself, no?

Most people trying to kill themselves in airplanes are successful, at least by the time anyone finds out.

 

[MD11Pilot]

Reading JetLaws FAR/AIM explained on 61.195 (f) Flight Instructors Limitations and Qualifications says “5 hours of PIC in the specific make and model of multi airplane”.

In the Sheppard Air FIA test prep, this question and answer pair appears

The minimum pilot-in-command time requirement for a flight instructor with multiengine privileges to give flight training to a student for a multiengine rating is

A) 5 hours in make and model of aircraft in which training is to be given


Am I interpreting this correctly that if I had all of my multiengine time in a Seneca, but then I join on with a school that uses Twin Comanches or Aztecs or other light twin, then I would need to have 5 hours of PIC time in that new to me twin before I could provide instruction in that new to me twin?

I want to say that's a yes since the reg is saying "Make and Model" and the purpose is so I gain familiarity on the "new to me" aircraft's systems and flight characteristics.