Refund for flight training

[AlanM]

At the flight schools I've been at, I would not expect a CSM to know that a CFII is required for remedial flight instruction due to a ATP failure. I think that's too in-depth for most CSMs. However, I think knowing how to read part 61 is well within bounds of an ATP candidate....

Talk to the Chief Pilot, go fly an hour with a Double-I, and move on with your life. Maybe you'll get a price break or maybe you won't. Before you make a fuss, recognize that the resulting negative networking may not be worth the $300 you save.

The CSM is a commercial pilot and CFI himself. He's the dude that set me up with the non-CFI for my initial training.....you mis-read the post / I am going elsewhere for my "remedial" training.

So, I should just drop it because of "negative networking?" Just because it is a flight school and we pilots must never complain, the point I am making is "negative?" I think it is just appropriate customer service, just like what I had to deliver when I was not retired!

 

[dmspilot]

Any training for the ATP, in my reading of Part 61, need to be given by a CFII.

What do you mean "any". You quoted the regulation yourself. Only the required instrument training must be given by a CFII. I don't know where you get the "any" part from.

You can accomplish the requirement on 61.49 (Retesting after failure) on one flight with a double-I. If the Area of Operation(s) you need retested on are not instrument related, I'm not even sure you'd need a double-I at all.

 

[denverpilot]

FSDO is going to have a field day with a CFI signing logbooks that they're giving Instrument training... Without a CFI-I, if they find out.

I wouldn't let your logbook out of your possession or let anyone even see it with a pen anywhere near their hands until you figure out how they're going to fix it.

Technically, it's evidence. The school and the CSR and all that other stuff is ancillary to the FAR bust that's written in your logbook. There is no way a CFI doesn't know they can't sign for something they need a CFI-I for.

 

[denverpilot]

What do you mean "any". You quoted the regulation yourself. Only the required instrument training must be given by a CFII. I don't know where you get the "any" part from.

He said the CFI (non CFI-I) wrote number and type of instrument approaches in his logbook. I also thought he was confused by that wording at first read, but if there's a logbook entry with a CFI teaching Instrument approaches, that blows that idea.

 

[3393RP]

When you receive multiengine instrument instruction do you expect them to sign 123456CFIIMEI?

I only thought people used stuff like that in their signature line on POA.

LOL!

 

[AlanM]

What do you mean "any". You quoted the regulation yourself. Only the required instrument training must be given by a CFII. I don't know where you get the "any" part from.

Hey, I think I get it now. The word "REQUIRED" is the key. I did not "require" any instrument training for my ATP ride as I had obtained it over the years, met the ATP instrument time hour requirement, and had all that training provided by a CFII.

Now, that still does not "excuse" the non-CFII flight instructor I had from giving me instrument instruction AND signing my logbook with the approaches we did and his CFI number. That issue might be the basis for the partial refund I'm seeking, but I don't want to get the dude in trouble even though within the last week he quit and went to work in corporate aviation.

 

[James331]

Boy I must be out of the loop... I didn't think there was any training required for the ATP.
When I did mine, back in the day, an FAA logbook inspection was required just to take the written.... Along with a first class medical.

When did you need a 1st class to take a checkride?

I did mine before the first round of rule changes (50hrs in class, etc) and I had a 2nd class at the time.

 

[Lindberg]

He said the CFI (non CFI-I) wrote number and type of instrument approaches in his logbook. I also thought he was confused by that wording at first read, but if there's a logbook entry with a CFI teaching Instrument approaches, that blows that idea.

What regulation prohibits that if the OP doesn't need those hours of instrument instruction for his ATP?

 

[Henning]

What regulation prohibits that if the OP doesn't need those hours of instrument instruction for his ATP?

But he does need them as "required instruction" since he pinked his ATP ride the first time. At least that's the point he's trying to make.

 

[Henning]

When you receive multiengine instrument instruction do you expect them to sign 123456CFIIMEI?

I only thought people used stuff like that in their signature line on POA.

I was looking in my logs last night finding some dates so I glanced back t some signatures. When I was getting Multi instruction they signed it with MEI, Instrument instruction CFII, and regular as CFI. This was more than one instructor following the pattern.

 

[Everskyward]

I was looking in my logs last night finding some dates so I glanced back t some signatures. When I was getting Multi instruction they signed it with MEI, Instrument instruction CFII, and regular as CFI. This was more than one instructor following the pattern.

I'm not saying that people don't sign like that, but if you look at a CFI's piece of plastic, it looks just like their other piece of plastic with their CFI ratings on it. The number printed on it is the same as their pilot's certificate number with the letters CFI, and nothing else, at the end. This is the number you are required to provide. If others want to add to it it's up to them. Your normal license number is just a number, not 12345AMEL, correct?

 

[Kritchlow]

When did you need a 1st class to take a checkride?

I did mine before the first round of rule changes (50hrs in class, etc) and I had a 2nd class at the time.

I needed a first class just to get the logbook check in order to get the sign off for the written!!

Y
Timeframe..?? Early 90's...?

 

[Henning]

I'm not saying that people don't sign like that, but if you look at a CFI's piece of plastic, it looks just like their other piece of plastic only the symbol in the upper-right is black instead of blue. The number printed on it is the same as their pilot's certificate number withe the letters CFI, and nothing else, at the end. This is the number you are required to provide. If others want to add to it it's up to them.

Yeah, understood, wasn't saying you were doing anything wrong, just indicating how others had handled it rather than 123456CFICFIIMEI

 

[James331]

I needed a first class just to get the logbook check in order to get the sign off for the written!!

Y
Timeframe..?? Early 90's...?

Huh, I did mine after that, didn't recall anything about the 1st class. To act as a ATP you need a first class, but to get your ATP I don't think it mattered.

I'm not saying that people don't sign like that, but if you look at a CFI's piece of plastic, it looks just like their other piece of plastic only the symbol in the upper-right is black instead of blue. The number printed on it is the same as their pilot's certificate number withe the letters CFI, and nothing else, at the end. This is the number you are required to provide. If others want to add to it it's up to them.

What if your symbol is gold?

 

[RotorAndWing]

Huh, I did mine after that, didn't recall anything about the 1st class. To act as a ATP you need a first class, but to get your ATP I don't think it mattered.

Back in the "old days" you had to have a First Class for the checkride.

I needed a first class just to get the logbook check in order to get the sign off for the written!!

Y
Timeframe..?? Early 90's...?

Yep, I got my ATP in 1985.

 

[Everskyward]

What if your symbol is gold?

Guessing it's what people call "Gold Seal". I've never seen one but I've also never cared or scrutinized anyone's plastic. I only learned the CFI symbol is black instead of blue fairly recently when someone at a training center clued me in after they saw me fumbling for which one to show them. I never knew there was that slight physical difference in appearance before.

 

[flyingron]

I needed a first class just to get the logbook check in order to get the sign off for the written!!

Y
Timeframe..?? Early 90's...?

The rules changed around 1997 if I recall properly. After that a 3rd class is good enough for ANY checkride. Prior to that you needed a 2nd for a commercial and a 1st for the ATP.

 

[hook_dupin]

So, I should just drop it because of "negative networking?" Just because it is a flight school and we pilots must never complain, the point I am making is "negative?" I think it is just appropriate customer service, just like what I had to deliver when I was not retired!

You're an ATP candidate. You know how to read part 61. Stop blaming others and start acting like a PIC. The CSM made a mistake, but you didn't check qualifications before you flew.

From here, you can a) get the FSDO involved which will certainly involve a detailed review of your log book (if they even have time for this stupidness) or b) move on. I recommend moving on.

 

[James331]

You're an ATP candidate. You know how to read part 61. Stop blaming others and start acting like a PIC. The CSM made a mistake, but you didn't check qualifications before you flew.

From here, you can a) get the FSDO involved which will certainly involve a detailed review of your log book (if they even have time for this stupidness) or b) move on. I recommend moving on.

Don't think the FSDO can force the flight school to refund his money, if he wanted to make a issue out of it this would be a small claims matter.


For what it's worth, I still place much more blame on the flight school, training is their business, I no more should have to check the credentials of my instructor than I should need to ask the pilot on a airline I'm flying on to show me his medical and certs.

 

[Gucci Pilot]

I think it is 40% your fault and 60% their fault. I am assuming since you are going for the ATP you already have your CFI. So you should know what a CFI can and cannot provide instruction for. On the flip side they should also know what they can and can't provide instruction for. I would definitely bring it up to your instructor when you talk to him next. Most FBOs I have rented/taken instruction from are flexible. Especially when you get upper management involved.

 

[AlanM]

I think it is 40% your fault and 60% their fault. I am assuming since you are going for the ATP you already have your CFI. So you should know what a CFI can and cannot provide instruction for. On the flip side they should also know what they can and can't provide instruction for. I would definitely bring it up to your instructor when you talk to him next. Most FBOs I have rented/taken instruction from are flexible. Especially when you get upper management involved.

I'd say it's more like 50/50.
I'm going to drop the matter with the flight school as I don't want to get the instructor (who has departed for greater horizons just this last week or two) in trouble, if any. I had my logbooks tucked away and finally looked at what I'm talking about, and it was only 12 hours of dual -- immaterial in the grand scheme.
However, this post did generate a lot of discussion, which I guess might benefit others who might be in somewhat of the same situation as I was -- besides knowing the rules, if something doesn't make sense, etc., talk to upper management.

 

[denverpilot]

What regulation prohibits that if the OP doesn't need those hours of instrument instruction for his ATP?

You're hung up on the fact that it was ATP training. Zoom out.

CFI giving instruction only a CFI-I may give. Period.

Instructing instrument approaches is not the purvey of a CFI. It's the job of a CFI-I.

Doesn't matter what rating the student is going for.

The newly minted corporate pilot / CFI didn't know this? I doubt it.

He needed to pad the logbook to get that new job.

I'd say it's more like 50/50.

I'm going to drop the matter with the flight school as I don't want to get the instructor (who has departed for greater horizons just this last week or two) in trouble, if any. I had my logbooks tucked away and finally looked at what I'm talking about, and it was only 12 hours of dual -- immaterial in the grand scheme.

However, this post did generate a lot of discussion, which I guess might benefit others who might be in somewhat of the same situation as I was -- besides knowing the rules, if something doesn't make sense, etc., talk to upper management.

You still have a logbook with a bunch of entries that weren't legal. Up to you how you want to deal with that...

If you were current and qualified to act as PIC for all of those approaches, your "I'll just call it safety pilot time" kinda works, but probably should remove the time from any columns like "dual received".

Or just leave it.

Your "friend" appreciates your silence about his blatantly illegal behavior. And paying for his time.

I guess the good news is that he won't be "teaching" anymore.

 

[ja_user]

go back and cross out every Dual recieved column, and put a see line #xxx in the comments. on line #xxx put in a subtraction so that the totals are correct and note that the person was a safety pilot and not giving instruction. After that page all will total up properly..

 

[Lindberg]

CFI giving instruction only a CFI-I may give. Period.

Instructing instrument approaches is not the purv[iew] of a CFI. It's the job of a CFI-I.

Doesn't matter what rating the student is going for.

What regulation says that?

 

[ja_user]

What regulation says that?

Doesn't matter, this guy wants his 3 hours for the check ride of instrument instruction.

I'm assuming the guy giving it was never going to try to sign it off anyway...

 

[denverpilot]

What regulation says that?

61.195

 

[Kritchlow]

I'd say it's more like 50/50.
I'm going to drop the matter with the flight school as I don't want to get the instructor (who has departed for greater horizons just this last week or two) in trouble, if any. I had my logbooks tucked away and finally looked at what I'm talking about, and it was only 12 hours of dual -- immaterial in the grand scheme.
However, this post did generate a lot of discussion, which I guess might benefit others who might be in somewhat of the same situation as I was -- besides knowing the rules, if something doesn't make sense, etc., talk to upper management.

I'm confused, but I often am..
Why would your logbooks be "tucked away"?? Did this happen some time ago?
Also.. 12 hours to retrain?? Must have been a rough check ride..

 

[Lindberg]

61.195

Specifically limited to training towards certain ratings. So this does not support your statement. Nothing in there says that as a general rule a CFI can't instruct me on instrument approaches and sign my logbook as having given dual.

 

[unsafervguy]

Specifically limited to training towards certain ratings. So this does not support your statement. Nothing in there says that as a general rule a CFI can't instruct me on instrument approaches and sign my logbook as having given dual.

I am no lawyer, but i did stay at a holiday inn..

if you read other areas of FAR61 it supports this. for an instrument rating it spells out that 15hrs must be by a instructor with a instrument rating. a private requires instruction in flight by reference to instruments but does not require that time to be given by an instructor holding an CFII.

I think that the legal people would say that a CFI can give instrument instruction, as long as it is not the required instruction for a rating or certificate called out for in 61.195.
bottom line is that i think that it is legal as long as the endorsement for the retest was signed by a CFII that had given some dual then the endorsement.

bob