Single I and instrument instruction question

[whereisrandall]

I have a small can of worms question about 61.195c. And yes, I'm choosing to seek the counsel of people on the Internet rather than my local FSDO - for the moment.

I am a CFI. I own a plane. I was asked to fly some approaches today as a safety pilot with an instrument rated private pilot. I rented my plane and charged for my services as an instructor.

He is not seeking a rating, he already has one. Am I allowed to instruct him in instrument procedures?

Here's the kicker: if I am not allowed to instruct him, then I am probably not allowed to charge him for my services, either.

Any thoughts on this are welcome.

 

[Timbeck2]

What instruction would you be giving him if he's already rated? Not against the rental fee and maybe a little extra for your time as safety pilot.

 

[Dave Theisen]

Do you get 100 hr. Inspections on your airplane?

 

[TommyG]

I have a small can of worms question about 61.195c. And yes, I'm choosing to seek the counsel of people on the Internet rather than my local FSDO - for the moment.

I am a CFI. I own a plane. I was asked to fly some approaches today as a safety pilot with an instrument rated private pilot. I rented my plane and charged for my services as an instructor.

He is not seeking a rating, he already has one. Am I allowed to instruct him in instrument procedures?

Here's the kicker: if I am not allowed to instruct him, then I am probably not allowed to charge him for my services, either.

Any thoughts on this are welcome.

If he is rated, what instruction are you giving him. You are acting as a safety pilot. Now you may be give some pointers and tips. But is that really instruction?

And I won't add to the string of d bag comments you will get about instruction in your plane.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

If you charged for your services as an instructor and you provided the airplane, then as Dave above pointed out, it seems like you need a 100 hr inspection per 91.409(b)

Not necessarily. If he hadn't reached the 100 hour mark since the annual inspection he was good to go. Insurance might be an issue.

 

[whereisrandall]

Thanks, Gang.

I regularly instruct in my plane, have commercial insurance, and I do get 100 hour inspections. And, it seems like because he already has an instrument rating, that helping him fly better approaches is not necessarily instruction.

But, if it's not instruction, I don't believe that I'm allowed to charge him. We landed at the airports where we did approaches, and they were more than 25 miles away, so even my LOA doesn't cover me.

I will have my Double-I soon, so this will be moot. But after I flew with him yesterday, I realized that I had possibly fallen into a loophole in the FARs.

 

[EricVKX]

I'm in the middle of my IR training and know a few other pilots at doing the same, one pilot in particular was having some issues so the flight school had another CFI with 40+ years of IFR flying go up with the IR student that needed additional pointers/fresh perspective. He acted as safety pilot and was not charged instruction. They specifically mentioned the CFI was activing as safety pilot.

 

[MauleSkinner]

If you were giving instruction, you were giving instruction. He can't count it toward an instrument rating, but that doesn't matter, as he's already rated.

If you want to charge him for time as an instructor when you were giving instruction, no problem. If you want to charge for your time as a commercial pilot when acting as safety pilot, no problem.

Not sure how the LOA ties into it.

 

[Brad Z]

The distinction is that a non-instrument rated instructor can provide training maneuvering an airplane solely by reference to instruments, whereas an instrument rated instructor can provide instrument training. If you log it as the former, and make sure the client understands that time can’t be used towards instrument instruction time for a CP, ATP, or type rating, you will be fine.

 

[MauleSkinner]

The distinction is that a non-instrument rated instructor can provide training maneuvering an airplane solely by reference to instruments, whereas an instrument rated instructor can provide instrument training. If you log it as the former, and make sure the client understands that time can’t be used towards instrument instruction time for a CP, ATP, or type rating, you will be fine.

Even as a -II, I never logged "Instrument instruction".

would it be more correct to say that it couldn't be used towards the times requiring "an authorized instructor", or is time with a safety pilot actually more valuable than instruction from a non-II?

 

[steingar]

If the pilot logs the time as dual given, then its instruction. If not, not. I would just make certain that both parties agree beforehand. If I use a CFI as a safety pilot and I'm paying him or her for his or her time.

 

[flyingron]

As log as it's not an IPC or the loggable instrument training for a rating, a II isn't needed.

 

[paflyer]

If the pilot logs the time as dual given, then its instruction. If not, not. I would just make certain that both parties agree beforehand. If I use a CFI as a safety pilot and I'm paying him or her for his or her time.

Makes sense to me. I've paid a CFI for his time as a non-required crew member, any "instruction" was incidental.

 

[flyingron]

Anytime you have multiple pilots in the plane, it behooves you to work out the roles ahead of times. Sometimes people assume instructors are legal PIC for operations in which they might not be. Note that in addition to the pilot (being instructed), it is incumbent on the instructor to make entries in the student log book. Instructors have been written up for such before.

 

[whereisrandall]

Thanks for the feedback, everybody. Much appreciated.

 

[Brad Z]

Even as a -II, I never logged "Instrument instruction".

would it be more correct to say that it couldn't be used towards the times requiring "an authorized instructor", or is time with a safety pilot actually more valuable than instruction from a non-II?

You’ve never logged instrument instruction, but I presume you’ve logged training in instrument procedures, approaches, etc., correct? If I had no instrument rating on my flight instructor certificate, and I was providing dual instruction to someone under the hood, for any reason, it would logged in the logbook entry as “flight by reference to instruments” with no mention of IFR procedures, etc.

Why? If that dude augers it in, and I’m the last Instructor signing his logbook, I wouldn’t want to have to explain why I’m providing training outside the scope of the limitations of my certificate.

In a related point, prior to a [re] interpretation of part 61, you could teach instrument students without an ‘airplane single engine’ or ‘airplane multi-engine’ rating on your flight instructor certificate. For a while I had this as I didn’t have access to a complex aircraft to get my ‘airplane single engine’ rating on my flight instructor certificate. So my initial CFI was ‘flight instructor, instrument airplane’. As such, I was careful ONLY to log flight training as it related to instrument training and the elements of the instrument airplane PTS. So no training in short field landings, no flap landings, etc. that’s not within the scope of an instrument-only CFI.

Advice given to new instructors is that “if you didn’t log it [in the students logbook], you didn’t do it. In this case, if you can’t do it, don’t log it.

 

[MauleSkinner]

You’ve never logged instrument instruction, but I presume you’ve logged training in instrument procedures, approaches, etc., correct? If I had no instrument rating on my flight instructor certificate, and I was providing dual instruction to someone under the hood, for any reason, it would logged in the logbook entry as “flight by reference to instruments” with no mention of IFR procedures, etc.

Why? If that dude augers it in, and I’m the last Instructor signing his logbook, I wouldn’t want to have to explain why I’m providing training outside the scope of the limitations of my certificate.

In a related point, prior to a [re] interpretation of part 61, you could teach instrument students without an ‘airplane single engine’ or ‘airplane multi-engine’ rating on your flight instructor certificate. For a while I had this as I didn’t have access to a complex aircraft to get my ‘airplane single engine’ rating on my flight instructor certificate. So my initial CFI was ‘flight instructor, instrument airplane’. As such, I was careful ONLY to log flight training as it related to instrument training and the elements of the instrument airplane PTS. So no training in short field landings, no flap landings, etc. that’s not within the scope of an instrument-only CFI.

Advice given to new instructors is that “if you didn’t log it [in the students logbook], you didn’t do it. In this case, if you can’t do it, don’t log it.

I don't see that "flight by reference to instruments" is a limiting statement. For example, while I don't think it generally falls within the scope of primary training, instrument procedures are generally accepted, and considered mandatory by more than a few, when conducting flight reviews. 61.109(a)(3) specifically requires "the use of navigation systems/facilities and radar services appropriate to instrument flight". How does that exclude any procedure from the scope of instruction allowed under the heading of "flight by reference to instruments"?

Do you have any documentation that supports limiting a non-"double I" from giving instruction in any instrument procedure, as long as it's not being passed off as instruction required to be from "an authorized instructor" for the purposes of the instrument rating, an IPC, or some other qualification that specifically requires an instrument instructor?

 

[Brad Z]

I don't see that "flight by reference to instruments" is a limiting statement. For example, while I don't think it generally falls within the scope of primary training, instrument procedures are generally accepted, and considered mandatory by more than a few, when conducting flight reviews. 61.109(a)(3) specifically requires "the use of navigation systems/facilities and radar services appropriate to instrument flight". How does that exclude any procedure from the scope of instruction allowed under the heading of "flight by reference to instruments"?

Do you have any documentation that supports limiting a non-"double I" from giving instruction in any instrument procedure, as long as it's not being passed off as instruction required to be from "an authorized instructor" for the purposes of the instrument rating, an IPC, or some other qualification that specifically requires an instrument instructor?

I guess I should make it clear my concern is not the FAA, but a trial lawyer using my signature as proof that I operated outside my scope. This is a very common tactic in medical malpractice.

As for the FAA, their concern is focused more on what endorsements you’ve signed (and that you’ve provided the required training associated with a specific endorsement), so as long as you don’t endorse outside of your scope, you’re good to go.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I guess I should make it clear my concern is not the FAA, but a trial lawyer using my signature as proof that I operated outside my scope. This is a very common tactic in medical malpractice.

As for the FAA, their concern is focused more on what endorsements you’ve signed (and that you’ve provided the required training associated with a specific endorsement), so as long as you don’t endorse outside of your scope, you’re good to go.

Again, do you have documentation that says any specific procedure is "outside your scope" without an instrument rating on your instructor certificate?

If a lawyer is going to use my signature to try and prove that I gave instruction that I wasn't authorized to give, more than likely it won't matter what I put in the logbook.

 

[Brad Z]

Again, do you have documentation that says any specific procedure is "outside your scope" without an instrument rating on your instructor certificate?

If a lawyer is going to use my signature to try and prove that I gave instruction that I wasn't authorized to give, more than likely it won't matter what I put in the logbook.

I hope I made it clear that the regs don’t define scope outside of providing training for a specific rating or endorsement, so no there isn’t specific documentation. That said, it wouldn’t be hard for an attorney to put an instructor on the witness stand and call into question the appropriateness of an instructor providing training in an area that the instructor has never been evaluated by the FAA to teach.

Let me flip this discussion around and ask what benefit would it have for a non instrument instructor to log instrument training? It can’t be used for a rating or certificate. You’re better off logging it as “dual received” in the clients logbook without any further details.

 

[TommyG]

"Including, but not limited to" best line to add to any comments in a logbook you sign as a CFI.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Let me flip this discussion around and ask what benefit would it have for a non instrument instructor to log instrument training? It can’t be used for a rating or certificate. You’re better off logging it as “dual received” in the clients logbook without any further details.

How about recency, familiarization with a new aircraft that they're going to fly IFR, familiarization with new or upgraded avionics, or possibly the safety/emergency intent of 61.109(a)(3), which clearly goes beyond the scope of the Basic Instrument Maneuvers section of the Flight Instructor-Airplane PTS?

For that matter, how many instrument instructors are there (besides me) who teach GPS procedures but have never been evaluated by the FAA for teaching them?

 

[flyingron]

There's all kinds of things the FAA never evaluates instructors for that they are allowed to teach. For example, tailwheel aircraft.

 

[jordane93]

This discussion is an example of the very reason I am so wary of becoming a CFI...getting nailed for good intentions.

It is very thought provoking.

99.9% of the situations are fine. If I have to second guess myself, I don’t do it. I don’t feel like wasting brain cells trying to figure it out and I have more important things to do.

 

[coloradobluesky]

Keep in mind its FAA legal to instruct without even a CFI for things like aerobatics or mountain flying so long as you have a commercial rating, right? Pretty sure a CFI without the CFII rating can act as a safety pilot and charge for it. But there is probably a benefit to having the CFII just so there is no question about it.

 

[flyingron]

Not correct. Anybody can impart knowledge. You don't even need a pilot certificate to do that. In order, to provide loggable (to the student) instruction, you need to be an "authorized instructor" which means a CFI. THe only real exception for flight instruction involves ATP training people at their airline, and commercial pilots instructing in lighter-than-air aircraft.

Note, while a commercial pilot certificate (or ATP) is necessary to obtain a CFI certificate, you don't need a commercial certificate to instruct. Any pilot certificate will do as long as it covers the aircraft you're instructing in.

 

[mondtster]

Note, while a commercial pilot certificate (or ATP) is necessary to obtain a CFI certificate, you don't need a commercial certificate to instruct. Any pilot certificate will do as long as it covers the aircraft you're instructing in.

To clarify this a bit, you need a commercial pilot certificate to obtain a CFI (with the exception of a sport pilot CFI) but you're not exercising commercial privileges. This is why you can teach on a third class or basic med medical.

You must have airplane single engine land or sea on your pilot certificate and airplane single engine on your instructor certificate to teach in singles, and multiengine land or sea on your pilot certificate and airplane multiengine on your instructor certificate to teach in multis. As mentioned earlier, if you only hold an instrument instructor certificate that qualifies you to teach in neither singles or multis.

 

[Palmpilot]

...it seems like because he already has an instrument rating, that helping him fly better approaches is not necessarily instruction.

But, if it's not instruction, I don't believe that I'm allowed to charge him. We landed at the airports where we did approaches, and they were more than 25 miles away, so even my LOA doesn't cover me....

When I hire an instructor to fly with me, even if it's an operation that I'm already rated for, he or she expects to be paid, and I expect to pay, even if all I really need is a safety pilot. This is SOP at all the rental operations that I have flown out of, and has been for the 26 years that I have been a pilot.

Consider FBO checkouts, for example. The FAA doesn't require them, because I'm already qualified in their eyes. If I couldn't pay the instructor to give me the checkout, how could I ever convince an instructor to give me a checkout?