Flight Instructor signing logbook as Ground Instructor - why?

[RussR]

As a CFI, I've heard of this from a few different CFIs who are also Ground Instructors (as am I), and I don't understand it. What they'll say is that when they give ground instruction, they'll sign using their Ground Instructor certificate number, i.e. signing "as" a Ground Instructor, not a CFI. In each case they're not really sure why they started doing this, someone told them once that it was a good idea for some reason and they kept doing it. One reason I heard was so that they don't have to meet the recordkeeping requirement - but that would only apply to endorsing a student for a written test, and even then does not seem like an entirely valid argument.

Since none of them can give me a good reason why they do it, I'm wondering if it fits into the same group of myths like not running an engine "over-square".

But I'm ready to be convinced that it actually is a good idea, I just can't figure out why.

Any CFIs out there do this? Why?

 

[write-stuff]

CFIs must give some unspecified amount of ground instruction (logged) for pilot applicants. As far as using a ground instructor "GI" suffix, never heard of that. Many, if not most, CFIs aren't "GIs" anyway.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

As a CFI, I've heard of this from a few different CFIs who are also Ground Instructors (as am I), and I don't understand it. What they'll say is that when they give ground instruction, they'll sign using their Ground Instructor certificate number, i.e. signing "as" a Ground Instructor, not a CFI. In each case they're not really sure why they started doing this, someone told them once that it was a good idea for some reason and they kept doing it. One reason I heard was so that they don't have to meet the recordkeeping requirement - but that would only apply to endorsing a student for a written test, and even then does not seem like an entirely valid argument.

Since none of them can give me a good reason why they do it, I'm wondering if it fits into the same group of myths like not running an engine "over-square".

But I'm ready to be convinced that it actually is a good idea, I just can't figure out why.

Any CFIs out there do this? Why?

Becuae they can.

It's about the only time you get to use that damn card anyways lol

 

[schmookeeg]

Recouping the cost of those 2 extra writtens

I only got my GI to make absolutely damn SURE i would never have to sit the FOI exam again.

 

[RussR]

None of the replies so far satisfy me, sorry folks!

CFIs must give some unspecified amount of ground instruction (logged) for pilot applicants. As far as using a ground instructor "GI" suffix, never heard of that. Many, if not most, CFIs aren't "GIs" anyway.

First sentence isn't the issue. Third sentence all I'd say is that, at least where I am, it seems "many" CFIs DO have a GI certificate. After all, it is one of the requirements for a Gold Seal CFI for those interested in that.

And interestingly, as for the second sentence, I looked at my GI card - no suffix. My pilot cert number is 1234567, my GI is 1234567, and my CFI is 1234567CFI. Thought the GI would have something else, guess not!

Becuae they can.

It's about the only time you get to use that damn card anyways lol

The first point might be the only answer, of course it doesn't really answer the "why bother" question.

Recouping the cost of those 2 extra writtens

I only got my GI to make absolutely damn SURE i would never have to sit the FOI exam again.

Your second point is why I did mine. And I know your first point has a smilie, but of course whether you sign as a CFI or a GI doesn't do anything different as far as your pay.

So I guess my question is still pretty much unanswered. Doesn't anybody else do this? If so, why? Is it really just "why not?"

 

[midlifeflyer]

Your guess is as good as mine. Of course, I'm not particularly interested in guessing on this one.