Chief Counsel on Instrument Training

[midlifeflyer]

Based largely on a Chief Counsel opinion that CFIs with no instrument rating may give the private pilot training in flight "solely by reference to instruments" and an analysis in the orphaned Part 61 FAQ, it has long been the general view that 61.109 training solely by reference to instruments cannot be used to meet 61.65 instrument training" requirements.

At the end of last month, the Chief Counsel put that one to rest.

Yes, if a "One-I" gives the 61.109 training, it does not count, but if it is given by a II

Therefore, the 3 hours of flight training on "the control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to instruments" in § 61.109(a)(3) may be applied toward the 40 hours of actual or simulated instrument time under § 61.65( d)(2), but may not be applied toward the 15 hours of instrument training unless the flight instructor who provided the flight training under § 61.1 09( a )(3) held an instrument rating on his or her flight instructor cetiificate and otherwise meets the requirements of § 61.65.​

Here's the 2016 Rohfing opinion.

 

[AggieMike88]

Okay, I get the concept of the ruling, but how in the heck is it going to be enforced? Is it to the DPE to look for the instructor's signature on that lesson and then look up the cert# to determine if the double-I was held?

 

[EdFred]

Okay, I get the concept of the ruling, but how in the heck is it going to be enforced? Is it to the DPE to look for the instructor's signature on that lesson and then look up the cert# to determine if the double-I was held?

If you're a CFII you sign it CFII.

Whodathunk it would be that simple. Maybe there's an app for that.

 

[James331]

Not always.

Similar I don't always sign off writtens as CFI, sometimes I'll sign it off as a GI.

For non instrument students, non instrument flights, I'd just sign it CFI, remember you can be a CFII and not a CFI, which would be a issue for most PPL and CPL training.


It would be nice if folks would stop asking the FAA questions

 

[EdFred]

Well if you sign it as CFI and not CFII it's not instrument instruction, and shouldn't/wouldn't be counted towards the 15 hours.

IOW if I don't sign it as CFII, then I'm not acting as a CFII - so it wouldn't count towards the 15 hours.

But who are these ****ing cheap-ass pilots that won't spring for an extra $150 bucks for 3 hours of training?

 

[Brad Z]

Okay, I get the concept of the ruling, but how in the heck is it going to be enforced? Is it to the DPE to look for the instructor's signature on that lesson and then look up the cert# to determine if the double-I was held?

If you're a CFII you sign it CFII.

Whodathunk it would be that simple. Maybe there's an app for that.

Except that technically the extra 'I' is not part of your CFI certificate number. Either way, it is the responsibility of the instructor to make sure they are not logging instruction they are not authorized to provide.

It's sort of like whether a CFI is authorized to provide a spin endorsement for a CFI candidate. There's nothing in the spin endorsement indicating how long the instructor has held his CFI certificate (and consequently whether he is authorized to provide the training).

 

[dmspilot]

Well if you sign it as CFI and not CFII it's not instrument instruction, and shouldn't/wouldn't be counted towards the 15 hours.

An assertion that has no basis in fact.

 

[EdFred]

An assertion that has no basis in fact.

Really? It might be flight by reference to instruments, which is not the same as instrument instruction.

 

[EdFred]

Except that technically the extra 'I' is not part of your CFI certificate number. Either way, it is the responsibility of the instructor to make sure they are not logging instruction they are not authorized to provide.

It's sort of like whether a CFI is authorized to provide a spin endorsement for a CFI candidate. There's nothing in the spin endorsement indicating how long the instructor has held his CFI certificate (and consequently whether he is authorized to provide the training).

I guess all my endorsements I received for my instrument training are null and void and I need to turn in a bunch a certs then.

 

[dmspilot]

Well if you sign it as CFI and not CFII it's not instrument instruction

An assertion that has no basis in fact.

Really? It might be flight by reference to instruments, which is not the same as instrument instruction.

I thought it was clear that I was talking about the part where you said the instructor has to write "CFII" in the logbook in order for it to count as instrument instruction toward an instrument rating.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Okay, I get the concept of the ruling, but how in the heck is it going to be enforced? Is it to the DPE to look for the instructor's signature on that lesson and then look up the cert# to determine if the double-I was held?

I think two ways.

One, it's probably a good idea, as others said, to use the CFII in the signature block, at least for these entries.

But the other is based on the way CFIs are supposed to document 61.65 training so it can be counted toward 61.129 instrument training requirements - make the application clear in the description of the training given. The "otherwise meets the requirements of §61.65" language in the Rohlfing Interpretation suggests to me that we need to do it when giving FAR 61.109 instrument instruction intended to apply to FAR 61.65.

 

[Shawn]

Okay, I get the concept of the ruling, but how in the heck is it going to be enforced? Is it to the DPE to look for the instructor's signature on that lesson and then look up the cert# to determine if the double-I was held?

How do they know your safety pilot was current?...it's not a problem until it is a problem.

 

[EdFred]

I thought it was clear that I was talking about the part where you said the instructor has to write "CFII" in the logbook in order for it to count as instrument instruction toward an instrument rating.

Go sign all your instrument students off as CFI and see how many get their check ride discontinued or not even started

 

[Somedudeintn]

So flight by reference to the instruments with a cfi who is not a CFII before the private doesn't count toward the 40, but flight with a safety pilot after the cert does? I thought all logged simulated + actual instrument time counted toward the 40.

Thanks for posting this.

 

[mscard88]

Except that technically the extra 'I' is not part of your CFI certificate number. QUOTE]

This right here. Never have signed it as "CFII", just my certificate number (which only has CFI on it) and expiration date.

 

[mscard88]

Go sign all your instrument students off as CFI and see how many get their check ride discontinued or not even started

I did, and do, and none have experienced what you posted. Since 1978 too.

 

[dmspilot]

Go sign all your instrument students off as CFI and see how many get their check ride discontinued or not even started

Such a discontinuation would be an error on the part of the examiner. "CFII" is not even a thing as far as the FAA is concerned. It's a colloquial acronym, just like MEI. My instructor did not write 1234567MEI in my logbook when he endorsed me for my multiengine checkride.

 

[EdFred]

SO I guess I can just start signing off students without the II and it will never get checked ever. What's the point of getting the II then?

Just went through my logbook. 5 different instrument instructors. Every single one put II down, and they were from 3 different flight schools. My multi guy even signed it CFII/MEI even though it was for my SES. Then did the same thing for when I actually did multi training.

 

[EdFred]

So flight by reference to the instruments with a cfi who is not a CFII before the private doesn't count toward the 40, but flight with a safety pilot after the cert does? I thought all logged simulated + actual instrument time counted toward the 40.

Thanks for posting this.

It counts towards the 40, not the 15.

 

[Somedudeintn]

So flight by reference to the instruments with a cfi who is not a CFII before the private doesn't count toward the 40, but flight with a safety pilot after the cert does? I thought all logged simulated + actual instrument time counted toward the 40.

Thanks for posting this.

Just read the letter, I mixed up the 15 and 40

 

[fiveoboy01]

I'm well over the minimum simulated IFR time requirements for the rating so this isn't relevant to me but I do agree with Ed. What's an extra few hours?

 

[mscard88]

SO I guess I can just start signing off students without the II and it will never get checked ever. What's the point of getting the II then?

Just went through my logbook. 5 different instrument instructors. Every single one put II down, and they were from 3 different flight schools.

Part 61 will explain it for ya!

But no harm done if you want to sign it that way.

 

[midlifeflyer]

So flight by reference to the instruments with a cfi who is not a CFII before the private doesn't count toward the 40, but flight with a safety pilot after the cert does? I thought all logged simulated + actual instrument time counted toward the 40.

Not quite.

There are two distinct instrument requirements under 61.65.

• "Forty hours of actual or simulated instrument time." Any instrument time counts. CFI, CFII, safety pilot. Before the private or after the private. Always has.
• "of which 15 hours must have been received from an authorized instructor who holds an instrument-airplane rating." It is this 15 hours which has been the issue that is addressed in the interpretation.

 

[James331]

SO I guess I can just start signing off students without the II and it will never get checked ever. What's the point of getting the II then?

Just went through my logbook. 5 different instrument instructors. Every single one put II down, and they were from 3 different flight schools. My multi guy even signed it CFII/MEI even though it was for my SES. Then did the same thing for when I actually did multi training.

Easy killer.

 

[MauleSkinner]

SO I guess I can just start signing off students without the II and it will never get checked ever. What's the point of getting the II then?

Okay, I get the concept of the ruling, but how in the heck is it going to be enforced? Is it to the DPE to look for the instructor's signature on that lesson and then look up the cert# to determine if the double-I was held?

It IS the responsibility of the examiner to determine that all requirements for the certificate are met...how he does that is up to him. Notice on the back of the 8710, the examiner checks a box that says:
"I have personally reviewed this applicant’s pilot logbook and/or training record, and I certify that the individual meets the applicable requirements of 14 CFR Part 61 for the certificate or rating sought."

Just went through my logbook. 5 different instrument instructors. Every single one put II down, and they were from 3 different flight schools. My multi guy even signed it CFII/MEI even though it was for my SES. Then did the same thing for when I actually did multi training.

some of that can be ego, some of it just "covering the bases", some of it ignorance of what is actually required, and some of it may be the instructor simply trying to make the examiner's job easier..basic relationsh building.

 

[James331]

I guess if the examiner really wanted to, or doubted you, he could just take a minute or two and run you in the database before the ride and make sure youre an instrument instructor, just as any prospective student, fellow CFI, or bored airport bum could

Why would you BS it?
Even if you're netting $50+ hr cash, no one smart enough to get their CPL,CFI,II is going to risk loosing all their certs and a dirty PRIA on dual instruction.

It's all on the record, the 8710 and your airmans file.

If anyone ever got curious or sent in a anonymous complaint to the FSDO and they compared when/if you got your CFI/CFII/MEI to when you signed off a student, it would be open and shut, ending your career as a pilot.

There are much more lucrative ways to risk your entire career, if you're willing to go full on outlaw, other than simple dual instruction.

 

[timwinters]

Dumb ruling, You're PPL training should count. But, only the hours that are required...3...regardless of if it's a CFII or just a CFI. Now if you do 6 hours under the hood with a CFI while getting your private, then only 3 should count....

 

[EdFred]

I guess if the examiner really wanted to, or doubted you, he could just take a minute or two and run you in the database before the ride and make sure youre an instrument instructor, just as any prospective student, fellow CFI, or bored airport bum could

Why would you BS it?
Even if you're netting $50+ hr cash, no one smart enough to get their CPL,CFI,II is going to risk loosing all their certs and a dirty PRIA on dual instruction.

It's all on the record, the 8710 and your airmans file.

If anyone ever got curious or sent in a anonymous complaint to the FSDO and they compared when/if you got your CFI/CFII/MEI to when you signed off a student, it would be open and shut, ending your career as a pilot.

There are much more lucrative ways to risk your entire career, if you're willing to go full on outlaw, other than simple dual instruction.

Well, as a CFI without an II I can give all the instruction that a CFII can give, I just can't sign it off as instrument training. It would all be "flight by reference to instruments", but in the description of training it would certainly LOOK like instrument training. I would just never sign it as "instrument training." Then they go finish up with an II for the 3 hours/2 months of check ride sign off. DPE looks at the logbook and never knows. Hell, I may never tell the student I'm not an II. I haven't lied, I've been completely truthful with my logbook endorsements, and the student has no clue that I was never an II. The DPE wouldn't know either. Granted it's the honor system on signing CFI vs CFII, but since no one gives a ****, why go to a CFII if the logbook is going to be signed CFI anyway?

 

[dmspilot]

Why bother wearing the hood if no one can prove that you wore it. Why have a current medical if you never get ramp-checked. This line of logic is silly.

 

[EdFred]

Why bother wearing the hood if no one can prove that you wore it. Why have a current medical if you never get ramp-checked. This line of logic is silly.

And why not just sign it CFII and not worry about it?

I don't wear a hood. I wear a view limiting device. I mean if we all want to go to the roncachamp school of pedantry...

 

[Everskyward]

Pretty much everything is on the honor system unless they check.

I have never signed CFII or MEI but I don't care what anyone else signs.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Dumb ruling, You're PPL training should count. But, only the hours that are required...3...regardless of if it's a CFII or just a CFI. Now if you do 6 hours under the hood with a

The ruling matches the rule...and I'd bet that if we could find documentation of intent, the goal for the Private Pilot "flight by reference to instruments" would differ greatly from the Instrument rating's "instrument instruction" requirement.

Unfortunately, they aren't notmally treated differently, to the detriment of the VFR pilot, IMO.

 

[James331]

Why bother wearing the hood if no one can prove that you wore it. Why have a current medical if you never get ramp-checked. This line of logic is silly.

Heck why bother even flying the plane before the checkride lol

Typically it's going to be pretty obvious if someone is faking quite a bit, and it's also a risk to reward, which is why you don't see folks trying to BS all this stuff left and right.

Besides doing it right ain't that much more work, it's kinda fun and is way less stress then having tons of lies hanging over your throat like a guillotine ready to drop

 

[EdFred]

Besides doing it right ain't that much more work, it's kinda fun and is way less stress then having tons of lies hanging over your throat like a guillotine ready to drop

That assumes you have a conscience. When it comes to dealing with the government I don't.

 

[Somedudeintn]

I think I've just learned that I don't need to worry about any requirements or a checkride. I'm just going to start filing ifr.

 

[James331]

That assumes you have a conscience. When it comes to dealing with the government I don't.

Preaching to the choir brother, I'd take the risk of less "saftey" for way less government any day.

That said I choose my battles, and BSing dual instruction just doesn't make sense.

 

[mscard88]

Just went through my logbook. 5 different instrument instructors. Every single one put II down, and they were from 3 different flight schools. My multi guy even signed it CFII/MEI even though it was for my SES. Then did the same thing for when I actually did multi training.

No harm done I guess. I have a CFII & MEI but my certificate is the number followed my CFI. That's it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

The ruling matches the rule...and I'd bet that if we could find documentation of intent, the goal for the Private Pilot "flight by reference to instruments" would differ greatly from the Instrument rating's "instrument instruction" requirement.

No doubt it is. And the quality of the private pilot task is far below the quality of the instrument pilot task. OTOH, you have to walk before you learn to run and, considering one of the enumerated 61.65 instrument training tasks is: "Flight by reference to instruments"...

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Go sign all your instrument students off as CFI and see how many get their check ride discontinued or not even started

Ed, take a look at your CFI certificate. What does it show for your CFI number? Your Certificate number plus CFI, right? That is all that is required. Anything more is your preference but it is not required.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Question. Isn't IACRA smart enough to know if the recommending CFI is qualified to recommend a student for a given certificate or rating?