I must be missing something...

[bbchien]

And this is where Lynch nails the coffin shut:

The situation is a flight instructor has asked the question whether he can give flight training in a tailwheel airplane and yet he has not previously met the additional training requirements for operating a tailwheel airplane [i.e., § 61.31(i)].

ANSWER: Ref. § 61.1(b)(2); § 61.31(i)(1); No, a flight instructor cannot give flight training in a tailwheel airplane for the tailwheel airplane endorsement unless he has complied with § 61.31(i). Per § 61.31(i)(1), it states, in pertinent part, “. . . from an authorized instructor in a tailwheel airplane . . . .” Per § 61.1(b)(2)(ii), it states, in pertinent part, “. . . in accordance with the privileges and limitations of his or her flight instructor certificate . . . .” The flight instructor would not be considered an “authorized instructor” for providing flight training in a tailwheel airplane for the tailwheel airplane endorsement.
{Q&A-551}

 

[EdFred]

Ok, thanks again. The "authorized instructor" only talks about ratings in part 61, nothing about endorsements. Something they forgot to include in the rewrite?

 

[bbchien]

And here's what speaks directly to the "no medical certificate" position:

QUESTION: A multiengine pilot recently received about 100 hours of flight instruction to become proficient in the Piper Aerostar. Since all of his previous multi time had been in a Seminole, one of the endorsements the pilot received during the flight instruction was a high performance checkout. Subsequently, the pilot learned that the flight instructor did not have a valid medical certificate. The flight instructor was certified and current in the airplane. He simply didn't have a medical certificate and could not function as a PIC or a required crewmember. Once discovering the CFI didn't have a medical certificate, the pilot believed that perhaps all of the endorsements he received, even the flight instruction he had logged, would be invalid. Is that the case?

ANSWER: Ref. § 61.23(a)(3)(iv) and (b)(5) and § 61.31(f); Neither the endorsements nor the flight training received would become invalid just because the flight instructor did not have a current medical certificate. No place in § 61.31(f) does it qualify the endorsement or the flight training must be given by an authorized instructor who holds a current medical certificate. Per § 61.31(f)(1)(i) it only requires that the ground and flight training be given by an authorized instructor. And per § 61.1(b)(2), it only defines what is an “authorized instructor.” Nor in §§ 61.193 and 61.195 does it require the authorized instructor must hold a medical certificate. Only in § 61.23(a)(3)(iv) does it establish the medical certification requirements for a flight instructor.

However, the flight instructor will probably be getting a letter of investigation to inquire why he/she was serving as a required crewmember/PIC without holding at least a current medical certificate.
{Q&A-438}

This means the training is legal to the recipient. It's just not possible to keep your CFI certificate if you as an instructor do this.

QUESTION: Does a CFI even need a medical certificate to give flight training?

ANSWER: Ref. § 61.23; Depends on the situation. The medical requirements for a CFI are found in § 61.23.

Reference § 61.3(c)(2)(iv) and § 61.23(b)(5); No, when exercising the privileges of a flight instructor certificate if the person is NOT acting as pilot in command or serving as a required pilot flight crewmember.

Reference § 61.3(c)(1) and § 61.23(a)(3)(iv) Yes, at least a current 3rd class medical certificate when giving instruction to a student pilot (instructor must be PIC), to anyone while that person is using a view limiting device (instructor is the safety pilot), or to a pilot that is not rated in the aircraft (e.g., while preparing a pilot for multiengine, sea-plane, type rating, etc., the instructor must be the PIC).


No They did not forget. They changed the wording to "authorized" so thay could then say who was authorized and who was not. It used to be "Certified". Get it? The regs are just swell, be VERY VERY careful....

 

[EdFred]

I figured that your last post was the case, I just wanted to see it written. However, since the FAQ has been blatantly wrong on a few things before, to me it's still not 100% iron clad until there's an RC statement, or the FARs specifically mention endorsements in the limitations and privlidges section.

To word it more simply on the non medical CFI:

A CFI can give instruction without a medical as long as there is a pilot that is legal to act as PIC at a control station, provided the CFI holds the ratings and endorsements for the instruction given and is not a required crewmember. Correct?

 

[bbchien]

I figured that your last post was the case, I just wanted to see it written. However, since the FAQ has been blatantly wrong on a few things before, to me it's still not 100% iron clad until there's an RC statement, or the FARs specifically mention endorsements in the limitations and privlidges section.

To word it more simply on the non medical CFI:

A CFI can give instruction without a medical as long as there is a pilot that is legal to act as PIC at a control station, provided the CFI holds the ratings and endorsements for the instruction given. Correct?

No, there is one more stipulation. He cannot be a "required" crew member. Required crew members are required to have valid medicals. So if you are essential for the operation, e.g, SAFETY PILOT you have to have a medical. You are a safety pilot when teaching in VFR conditions with the qualified PIC under the hood.

The faq is never "blatantly "wrong. It reflects what the Airman standardization brach wants to have happen. If they learn though general counsel opinion that Lynch is not correct, then they change the wording....to "authorized". Now they can tell you who is authorized and hwo is not. Simple eh? Not worth dancing on the head of a pin. You need to have on your pilot certificate all the capabilities you are to teach. That includes Hi Performance, as well as tailwheel. All CFIs are Complex (the PTS requires it). Dance dance dance...I'd rather get the rating.

 

[EdFred]

No, there is one more stipulation. He cannot be a "required" crew member. Required crew members are required to have valid medicals. So if you are essential for the operation, e.g, SAFETY PILOT you have to have a medical. You are a safety pilot when teaching in VFR conditions with the qualified PIC under the hood.

Can I have a safety pilot in the front and me in the back in that situation?

PS - I edited the post to include the required crewmember part.

 

[bbchien]

Can I have a safety pilot in the front and me in the back in that situation?

PS - I edited the post to include the required crewmember part.

You can, but I'd never allow that on my certificate. If the legal PIC prangs it, they're likely going to action against your CFI certificate, though not your pilot certificate. Mine was too hard earned....yours will be also.

A situation nerly like this occurs when a DPE needs a standardization ride. The FSDO "handler" sits in the back, the DPE gives the checkride, the candidate flies. But here the PIC is the candidate, despite that the DPE is REQUIRED to have a Third Class..

Oh and I see Mr. Lynch moved over to the General and Commercial Division, AFS 800....

 

[EdFred]

That includes Hi Performance, as well as tailwheel. All CFIs are Complex (the PTS requires it). Dance dance dance...I'd rather get the rating.

I totally agree, I just didn't read "authorized" as all encompassing since the definition of it in part 61 was a little ambiguous when it came to endorsements. The ratings - clear as a bell. The endorsements, not so much.

As I said, I had no idea to try and give an endorsement for which I didn't have, but the FARs - as written were not as clearly written as they were for ratings.

 

[bbchien]

I totally agree, I just didn't read "authorized" as all encompassing since the definition of it in part 61 was a little ambiguous when it came to endorsements. The ratings - clear as a bell. The endorsements, not so much.

As I said, I had no idea to try and give an endorsement for which I didn't have, but the FARs - as written were not as clearly written as they were for ratings.

A good CFI giving CFI training to a candidate will give his candidate all the tools necessary for that new CFI to survive. Ed G notwithstanding, I would say that any CFI training that does not familiarize the candidate with Mr. Lynch's function is derelict in character.

If you call the FSDO or AGL-7, guess what they are word searching as they are talking to you....the Faq61 file is what brings all Inspectors into official line, no matter what the reg actually says. And it will be changed to fit the FAQ file next year no matter what.

"Authorization" accomplished that in one sweep. No public comment period required.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

...the FAA took punitive action, that was supported by the NTSB, can you guess who they fried for the crash????????

Aw cmon think real hard.

If this is the infamous case most folks trot out in these situations you'd be well advised to re-read the FAA, NTSB, and civil court records. If it is the case, and if you read the records you will find that the FAA & NTSB did not fry the rear seat, sleeeping CFI. The civil courts are another topic. Personally I find the civil court findings as proof that the CFI was guilty of hiring a bad lawyer--nothing more.

 

[poadeleted20]

OK, let's start with the original questions...

First, it is stated policy of the FAA Flight Standards Service that an instructor may not give a flight review in an aircraft for which the instructor lacks a 61.31 additional training endorsement (ATE). Ref: Part 61 Q&A #551.

Second, it is stated policy of the FAA Flight Standards Service that an instructor may not give a 61.31 additional training endorsement in an aircraft for which the instructor lacks the 61.31 additional training endorsement (ATE). Ref: Part 61 Q&A #551.

OK, that disposes of Ed's two ideas -- both are "no go's."

SkyHog is correct that an instructor without a medical may give flight instruction as long as the instructor is not acting as a required pilot crewmember (or the PIC doesn't need a medical -- see Light Sport rules). This eliminates all primary and instrument instruction, type rating instruction, additional training endorsements, and flying with non-current pilots, and maybe some other things of which I haven't thought.

 

[poadeleted20]

If this is the infamous case most folks trot out in these situations you'd be well advised to re-read the FAA, NTSB, and civil court records. If it is the case, and if you read the records you will find that the FAA & NTSB did not fry the rear seat, sleeeping CFI. The civil courts are another topic. Personally I find the civil court findings as proof that the CFI was guilty of hiring a bad lawyer--nothing more.

No, it is not that case. In the case to which Ed refers, the Private Pilot in the left seat was legal to act as PIC, and was for FAA purposes so acting, at the time of the accident. Thus, the FAA did not consider the CFI asleep in the back to be a crewmember, and no FAA action was taken. However, other passengers sued both the pilot and the instructor for damages, and the jury in the liability case found that the instructor was negligent for failing to keep an eye on the Private Pilot in difficult circumstances.

The result of that case is consistent with the famous (or infamous) case of Newberger v. Pokrass in which the sleeping passenger was found contributorily negligent for going to sleep himself and not making sure the pilot (who had told the passenger he was tired) stayed awake. The pilot fell asleep and the airplane made a soft crash with both occupants asleep. Both survived, and the passenger sued the pilot. The jury reduced the damages the passenger received based on his contributory negligence.

In the case cited here, there seems to be an issue of just who was acting as what when the plane crashed, and it appears the FAA felt the instructor was supposed to be giving instruction at the time, and possibly acting as PIC, thus opening the door for certificate action against the instructor on a range of charges including failing to be at his crew station.

 

[EdFred]

I love how you can break a FAR without clearly breaking a FAR. I didn't think one would be able to do what I was hypothesizing about, but it is still not clearly written.

Authorized says "privlidges"
and "privlidges" does NOT say anything about endorsements.
I'm not arguing for my hypothesis, I just wish they would write it down, so I don't have to dig up a retired FAQ to find an answer.

Would it really be that hard to add to 61.195(d) a section (7) that says:

(7) log book of a pilot with an endorsement for which the flight instructor does not have

Is it really that hard?

 

[SkyHog]

Now, Ed, does it really say privlidges, or does it say Privileges?

 

[EdFred]

Now, Ed, does it really say privlidges, or does it say Privileges?

I never could spell that word without spell check.

 

[poadeleted20]

Would it really be that hard to add to 61.195(d) a section (7) that says:

(7) log book of a pilot with an endorsement for which the flight instructor does not have

Is it really that hard?

Actually, yes, it would be. Except in an emergency, it takes approximately eight years (no, not a guess, not an exaggeration, but the actual number per FAA) to change an FAR.

 

[EdFred]

Only because of bureaucracy. It is not that difficult to do it, except that government has made it difficult for themselves to do it.

I typed it up and made it all official sounding, it's not that difficult. If I can do it....

 

[bbchien]

Find calm and inner peace, grasshopper. He who seeks the true FAR can never find it.