IFR currency on a FAA approved Flight Simulator

[ivanrdgz]

As you know, in order to maintain the IFR currency an IFR pilot needs to complete within 6 months 6 approaches, holding and track vectors, etc. The FAR say that this can be accomplished on an approved by FAA simulator as long as there is an "approved flight instructor" to monitor and sign the log book. My question is: Does the flight instructor on this case need to be a CFII?

Thank you!

 

[MauleSkinner]

CFII or IGI.

 

[cwoods798]

Yes, if he is signing off on instrument training, he would need to be an instrument instructor.

 

[Kritchlow]

Shucks... What constitutes an FAA approved sim these days?? Technology has truly passed me by. All I know about sims are the big full motion ones.

 

[simtech]

Shucks... What constitutes an FAA approved sim these days?? Technology has truly passed me by. All I know about sims are the big full motion ones.

Not sure actually but will say this. At the flight school where I did my IR training, their FAA certified simulator was xplane running in an enclosed mock Cessna cockpit. Nothing fancy. What made it certified, I have no idea.

I maintain simulators for the Air Force, the T-6 specifically. Here we have the T-6, T-1, and T-38 simulators for undergraduate pilot training and none of them are motion. But they are not FAA certified though in sure they could be. But Ive had many people in them who we had to stop them because they were feeling sick. Then they would walk sideways down the hall. haha Very realistic for not being on motion.

 

[FlyingJ]

CFII or IGI.

My understanding is an IGI cannot sign off on sim time because it is considered flight instruction.

 

[Gucci Pilot]

In a nutshell FTDs don't move and are classified by a number 1-7(7 being the most sophisticated)
"Simulators" move and are categorized by a letter A-D(D being the most sophisticated)

Good article on FTDs/Sims: http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2011/May/1/ABCs-of-Simulators

If a FTD/simulator is approved, it will have a letter from the FAA stating so.

 

[flyingron]

My understanding is an IGI cannot sign off on sim time because it is considered flight instruction.

Yes, for a brief period there was an interpretation that said they could, but that was stomped on subsequently. It makes sense. IGI's don't demonstrate anything other than parrotting the FAA written test pablum.

 

[ivanrdgz]

Yes, if he is signing off on instrument training, he would need to be an instrument instructor.

That's the thing that keeps bothering me: I believe "currency" is not training and according to the FAR the instructor is present to observe that time and signs the person's logbook. He doesn't need to train.

Anyways, thanks everyone for the quick response.

Ivan

 

[MauleSkinner]

My understanding is an IGI cannot sign off on sim time because it is considered flight instruction.

You are correct...my bad.

 

[Steven8385]

Can someone show me where it says an instructor needs to be present for currency?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Can someone show me where it says an instructor needs to be present for currency?

While there are other ways to obtain currency, 61.51 specifies the requirements for logging...61.51(g)(4)says:

(4) A person can use time in a flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device for acquiring instrument aeronautical experience for a pilot certificate, rating, or instrument recency experience, provided an authorized instructor is present to observe that time and signs the person's logbook or training record to verify the time and the content of the training session.

 

[BigBadLou]

Can someone show me where it says an instructor needs to be present for currency?

I am curious too. I cannot claim that I know the FARs perfectly and would love to know the answer.

 

[Gucci Pilot]

Maul Skinner Just posted it. 61.51(g)(4): Logging Instrument Time

A person can use time in a flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device for acquiring instrument aeronautical experience for a pilot certificate, rating, or instrument recency experience, provided an authorized instructor is present to observe that time and signs the person's logbook or training record to verify the time and the content of the training session.

 

[BigBadLou]

Maul Skinner Just posted it.

I didn't refresh before I posted. Thanks.

 

[Gucci Pilot]

I didn't refresh before I posted. Thanks.

 

[Bonchie]

Couldn't it be cheaper to just go do an IPC with your instructor? Don't you only have to do 3 approaches with an IPC?

 

[gismo]

Couldn't it be cheaper to just go do an IPC with your instructor? Don't you only have to do 3 approaches with an IPC?

That's up to the CFII and his perception of your competency.

 

[flyingron]

Couldn't it be cheaper to just go do an IPC with your instructor? Don't you only have to do 3 approaches with an IPC?

You can do a MINIMUM of three approaches, plus a lot of other things. The IPC must consist at a minimum of the tasks on the checkride. For my IPC's my instructor just takes the little grid of tasks and tells me to go fly stuff and he ticks each one off as I do it. If I plan things right I can do them as efficiently as my checkride (where the examiner knew exactly how to do them in minimum time).

For example, you need to do a partial panel, circling, 2 non-precision, one precision, one full-stop, landing to comply with everything. Yes, can reduce that to three approaches if you plan appropriately.

 

[Palmpilot]

That's the thing that keeps bothering me: I believe "currency" is not training and according to the FAR the instructor is present to observe that time and signs the person's logbook. He doesn't need to train.

Kinda makes me wonder why the FAA requires the instructor to be there when you're using an FTD, but not when you're using an aircraft. It would be just as easy for people to pencil-whip their logbooks in either case.

 

[flyingron]

Kinda makes me wonder why the FAA requires the instructor to be there when you're using an FTD, but not when you're using an aircraft. It would be just as easy for people to pencil-whip their logbooks in either case.

It's a bone thrown to getting the ATDs approved at all, I suppose. Further, I think they believe that they can always resort to checking the maintenance times on the aircraft if push came to shove (they did use this to string up a couple of instructors for shady time logging a few years back).

 

[Palmpilot]

...Further, I think they believe that they can always resort to checking the maintenance times on the aircraft if push came to shove (they did use this to string up a couple of instructors for shady time logging a few years back).

If that's their rationale, that doesn't make sense either, because they could check the rental records on the FTD.

 

[flyingron]

If that's their rationale, that doesn't make sense either, because they could check the rental records on the FTD.

What rental records?

 

[Palmpilot]

Other than pilots whose employers provide FTDs or simulators, I'm assuming that most people who use them rent them.

 

[dmspilot]

That's up to the CFII and his perception of your competency.

This is true, I recently flew with someone who wanted their 6 approaches for currency. Judging by the pilot's performance, I would not give them an IPC without a lot more training.

Kinda makes me wonder why the FAA requires the instructor to be there when you're using an FTD, but not when you're using an aircraft. It would be just as easy for people to pencil-whip their logbooks in either case.

I think because it's too easy to treat a FTD/ATD like a game if no instructor is present.

That said does anyone know if it is permissible for an instructor to signoff sim time by looking at the computer analysis after the flight instead of sitting there the entire time? I believe I read once that it was but would like some backup.