Simulated instrument and dual given

E

echelon

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
13
Display Name
Display name:
echelon
61.51(g)(2) says that an authorized instructor may log instrument time when conducting instrument flight instruction in actual instrument flight conditions.

Does that (or anything else) prohibit an instructor from logging simulated instrument time while also logging dual given, assuming the student is appropriately rated in the aircraft to act as a safety pilot?

Thanks.
 
echelon said:
61.51(g)(2) says that an authorized instructor may log instrument time when conducting instrument flight instruction in actual instrument flight conditions.

Does that (or anything else) prohibit an instructor from logging simulated instrument time while also logging dual given, assuming the student is appropriately rated in the aircraft to act as a safety pilot?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Just to restate, you're talking about the case where the instructor is under the hood and the "student" (with at least a private pilot rating) acts as safety pilot and is watching for traffic?

The quoted regulation does not address these circumstances. I am not aware of any other regulation that directly addresses it, but haven't looked.
 
I'm trying to figure why an instructor would be under the hood while giving training to someone else. But yes, if that were to be the case, then the hooded instructor would be able to log simulated instrument time while giving training to the unhooded trainee, although the trainee would not be able to log instrument time. Note that this would not be possible with a trainee who doesn't qualify as a safety pilot under 91.109(c) and 61.23, i.e., holding at least Private Pilot with the appropriate category/class rating, and a valid medical certificate.

However, in the more likely situation where the trainee is hooded, the instructor is acting as safety pilot as well as giving training, and they are not in actual instrument conditions, the instructor does not meet the requirements to log instrument time of any type, nor any events for recent instrument experience.
 
Not a regular procedure, but I once had a student who was really having a tough time grasping how small the corrections needed to be on an ILS approach. I finally said give me the foggles, watch me fly the approach, and see how the corrections look both on the gauges and outside while I wore the foggles to prove I wasn't cheating.

I don't find this necessary with most students, but it really worked with him.
 
Dave Theisen said:
Not a regular procedure, but I once had a student who was really having a tough time grasping how small the corrections needed to be on an ILS approach. I finally said give me the foggles, watch me fly the approach, and see how the corrections look both on the gauges and outside while I wore the foggles to prove I wasn't cheating.

I don't find this necessary with most students, but it really worked with him.
Click to expand...

This is one. Also, the students at my flight school don't pay for their training (foreign airlines do) so many instructors will fly an approach every once in a while if the opportunity presents itself during time building flights after the student's IR checkride to stay current. Students don't care, instructor stays current, but I wanted to make sure that it is actually legal
 
\__[Ô]__/;978699 said:
I was wondering that too. Perhaps training for CFII?
Click to expand...
In that case, the CFI under the hood would be logging training received, not given. If the instructor under the hood was just practicing for CFI-IA with a non-instructor safety pilot in the left seat, then the hooded instructor would not be giving or receiving training.
 
Dave Theisen said:
Not a regular procedure, but I once had a student who was really having a tough time grasping how small the corrections needed to be on an ILS approach. I finally said give me the foggles, watch me fly the approach, and see how the corrections look both on the gauges and outside while I wore the foggles to prove I wasn't cheating.

I don't find this necessary with most students, but it really worked with him.
Click to expand...
Instructor creativeness at work. I've never found it necessary to don a vision-restricting device to make that point, but I guess there could be trainees who are skeptical enough not to believe it any other way.
 
echelon said:
This is one. Also, the students at my flight school don't pay for their training (foreign airlines do) so many instructors will fly an approach every once in a while if the opportunity presents itself during time building flights after the student's IR checkride to stay current. Students don't care, instructor stays current, but I wanted to make sure that it is actually legal
Click to expand...
I guess the question is whether the instructor is really giving training in that situation. The trainee can't be logging PIC or instrument time/events in that case, since s/he isn't the sole manipulator of the controls.
 
question answered. thanks ron
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top