FTD endorsement by CFI (single-I): “authorized instructor”?

7 Answers

1. 
   

   
   

   R. Anderson on May 31, 2017

   This is a tricky question.

   There is currently a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [NPRM] (Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 92 / Thursday, May 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules) that proposes to:

   “Remove the requirement to have an
   instructor present when accomplishing
   flight experience requirements
   for instrument recency in an
   FAA-approved FFS, FTD, or ATD.” (from the NPRM shown above).

   As far as I can tell, it has not yet been published (comments on the NPRM were supposed to be sent in prior to Aug. 10, 2016)

   To your question, you may want to consider the following, which is strictly my own opinion.

   1. 61.1 (b) (ii) – Authorized instructor means “. . . when conducting ground training or flight training . . .”

   My comment:

   61.51(g)(4) states “. . . provided an authorized instructor is present to observe that time and signs the person’s logbook . . . to verify the time and the content. . . ” .

   Since the instructor is only present to “observe” and “verify” I don’t think these criteria can be strictly construed as being appropriately associated with the operative words in 61.1 (b)(ii) – “. . . conducting ground training or flight training.” In other words, the instructor is not conducting training, only observing and verifying its completion.

   By signing the logbook under 61.51(g)(4), the instructor is not attesting nor taking specific responsibility for the pilot’s skill, quality of performance or that any particular standard was achieved. The instructor is only verifying the “time” and “content” of the session.

   2. If a single I CFI (not a II) signed the logbook of someone who he/she observed in order to verify the time and content of the session, and it was alleged that a violation had occurred, what FAR would have been violated? In order to be a violation, a specific regulation has to apply and the alleged violation must fit in context within the wording of that cited regulation.

   3. Lastly, it seems the FAA’s intention (see the NPRM) is to remove the requirement that an “authorized instructor” be present during the instrument recency session described in your question. Therefore, it seems unlikely to me that there would be an effort made to challenge a single I CFI’s authority to sign the logbook.

   Just my opinion

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

2. 
   

   
   

   Mark Kolber on Jun 02, 2017

   The good news is, as R Anderson points out, the FAA is in the process of removing the instructor requirement for simulator instrument currency. Hopefully, anyway, since the FAA planned on doing it before but literally forgot to change the reg.

   So, more or less as an academic discussion, the FAA has waltzed around the question without, to be best of my recollection, answering it. You already have part of the waltz, all training toward the rating or an IPC need to be from a II.

   The other pieces are Chief Counsel interpretations that all “instrument training” must be with a II regardless of whether it is intended to “count” toward an instrument rating, letters that flight instructors, and not ground instructors are “authorized instructors” in a device, and probable a few others here and there that, collectively suggest to me that, if asked, the FAA would say the authorized instructor who must be “present” to monitor device usage is performing an flight instructor task and, if the device is being used for instrument currency that flight instructor must have an II.

   Hopefully we’ll never need to find out

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

3. 
   

   
   

   R. Anderson on Jun 02, 2017

   Thanks for your comment Mark.

   I’m not aware that the FAA has an interpretation that all instrument training, even if it does not “count” towards an instrument rating, must be done by a CFII.

   My comment/opinion:

   A person is only required to log:

   1. Training and aeronautical experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate, rating or flight review. per 61.51 (a)(1).

   (the “Training” part of this sentence is from an “authorized instructor,” and the “aeronautical experience” part of this sentence includes the pilot himself [e.g. solo time, when required] and with an instructor, where specified.

   and/or

   2. The aeronautical experience required to meet the “recent flight experience” requirements. per 61.51 (a)(2).

   As the regs show, “recent flight experience” [e.g. 61.57) is a “currency” requirement that can be acquired by the pilot himself. If the pilot is simultaneously receiving training, of course some of that time can be used to meet “currency” but it’s not necessary. The IPC, if one is required because currency limits have been exceeded, is a check, not training.

   3. Logging of anything else is not required, but can be done if the pilot chooses to (e.g., for insurance reasons, as a diary, etc.)

   It’s my belief that if a person wants to receive training from someone who does not have instructor credentials, as long as that person does not use that time towards meeting the requirements of a “certificate,” “rating,” or “flight review,” he is free to do so.

   Anyway, I don’t want to dispute your point, but if you can point me to the letter of interpretation you mention, I would appreciate it. I’ve been wrong many times before and don’t mind being corrected.

   Thanks

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

4. 
   

   
   

   Mark Kolber on Jun 03, 2017

   >>I’m not aware that the FAA has an interpretation that all instrument training, even if it does not “count” towards an instrument rating, must be done by a CFII.

   https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2010/grayson-3%20-%20(2010)%20legal%20interpretation.pdf

   And, of course, we are only talking about time logged as instruction received. I tend to assume that when the question is about what may be endorsed.

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

5. 
   

   
   

   Mark Kolber on Jun 03, 2017

   “Accordingly, any training provided to a pilot seeking an instrument rating (including instrument training in addition to the minimum training required under 61.65(d)(2)) would be instrument training, and the CFI providing that training must have an instrument rating on the flight instructor and pilot certificates.”

   The interpretation was in response to a question promoted by the common practice in some flight schools of having CFIs who are II candidates provide some of the non-required training as a benefit to both trainers. Unfortunate question with an even worse answer. I ended up having a conversation with the author.

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

6. 
   

   
   

   R. Anderson on Jun 03, 2017

   To your point Mark,

   re: 61.51(g)(4) – an authorized instructor is “observing” and “verifying” the “time” and “content” of the training session. (Not conducting “training,” nor attesting to the pilot’s skill, quality of performance or that any particular standard was achieved. )

   Therefore, the instructor is not giving training and it should not be logged as “dual given” or “dual received.” The instructor is “signing” the person’s logbook verifying the time and content. This signature is specifically not an endorsement within the meaning of 61.195(d).

   Of course, it the instructor gives “training” in the Sim/FTD/ATD then he/she would need to be a CFII (instrument instructor). This would permit the person receiving the training to simultaneously satisfy all/part of the IFR “Recent flight experience” requirements and log “instrument dual received.”

   Lastly, this is a good discussion, but since the FAA has not (to my knowledge) issued an interpretation specifically on this point, we are left with only speculation as to what their answer would be if asked. Since it appears that the authorized instructor requirement in 61.51(g)(4) will likely be eliminated soon, more analysis may be unwarranted.

   Just my opinion,

   Thanks

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

7. 
   

   
   

   lhornaday on Jun 04, 2017

   Yes, you may.

   14 CFR Section 61.193 states that person who holds a flight instructor certificate is authorized to to train and issue endorsements for (#7) recency of experience requirements.

   14 CFR Section 61.51(g)(4) states that recency of experience can be obtained in a FTD.

   This time may not however, as you stated, be used to meet the requirements for instrument rating (limited by 61.195(c)).

   +1 Votes 1 Votes  0 Votes