Airline Pilot Central Forums - "exercising the privileges of CFI cert"

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Aviation Law (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/aviation-law/)

- - "exercising the privileges of CFI cert" (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/aviation-law/40095-exercising-privileges-cfi-cert.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoyGonnaDoIt (Post 613543)

https://ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4384.PDF (discussion of whether the CFI was acting as a flight instructor begins on page 6).

That ruling is weird as hell. They seem to be under the impression that whenever a CFI is giving instruction, he's automatically always acting as PIC. It didn't mention this in the document, but what of he didn't have a valid medical? Would they still maintain he is the PIC?

Whats also weird is that this flight had nothing to do with a certificate or rating. It was just a checkout. The FARs don't mention anywhere flight training not for a certificate or rating in relation to CFI privileges. Not even 61.193. Why on earth would they say he was acting as a CFI here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by INTERNET PILOT (Post 614030)

But you can do all those things without a CFI certificate as well. To me, a "privilege" is something granted to you by that certificate that allows you to do something that you otherwise weren't able to do. For instance a PPL privilege is the ability to acting as PIC of a flight, which you couldn't otherwise do with no PPL. A privilege of a commercial license is the ability to get paid to fly, which is something you couldn't do without a commercial license. One privilege of a flight instructor certificate is the ability to sign off someone for a checkride, which is something you couldn't otherwise do. The only reason logging came up is because that something that truly is something you can only do with a CFI certificate. Why should "giving instruction in a plane" be considered a CFI privilege when you are perfectly allowed to do that without a flight instructor certificate? As far as I'm aware, theres nothing wrong with a commercial pilot going up with another pilot and giving him training. It can't be logged as official dual given, but otherwise theres nothing illegal about it. It seems odd to me that by simply having a CFI certificate number attached to your name in the FAA database removes the ability for you to give instruction under the same circumstances that exist for everyone else. If that were the FAA's intentions, they needs to make that a little more clear, because the regs don't make it clear. At least I don't see it.

The training that is for a rating (or cert), is noted in the regs as XX hours dual and XX hrs solo to get a private cert, comm cert, etc. The XX hrs dual is the time that a comm student coundn't teach another comm student. It has to be from a CFI in the airplane with him. This is when the CFI exercises his privilege, and therefore his license must be on him. You are right, two non CFI's could go up together and "teach" the other anything they want, but it is not dual towards a rating. That is the distinction. Another example is that a person coudn't go up with a private pilot, recieve all the training and then have a CFI sign him off for a checkride. The time would not count (and some would be illegal).

By "student" I meant appropriately rated student. I should have been more clear. I brought it up because when I used to instruct, the flight school had a rule that said basically the students are not allowed to solo. They did the 10 hours required for the private license, but after that, they never flew solo again. This was a Part 61 program. They had to do all the 50 hours of PIC XC required for the instrument rating with an instructor on board. During all those flights, was I acting as instructor? Or was I just a commercial pilot who happened to hold a CFI certificate riding along in a plane with another appropriately rated student? I wasn't really doing any instruction, and even if I was, it wasn't instruction for a certificate or rating. All that stuff was strictly timebuilding.

I don't recall anything illegal about that if it was part 61. In 141, the XC time had to be "solo PIC" with no one else in the airplane. I think it was to make sure the student was concentrating on the lesson, and not taking his family on a weekend getaway. In the question on wheter or not you were instructing, if you gave advice or changed a frequency or did anything at all to aid him, then you were instructing. It doesn't matter pt61 as the XC time does not stipulate solo. You said that you were req to be on board for the 50 XC for the Instrument rating. If it was not to provide dual, but to safeguard the airplane, then I don't see why you would need your cert, but I always would CYA because the student came to a(I'm assuming, of course) Flight training facility, rented a plane, rented (did you get paid) an instuctor, and went flying. To most inspectors, that looks like dual given, and you would need your cert on you (in their eyes).

And you do multiple qotes by putting (quote)(/quote) (except brackets instead of parentheses) around each section you want to quote.

Thanks! Cheers.

Well, I think I screwed that all up. Hopefully you can tell my responses to you intermixed with your quote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by INTERNET PILOT (Post 614035)

Under the impression? No. They actually say that, as a matter of regulatory law, a CFI is always PIC.

In pointing out the medical, you've shown the fallacy in the "PIC" reasoning. Periodic gaps in reasoning are part and parcel of the system. This one never bothered me much since, in the case of an instructional flight, I'm satisfied that the result would be the same whether or not the CFI were deemed to be PIC.

Quote:

Whats also weird is that this flight had nothing to do with a certificate or rating. It was just a checkout. The FARs don't mention anywhere flight training not for a certificate or rating in relation to CFI privileges. Not even 61.193. Why on earth would they say he was acting as a CFI here?

Because we're on Earth.

I think you're making two interpretive errors.

First, you appear to be equating "you have to be a CFI in order to do A, B and C" with "the =only= time a CFI is acting as a CFI is when he is doing A, B and C." I think that's a logical fallacy. If not, then it just ain't the way it works.

Second, and this is related, you seem to be focusing on the words on the page and leaving out both the regulatory and non-regulatory context. That's what a jailhouse lawyer does when he finds the 3 words in the paragraph of 30 that he's convinced represents the loophole that will set him free from prison . But context is part of legal interpretation. It's definitely not just about the words on the page.

The CFI-student context is one where a certain level of reliance is placed by the student, the general public, and the FAA on the CFI that is simply not placed on the non-CFI.

Sure, as you point out, a non-CFI can give instruction (that doesn't count). There is no FAA required training called "checkout." Nor is there any FAA requirement for any recurrent training for the average Part 91 GA pilot except for a flight review and an IPC.

But, with rare exceptions, FBOs, insurers, the FAA and pilots themselves choose someone who has been credentialed by the FAA as an instructor for checkouts, recurrent training, meeting insurance requirements for dual and a whole bunch of other instructional tasks. Maybe if you're having crosswind landing difficulties, you call Joe Pilot to help you out. But most pilots call a CFI.

That's the context in which the words "exercising the privileges of a flight instructor" exist and in which a CFI's responsibilities are measured.

Sure, you can play with the words the way a jailhouse lawyer does. But the result is purely academic in the same way as arguing that 1+1=10. It's absolutely true in a binary world, just not in the world in which we live.

Quote:

Originally Posted by INTERNET PILOT (Post 614030)

By "student" I meant appropriately rated student. I should have been more clear. I brought it up because when I used to instruct, the flight school had a rule that said basically the students are not allowed to solo. They did the 10 hours required for the private license, but after that, they never flew solo again. This was a Part 61 program. They had to do all the 50 hours of PIC XC required for the instrument rating with an instructor on board. During all those flights, was I acting as instructor? Or was I just a commercial pilot who happened to hold a CFI certificate riding along in a plane with another appropriately rated student? I wasn't really doing any instruction, and even if I was, it wasn't instruction for a certificate or rating. All that stuff was strictly timebuilding.

Of course a rated "student" can do anything his ratings allow. Generally the term "student pilot" means someone who has a student pilot cert attached to his medical.

Once you are rated, the definition of "student" depends on what the two pilots agree on. A rated CFI can give loggable dual, or he can go for an airplane ride and give helpful hints. I actually do the later for my IR-rated (but very rusty) uncle. He doesn't need to log the instrument practice as dual, and I don't want to bother with commercial flying conflicts to my airline job.

You have to be careful trying to count numerous XC ride-alongs as dual-given...the FAA wants to see a legit instructional purpose working on cert, rating, endorsement, BFR, IPC, club checkout, aircraft fam flight, area/route fam flight, etc).

However, I suspect in your case that since the XC was specifically targeted at the 50 hours required for the IR, you could make a case that it was legit dual-given instrument instruction (assuming the student wore a hood). Or you could do SP. If he didn't log hood time, you would probably still get away with logging dual, but you would be on thinner ice. I doubt the FAA would bother trying to pick nits within the required aeronautical experience for a rating...you can always do more dual than the min required.

But that hood is your buddy...don't leave home without it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoyGonnaDoIt (Post 614117)

Under the impression? No. They actually say that, as a matter of regulatory law, a CFI is always PIC.

In pointing out the medical, you've shown the fallacy in the "PIC" reasoning.

Fallacy? 61.3(c) makes it pretty clear that a medical certificate is required to act as the PIC of a flight. Do you know of a regulation that says otherwise?

Quote:

First, you appear to be equating "you have to be a CFI in order to do A, B and C" with "the =only= time a CFI is acting as a CFI is when he is doing A, B and C." I think that's a logical fallacy. If not, then it just ain't the way it works.

Thats the way it works for pilot certificates. The commercial certificate and private pilot certificate only give you the ability to act as PIC of a flight. When you're not in an airplane acting as PIC you might as well not even have the certificate in the eyes of the FAA. I'm applying this principle to flight instructor certificates as well.

Quote:

That's the context in which the words "exercising the privileges of a flight instructor" exist and in which a CFI's responsibilities are measured.

Sure, you can play with the words the way a jailhouse lawyer does. But the result is purely academic in the same way as arguing that 1+1=10. It's absolutely true in a binary world, just not in the world in which we live.

There are no words to play around with. Thats my point. The FAA does not define under what circumstances a person holding a CFI certificate is "acting as a flight instructor". That whole diatribe you posted is all simply things you and others have made up. If thats the FAA's real honest-to-goodness intention of how the CFI certificate works, then it must be written somewhere. Maybe you can post it, because I'd love to read it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by INTERNET PILOT (Post 615383)

Fallacy? 61.3(c) makes it pretty clear that a medical certificate is required to act as the PIC of a flight. Do you know of a regulation that says otherwise?

Interesting. You're so intent on arguing that you don't even recognize it when someone agrees with you.

Guess my initial impression was the right one. My bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoyGonnaDoIt (Post 615740)

Interesting. You're so intent on arguing that you don't even recognize it when someone agrees with you.

Guess my initial impression was the right one. My bad.

edit: I just re-read your post and I see what you're saying now. At first I thought you meant there was something wrong with my reasoning when you said "you've shown the fallacy in the "PIC" reasoning." You were referring to the judge's "PIC" reasoning, correct?