Airline Pilot Central Forums
Page 4 of 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Part 91 and Low Time (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/part-91-low-time/)
-   -   Multi-Engine Time Building (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/part-91-low-time/56340-multi-engine-time-building.html)

rotorhead1026 02-11-2011 11:38 AM
Originally Posted by darkroomsource (Post 943318)
Ramp check includes looking at your log books.
Safety pilot can be legit, but not for splitting the cost.
CFII - not sure he can instruct in an ME without MEI.
You only need one FAA examiner to read this thread and ...
Don't carry your logbook. Problem solved.

IIRC, CFII can technically instruct (instrument only) in category, as long as s/he has a commercial multi. Legal is one thing, though, and qualified is another.

I'm personally not a fan of these safety pilot / PIC "schemes", and I expect a lot of interviewers aren't either. You have to do what you have to do, but there are always consequences - especially for short cuts. Y'all be careful out there ... :eek:

rickair7777 02-11-2011 01:55 PM
Originally Posted by rotorhead1026 (Post 945821)

IIRC, CFII can technically instruct (instrument only) in category, as long as s/he has a commercial multi. Legal is one thing, though, and qualified is another.
That used to be the case based on the wording of the regulations, but that has been changed by a recent FAA Legal Opinion. You need an MEI to teach anything in a twin.

Originally Posted by rotorhead1026 (Post 945821)
I'm personally not a fan of these safety pilot / PIC "schemes", and I expect a lot of interviewers aren't either. You have to do what you have to do, but there are always consequences - especially for short cuts. Y'all be careful out there ... :eek:
Some employers (or some interviewers) might look down on it or possibly even exclude it, but plenty of folks have gotten hired with SP time. You're better off with a 135 or MEI twin time, but SP time is better than 2800 TT and 28 ME :eek:

snippercr 02-11-2011 02:38 PM
Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 945887)
That used to be the case based on the wording of the regulations, but that has been changed by a recent FAA Legal Opinion. You need an MEI to teach anything in a twin.


Do you know when that changed? I have some documentation that says if you have an Instrument on your CFI, you can teach in twins (instrument only stuff) since your insturment rating is not class specific (Instrument AIRPLANE). I was also under that impression that you can teach instruments in a twin, just not twin stuff (IE Vmc rolls, drag demos, engine failures, or sign off an applicant for a ME add on).

Did the regulation change backwards? For instance, lets say you get your MEI as initial then you get your II. Can you teach instruments to a private pilot in a 172?

rotorhead1026 02-11-2011 03:28 PM
Originally Posted by snippercr (Post 945902)
Do you know when that changed?
I haven't seen that ruling, obviously. I do know a fellow who got his CFII (helicopter) added to his CFI certificate - before he got the CFI helicopter. He could - technically - give instrument instruction in helicopters. This was ten or twelve years ago, though. Lately the chief counsel has been all over the map, with overly restrictive rulings in some cases, and very loose ones (like safety pilot PIC) in others.

Originally Posted by rickair7777
but plenty of folks have gotten hired with SP time. You're better off with a 135 or MEI twin time, but SP time is better than 2800 TT and 28 ME
I'm sure there have been people hired, but I doubt safety pilot time was a big factor. 2800tt, 200me, with 172 hours of it as SP probably doesn't do much. If it gets you over the hump for a rating - or in the front door - then more power to you.

rotorhead1026 02-11-2011 03:49 PM
Here's 61.195 b and c ...


(b) Aircraft Ratings. A flight instructor may not conduct flight training in any aircraft for which the flight instructor does not hold:

(1) A pilot certificate and flight instructor certificate with the applicable category and class rating; and

(2) If appropriate, a type rating.

(c) Instrument Rating. A flight instructor who provides instrument training for the issuance of an instrument rating, a type rating not limited to VFR, or the instrument training required for commercial pilot and airline transport pilot certificates must hold an instrument rating on his or her pilot certificate and flight instructor certificate that is appropriate to the category and class of aircraft used for the training provided.
Some of this verbiage was added three or so years ago, IIRC. It's still clear as mud (there is no "class" instrument rating - for airplanes anyway), but there's less wiggle room for "same category". B prohibits any flight training "off class", but then C mentions instrument training - which might be differentiated from flight training. I'll bet the FAA's ruling made B limiting, but like I said I haven't seen it. Got a link, anyone?

hc0fitted 02-11-2011 07:12 PM
Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 945887)
That used to be the case based on the wording of the regulations, but that has been changed by a recent FAA Legal Opinion. You need an MEI to teach anything in a twin.


You do not need and MEI to instruct in a twin ..... If you are a CFII you can tech Instruments and Instruments ONLY in a twin . I just did my MEI and that question came up in the oral .

rickair7777 02-11-2011 08:58 PM
Originally Posted by hc0fitted (Post 946019)
Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 945887)
That used to be the case based on the wording of the regulations, but that has been changed by a recent FAA Legal Opinion. You need an MEI to teach anything in a twin.


You do not need and MEI to instruct in a twin ..... If you are a CFII you can tech Instruments and Instruments ONLY in a twin . I just did my MEI and that question came up in the oral .
Old tribal knowledge, it was changed last year and apparently not everyone got the memo. Actually I think the FAR was changed several years ago but the FAA had to issue a legal opinion to clarify what 61.195 now says.

Here's the memo...

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/.../Grayson-2.pdf

rotorhead1026 02-12-2011 02:59 AM
We note that FAA Order 8900.1, 5-503, which you referenced in your letter, is inconsistent with the current regulation.
In fact the letter is stamped 4 January 2010 - and they'd apparently not caught up with the new interpretation, paperwork wise. It had been over two years. It seems that many of these rulings catch the rest of the agency by surprise. "Oh, oh yeah, this is what we mean". :rolleyes:

Good link. Thank you.

hc0fitted 02-12-2011 05:10 AM
Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 946057)
Old tribal knowledge, it was changed last year and apparently not everyone got the memo. Actually I think the FAR was changed several years ago but the FAA had to issue a legal opinion to clarify what 61.195 now says.

Here's the memo...

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/.../Grayson-2.pdf
Oh man thanks for that im going to share this information

WingsNthings 02-12-2011 11:11 AM
Originally Posted by Bellanca (Post 943322)
I've had bad luck with getting picked for ramp checks, but have never had them look at my log books. It has happened to me 3 times in my 278 hours of flying. But they have picked on me for the pettiest of things.


Huh? Things that are against the regs that you think are petty? If it is in the regs, it doesn't matter how stupid you think the rules are, they are still against the regs.

And I thought a look at your logbook was a given....

Edit: What on earth have you been doing that you've been ramp checked three times?? I can't say I personally know anyone who has been ramp checked, especially with your time.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:02 PM.
Page 4 of 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands