Goggle or hood training for Sport Pilots

[Anticept]

Every Sport Pilot was a student once.

 

Not everyone flies a sport plane that is faster than 87kts CAS.

 

The problem arises because all the other FAR's have not been updated and most were written before Sport Pilot existed. So, there are inconsistencies if you take each and every regulation literally as written.

 

He said a Sport PIlot Instructor would not get a violation for giving this instruction and an examiner would not have a problem. Where a problem might arise is in a civil trial where two lawyers are arguing before a jury if there is ever an accident, etc.

 

This is the problem with a LOT of the FARs. That is why the FAA issues preambles and interpretations when it comes to rule making. There's some FARs for certification and maintenance that are so ancient, that us mechanics look at each other thinking "when the hell will we ever use this?"

 

Going through A&P school, there were a lot of requirements for the syllabus that we were required to know, but the instructors would basically throw up the slide and say "You see this? See what it looks like? Good. Now you know, but you will NEVER use this. The FAA says you still need to see it though. NEXT." Example: double entry centrifugal compressor. EXTREMELY rare turbine compressor, the only engine that I know of that uses this is an Allison J33.

[Jim Meade]

I just discussed this issue with:

 

Jay Tevis

FAA Regulatory Support Division

Light Sport Aviation Branch

405-954-6400

 

He said the FAA's intent is that a Light Sport Instructor is able to give a Light Sport student 100 percent of their required training including the instrument required for solo cross-country. The instructor would not need a medical or Private Certificate as long as he is legal to act as PIC by virtue of a driver's license and medically fit to fly.

 

The problem arises because all the other FAR's have not been updated and most were written before Sport Pilot existed. So, there are inconsistencies if you take each and every regulation literally as written.

 

He said a Sport PIlot Instructor would not get a violation for giving this instruction and an examiner would not have a problem. Where a problem might arise is in a civil trial where two lawyers are arguing before a jury if there is ever an accident, etc.

 

Did you ask Tevis if the Regs were in process of updating or if the Chief Counsel had been requested to confirm his comments?

 

I was also told that the FAA intent on SP CFI was that they could give all instruction. I was not told that FAA had decided to turn a blind eye to the literal words of the FAR. That is new to me; last I heard, they were "thinking about it". I concur that lawyers could have a field day with this inconsistency and lay jury members could well suppose that if the FAA didn't say the SP CFI could give instrument instruction (as one of the lawyers would forcefully argue) then it was not permitted.

 

Someone should write to FAA Chief Counsel and strongly request an interpretation that supports Tevis' comments and thus gives us all some legal protection against aviation lawyer ambulance chasers.

 

So - this implies to me that an SP CFI could act as safety pilot nonwithstanding the specific requirements per the FAR as explained by the AOPA lawyer. The CFI would have to be providing "training" as opposed to merely being a safety pilot, though, and should log it as such, I would think.

[Anticept]

Gentlemen, I think there might be a misunderstanding here about the FAA.

 

The FAA is the lawmaker, judge, jury, and executioner. There are indeed limits that courts can impose on them, but it is up to them when they want to pursue someone for a violation. As someone who has a lawyer friend and debates a lot with him about the FAA, and that friend who has defended people in court from the FAA, it's his firm belief that the FAA has very broad powers and it's a political game as much as a safety one.

[Jim Meade]

OK, how would you characterize your phrase?

"He said a Sport PIlot Instructor would not get a violation for giving this instruction and an examiner would not have a problem. "

"Turning a blind eye is an idiom describing the ignoring of undesirable information. " from one of the popular online dictionaries. Since you reported that Tevis said the FAA would not pursue, what words would you prefer we use to explain the FAA's actions?

[Jim Meade]

I would characterize it as a quote. You can try to ascribe whatever meaning to it you want, but that is your interpretation, not mine. Take it up with the FAA. I called the guy, asked the question, and posted his answer. It's not up to me to explain it or defend it.

 

I don't need to take it up with the FAA. What you are saying now upon further development is what I was told two years ago and what I have been saying ever since. There is no basis for a SP CFI to be sure he can give instrument training without fear of FAA and civil consequences should someone choose to pursue that route.

 

Further, there is no basis to assume that a SP CFI can by giving "training" act as a safety pilot.

 

We're right back where this discussion started.

[Jim Meade]

If I was a Sport Pilot Instructor, I would not hesitate to give a Sport Pilot student all of the instruction required for a Sport Pilot certificate based on 61.23 ( c) (2), 61.413 and 61.415 and a ruling from Jay Tevis of the FAA Regulatory Support Division on 11/20/13. I am confident there would be no problem except possibly in the case of an accident and civil suit.

 

Reasonable people can disagree.

Tevis does not and can not make a ruling or even an official interpretation of an FAR. That is the purview of the Chief Counsel. One hopes if considering a ruling on this question the Chief Counsel would communicate with Tevis' office.

 

An accident is investigated by the NTSB, which sometimes means, especially on smaller accidents, that the FAA does the leg work for the NTSB. The FAA office that does that is the FSDO. The FSDO then passes their findings on to the Regional Counsel. The Regional Counsel takes the action against the pilot. I would not want to bet that the Regional Counsel would know to talk to Jay Tevis if the question of an FAR violation arose. Why should the counsel? It's a legal FAR interpretation, not one that would on it's face require consultation with Tevis' office (BTW, as I recall, Tevis was not the officer in charge in that office, although I'm prepared to be corrected if that has changed in the last two years). Maybe one could try to get the Regional Counsel to make the Tevis connection - I don't know - but it would likely have to be done before the Regional Counsel drew and published a conclusion and one doesn't even know if Tevis' opinion would come up in the investigation. If the FAA investigation included considerations of the pilot's instrument competency it is reasonable to assume that the FSDO would determine the pilot's instrument training status and the qualifications of the instructor and would do so by reference to the FARs, not the opinion of someone in an office in Oklahoma City, likely nowhere near the Regional Counsel.

 

On the FAA side, other than showing up in an accident investigation that involved IMC, the most likely notice could be from a disgruntled acquaintance whistle blower. Another complainant is the ex-spouse of the pilot who doesn't want him/her flying the kid around. The FAA reportedly gets a number of investigation leads from disgruntled persons (although I'd have to do some research to see the numbers - I'm going on casual observations I've heard).

 

It is very possible to conceive of a way in which the question of SF instrument training legality could get in the FAA's legal pipeline to the point that Tevis doesn't get involved or if he does his position is determined so late that the legal side has already decided to take a position (especially if they feel pressured by public opinion, news media, or civil suit considerations).

 

Anyone reading this would surely consider that it is a serious matter to make decisions for one's student that are not well founded in regulation, especially when that student's estate could come back after the instructor. Are the chances high? Maybe not. Are the consequences significant? Possibly so.

 

A young CFI with no money might want to take the risk. An older CFI with some money but who is too old to earn it back if taken away may not feel so inclined to accept the risk. Even if I were a SP CFI and won the case, I would still be out the money to defend myself and I wouldn't care to spend that. It's like the Sword of Damocles hanging over one's head. The chances of it falling may be small but the consequences if it did would be unacceptable.

 

For my own part, if I were a subpart K Sport Pilot instructor I would NOT give the instrument training to the student but would have it done by a Subpart H instructor.

 

If I were an SP pilot who had instrument training given by a Subpart K instructor, I would get instrument training that covered at least the requirements of the solo cross country reg from a Subpart J instructor.

 

 

 

[Andy]

As a Subpart K CFI, I have had this discussion with the DPE I work with. He also conferred with some other DPE's. There is disagreement within the DPE community in the Houston area, and only DPE's are currently conducting Light Sport Practical's. This issue is NOT resolved! I agree with Jim that if you're a Light Sport CFI, you are taking a risk by giving this instruction alone. The FAA has not clarified their true intent, and the conflicts in the regs need to be solved for the Light Sport CFI rating to mean what it's supposed to.

 

There is no one hour requirement for instrument training for the student solo cross country endorsement; only a requirement that training be given.

 

Secondly, the regs do allow a CFI-S to act as a required pilot crew member in a LSA, so he can act as a safety pilot in a LSA with either a third class medical or a driver's license. There is some talk about a private pilot rating being required to give instrument training (which, if you're going to go there, probably only makes sense if the private pilot is instrument rated), but it is just talk at this point.

 

There is another approach to this problem I plan on using to make sure that neither I or my students get screwed. I give the initial training on basic control control by instruments and I have a "regular CFI" repeat it and also sign an endorsement during a phase check after solar but prior to the solo cross country.

 

This is one of several FAR inconsistencies I intend to go after during the next year. I have discussed some of this with AOPA and EAA but they consider most of this too low on the totem pole to go after.

[Tom Baker]

The way I read the regulations a sport CFI who holds a private certificate could act as a safety pilot in a light sport aircraft.

 

Jim, I think you are confusing safety pilot with a flight instructor. The intent of 91.109 is to keep an instrument pilot from putting on the hood on and going out and practicing instrument flight by himself. A sport CFI who does not hold a private certificate can not do be his safety pilot, even in a light sport aircraft. In the case of the required training for sport pilot student the instructor is not serving as a safety pilot. He is PIC flying in VFR weather, and there is no rule against that. It is just like any other flight he makes with the student.

[mocfly]

The article in AOPA by John Yodice defines the requirements in good detail. The title is Pilot Counsel: Safety pilot....When you need someone beside you.

 

[Jim Meade]

 

Secondly, the regs do allow a CFI-S to act as a required pilot crew member in a LSA, so he can act as a safety pilot in a LSA with either a third class medical or a driver's license. There is some talk about a private pilot rating being required to give instrument training (which, if you're going to go there, probably only makes sense if the private pilot is instrument rated), but it is just talk at this point.

 

 

Andy, I wish I felt more comfortable that the regs permit a CFI-S to act as safety pilot. The regs cited in the AOPA article don't seem to support that. Can you cite the specific regs you are relying on?

Thanks

[Tom Baker]

Jim, for the purpose of training for the sport pilot certificate the instructor in not a safety pilot. He is an instructor, and he is PIC.

[Al Downs]

The following quote is from an email today after a telephone discussion today with Paul Feldmyer at AOPA.

 

"I was able to find some more information about the topics we discussed earlier today. With regards to the instrument training for light sport pilots, the FAA is aware of the disconnect when it comes to a subpart K Light Sport only CFI giving instruction on instruments. I talked with our government affairs group here and they said that technically a light sport only CFI can not give that required instrument training to their student as described in 61.93e. That being said, the FAA is not actively persuing pilots or instructors for not following this FAR. We are hoping that better guidance and clarification will be coming within the next year though."

 

I do not feel comfortable from a lawsuit point of view. I think we make sure the training is included and give by the proper CFI to avoid future problems.

[S3flyer]

The reg in question:

(e) Maneuvers and procedures for cross-country flight training in a single-engine airplane. A student pilot who is receiving training for cross-country flight in a single-engine airplane must receive and log flight training in the following maneuvers and procedures:

....

12) Control and maneuvering solely by reference to flight instruments, including straight and level flight, turns, descents, climbs, use of radio aids, and ATC directives. For student pilots seeking a sport pilot certificate, the provisions of this paragraph only apply when receiving training for cross-country flight in an airplane that has a VH greater than 87 knots CAS.

I think it's clear that there needs to be a log book entry that instruction has been given but there is no requirement for an amount of time nor what the instruction entails. It may not be the norm but is it not possible to satisfy the requirement without the use of a hood or foggles? Heck -- most student pilots have trouble looking outside the cockpit anyway

Another possibility, since no logging of time is required, I would think you could satisfy the requirement in a low-end simulator like the Redbird Jay.

[Andy]

For Jim, I probably needed to qualify my response a bit. I don't believe that every CFI-S could do it, but I believe that one who holds at least a private pilot certificate could.

 

When I first encountered this subject, the initial argument people were throwing out was that a CFI-S couldn't act as safety pilot because he didn't have a medical and couldn't serve as a required pilot crew member. I believe that was because Sport Pilot was so new and they hadn't read all the regs associated with it and were stopping at 61.3 c(1) and either not reading or ignoring the part that says "or other documentation acceptable to the FAA" . To debunk that part of the argument, you need only go to FAR 61.23 Para c:

 

c: Operations requiring either a medical certificate or U.S. driver’s license. (1) A person must hold and possess either a medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter or a U.S. driver’s license when— ....(iii) Exercising the privileges of a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating while acting as pilot in command or serving as a required flight crewmember of a light-sport aircraft other than a glider or balloon;

 

The other part of it depends on the actual aircraft rating held by the CFI-S. In my case, I hold a Commercial/Instrument ASEL Certificate and a CFI-S certificate. Under 91.109, Flight Instruction; Simulated Instrument Flight and Certain Flight Tests, the safety pilot part is in part C:

 

c: No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless— (1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown. (2) The safety pilot has adequate vision forward and to each side of the aircraft, or a competent observer in the aircraft adequately supplements the vision of the safety pilot; and

(3) Except in the case of lighter-than-air aircraft, that aircraft is equipped with fully functioning dual controls.

 

So, in my case, teaching in a CT, this is why I believe I could justify giving that instruction without using a Subpart H CFI, but I am covering my bases by having us both do that instruction. It certainly doesn't hurt to have the student get two exposures to it. I stand corrected that not every CFI-S could do it (and everyone seems to be assuming that every CFI-S has only a Light Sport certificate, which is not true for me and a lot more coming, I bet) , even though I believe the intent was to allow a CFI-S to provide all the instruction necessary to get a student to the Light Sport rating.

[Tom Baker]

The question is who is operating the airplane when a student is flying with an instructor?

When a student is flying with an instructor I think the instructor is operating the airplane.

[WmInce]

Obviously, the solution is more and bigger government.

[Jim Meade]

Jim, for the purpose of training for the sport pilot certificate the instructor in not a safety pilot. He is an instructor, and he is PIC.

 

Point well taken.

[knolde]

Evening All: I note that Jim Meade has introduced another really good subject--instrument training for Sport Pilots. Okay, before I transitioned to the CTLS I had a Piper Cherokee 140 and I was instrument rated. I logged over 300 actual instrument hours in an airplane with no autopilot; all steam gages, and no XM weather in the cockpit. I managed survive and not scare my wife too often, so when we got the CTLS I opted for the Garmin SL-30 com/nav with an ILS. To date, almost 600 CT hours, I have made only two ILS approaches; both as precaution in misty conditions, lowered visibility conditions. I have have probably done many other practice approaches to maintain proficiency. However, I am fully on board with some training for Sport Pilots as a LIFE SAVING Measure. Everyone who flies knows that there are occasional "blown" forecasts and it is possible that lower visibility conditions can sneak up rapidly and setup the unwary pilot for an emergency situation. I DO NOT ADVOCATE INSTRUMENT FLYING FOR LSA PILOTS. Nonetheless I do support some ability to cope with unexpected weather conditions. Dr. Ken Nolde, 840KN,

[Tom Baker]

No, that is not the question. The instructor is PIC except in some certain situations. For instance, the student is a Private pilot working on a Commercial certificate and the CFI has no medical. In this case, the CFI cannot be PIC, but the student can. Since the CFI cannot act as PIC, he cannot put the student under a hood. The student (Private pilot) would need to be current and totally legal to act as PIC to make the flight.

 

I agree with everything you said in the post, but that is not what we have been talking about is it. The post was about instrument training for sport pilot and who can do it. All the talk was about who could be a safety pilot. When receiving instruction for a sport pilot rating incliding instrument training under the hood the CFI is PIC acting as an instructor, and not a safety pilot. A safety pilot is for someone who is already qualified to fly the airplane. If they want to fly under the hood they need someone in the other seat who is also qualified to fly the airplane as PIC, and holds at least a private pilot certificate.

[FlyingMonkey]

Obviously, the solution is more and bigger government.

 

More complicated regulations will certainly solve the issue of conflicting and complicated regulations!

[Tom Baker]

I am well aware of this. A safety pilot must be legal to act as PIC. The reg says he must be at least a private pilot with a medical. That is the issue we are discussing. A Sport Pilot or Sport Pilot instructor is legal PIC in an LSA with a driver's license. That is the inconsistency in the regs we are discussing here. The reg requiring private and medical was written before Sport Pilot existed and has not been updated.

 

You keep mixing a safety pilot with an instructor, these are 2 different things. 91.109 covers 2 things instruction in single control aircraft and the requirements for a safety pilot during simulated instrument flight. It is very clear that you must have at least a private pilot certificate to be a safety pilot.

 

A sport pilot or sport pilot who holds a sport CFI can not act as a safety pilot in an LSA aircraft even though they can be PIC, per 91.109.

 

For the purpose of the instrument training required by 61.93, (e),(12) a person who holds a student pilot certificate can not carry any passengers, so the instructor would be the person operating the aircraft. Since the person operating the aircraft is not flying simulated instruments no safety pilot is required.

 

The instrument training to meet 61.93, (e), (12) done by a sport CFI can not be used for anything other than meeting those requirements.

[Tom Baker]

I am well aware of this. A safety pilot must be legal to act as PIC. The reg says he must be at least a private pilot with a medical. That is the issue we are discussing. A Sport Pilot or Sport Pilot instructor is legal PIC in an LSA with a driver's license. That is the inconsistency in the regs we are discussing here. The reg requiring private and medical was written before Sport Pilot existed and has not been updated.

 

A flight instructor is PIC when giving flight instruction, instrument or not. It's the same problem since some people think the safety pilot rule applies here and say the Sport PIlot instructor must have a private and medical. That is one of at least 3 theories.

 

Where does it say you have have a medical to serva as a safety pilot in a LSA?

[Tom Baker]

FFF, I think our back and forth goes back to post 75 and your use of the word student, and saying a private pilot can be a student. The regulation, 61.93, we have been talking about is for student pilots. A private pilot who is taking training is just that, a private pilot. He can not be a student pilot.

[Andy]

Frankly, I had heard from my DPE that there was supposed to be a FAA Legal Office opinion coming forward on this, but that was a year ago and it hasn't happened. I don't believe that asking the FAA for a legal opinion is going to be the best answer. Asking for a Legal Office opinion doesn't necessarily give a good result; see the impact of the Legal Office opinion stating that CFI-S instruction doesn't count toward a Private Pilot rating if you need proof of that. That's BS. There is little practical difference between the two ratings, and I consider a CT a harder airplane to learn to fly than some GA trainers or light singles. I believe this is one of several regs that need to be re-written or modified to make the CFI-S rating what it is supposed to be; and I intend to work that this year.

[Jim Meade]

I don't have the reg at hand, but the connection of safety pilot to medical is because a required crewmember needs a medical and a safety pilot is a required crew member. I'll look it up later today if someone has not found it before.