CFII must be CFI's too?

[Pohi]

I'm not sure what you are saying, Wolf. The regs are very specific about what tasks each instructor certificate allow the CFI to instruct.

 

If you are wanting to be a rotorcraft instructor you do 61.187 (.3. If you want to be a instrument instructor you do 61.187 (.7

 

If you want to add a rating you follow 61.191.

 

Nothing says you have to do both, and nothing says you have to do one before the other.

[r22butters]

Instrument instruction only huh? Nice, easy going, shallow turns, smooth, shallow descents, hmmm? My stomach might be able to handle that?

 

So,...what? Just take the FOI, the double-eye written, and a checkride?

:.

[avbug]

Practical test, not just a check ride. That means you'll be teaching, showing and making lesson plans, etc.

 

WoftalonID asked about the form 8710 and application for a flight instructor certificate when the applicant seeks to add only instrument instructor privileges.

 

http://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/form/faa_form_8710-1.pdf

 

It's not that complicated. Check the box that says "Instructor: Flight" under Certificates, and "Instrument: Helicopter" under Ratings. Under Other Information/Requests, check "Initial."

 

It's not very complicated.

[Guest pokey]

am i the only one that see's avbutt's trend in all of these threads that he has to get the last word in?

[Mikemv]

am i the only one that see's avbutt's trend in all of these threads that he has to get the last word in?

Pokey,

 

Avbug has replied correctly to the original question a few times and posters keep coming back and not understanding that a pilot can get a CFII initially.

 

I agree with him and know pilots that have done this and DPE's that have issued these instructor certificates as I have previously stated.

 

The PTS example (page numbers for the examiners guide) show that it can be done as no initial maneuvers are tasked for testing.

 

Understand it all and move on. CFIs should know the answer to the original question.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Mike

[Guest pokey]

 

Understand it all and move on. CFIs should know the answer to the original question.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Mike

i do understand it, you missed my point. and best wishes to you also

[Jaybee]

am i the only one that see's avbutt's trend in all of these threads that he has to get the last word in?

 

heh, i've noticed too.

 

in avnut's defense though, he no longer seems to write 20 paragraph dissertations on every single person "talking shop" when its plain what they mean and only limits it to people truly needing help or flat out wrong

 

Wolf - not being smart or funny, it really is as simple as a CFI-I is a CFI, as Av cited chapter and verse above

[avbug]

I really don't need your "defense," but I'll go ahead and slip you on the ignore list with the other assholes.

[WolftalonID]

Well a nice little chat with the FSDO today confirmed and denied all of us actually. It used to be known that one could get the CFI with Instrument as the initial....and get this...teach with it as an instrument instructor.

 

That was until the FAA wised up to this and confirmed they never intended this to happen. So they have not yet stopped this step in the 8710 forms, but have provided a legal interpretation addressing this issue. Yes you may apply and recieve a CFI- with Instrument as an initial, but cannot proceed with flight training until you also have applied for and recieved your CFI privilages.

 

I will stop in and provide the link once its on my desk.

[avbug]

The Grayson letters covered your question, and have already been issued, one of which (the relevant one) was cited. There are three.

 

The FSDO level is not, and has never been authorized to interpret the regulation. All legal interpretation MUST come from the FAA Chief Legal Counsel office, or a regional legal counsel (which is superceded by the Chief Legal Counsel).

 

It's clear that further discussion with you on this topic is a waste of time. Talking to a broken brick wall would be more productive, and frankly, would make for better conversation.

[Matt321]

As avbug said, the FSDO is not the authority that interprets. Based on a recent experience, as well as my experience speaking to them in the past, many safety inspectors THINK that they have this authority, and are more than happy to give you their interpretation of anything and everything. In my experience, most of what I've been told has contradicted their own regs. In some cases they are right, which in a recent case almost seemed like an accident as the reference given was unrelated to the issue at hand. My advice: be wary of anything an faa employee tells you. They are people just like us and in some cases, completely unqualified to give an opinion on anything aviation.

[dondlhmn]

All true....and that is why "the way things are" in different regions are as different as they are in spite of the fact that they are FEDs and are supposedly all using the same books and rules and regulations. It isn't quite as bad now that the FAA has reduced the numbers of FSDOs and changed them from GADOs to FSDOs, but there can still be an amazing amount of differences from region to region and FSDO to FSDO!! The Army doesn't seem to be nearly as bad, but it still happens even there due to people being people and different areas having their own "official" interpretation of things......

[eagle5]

The Grayson letters covered your question, and have already been issued, one of which (the relevant one) was cited. There are three.

 

The FSDO level is not, and has never been authorized to interpret the regulation. All legal interpretation MUST come from the FAA Chief Legal Counsel office, or a regional legal counsel (which is superceded by the Chief Legal Counsel).

 

It's clear that further discussion with you on this topic is a waste of time. Talking to a broken brick wall would be more productive, and frankly, would make for better conversation.

Looks like another one for the list!

[Jaybee]

There's an old saying, "if you meet more than one Ahole a day then its more likely you are the Ahole".

 

I guess we could modify that to "if you meet more than one Ahole on an internet forum...."

 

Maybe its just all the years I've spent in garages, military, etc,,, guess I got purty thick skin,,, at least someone disagreeing with me on the internets doesn't get my panties all in a wad. *shrug*

 

C'est la vie

[WolftalonID]

Sometimes I think Avbug is an auto post antagonizer bot.

 

He also doesnt read very well most of the time.

 

For that matter...not one post from my last seemed to have read what I said.

 

For the record, I did NOT say the FSDO interpreted anything. I said the FAA did, aaaaannnndddd get this....my last line of typing was....wait for it...wait for it...

 

"I will stop in and provide the link once its on my desk."

 

No the Grayson letters do not answer the original OP's question directly.

[avbug]

The Grayson letter, specifically #2, does answer the original posters question, and has already been cited, with explanation.

 

You may be confused, due to a reading comprehension problem on your part. It seems that most of the other posters get it. Just not you.

[Guest pokey]

yes dear.

[Matt321]

"Well a nice little chat with the FSDO today confirmed and denied all of us actually"

 

Sounds like your info came from FSDO. All the LOI are online already. If you let us know which letter was mentioned in your conversation we can all look it up now and be done with this. If you're waiting on the faa for something you may be waiting a very long time.

[ridethisbike]

Sooo.... if I'm reading the back of my FI certificate correctly....

 

Flight instructor

Rotorcraft - Helicopter ; Instrument-Helicopter

 

 

Pretty sure that little semi-colon right there indicates a separation of privileges. My Commercial cert says the same thing.

 

Wolf: Another way to look at it...

The "Rotorcraft - Helicopter" part allows me to instruct the maneuvers required to become certificated in aircraft that fall into the rotorcraft category and helicopter class.

 

my Instrument-Helicopter certificate/rating/whatever you want to call it allows me to instruct the "maneuvers" listed under 61.65(e). Notice the wording of "instrument-helicopter" on that reg?

 

 

The two need to be thought of as separate things in this case.

 

 

This is a very, VERY broad way to look at it, but seriously, you're fighting a losing battle. You can absolutely be an instrument instructor (CFI-I) without being able to instruct (CFI) on the maneuvers required for private or commercial certification (other than the instrument requirements for commercial).

[Gomer Pylot]

FSDOs can be pretty ignorant. I once had one tell me that the flight instruments in helicopters were different from those in airplanes. Those who can, fly, and those who can't go to the FAA.

[dondlhmn]

FSDOs can be pretty ignorant. I once had one tell me that the flight instruments in helicopters were different from those in airplanes. Those who can, fly, and those who can't go to the FAA.

They were JOKING, right? as in PULLING YOUR LEG or maybe just LOOKING FOR A LAUGH, right? NO ONE is REALLY THAT FAR OFF TRACK are they.....oh....right....I forgot that we are talking about the FAA in general and FSDOs in particular....My bad!!