Sport Pilot CFI limits and FAA inFO 26006

[GAHorn]

An Odd thing was brought up by my Insurance when I renewed last year…(and I mentioned it in another post at that time).. Which was a Total Surprise:

My underwrite has been my insurance provider for over a decade…so the change occurred Without my notice. I USED to be a “Training Center Evaluatior”….(TCE)…which meant I was an authorized simulator instructor and check-airman for a training facility at DFW airport on certain type-rating (heavy) jet aircraft and a few turbo-props as well. I maintained a 1st Class FAA Medical for my mixed airline/corporate career… then let it slip to a 2nd Class for my TCE days (and my personal flying)…. then when I retired a few years ago….I went to “Basic Med”.

The “Surprise” was when I renewed with Avemco my Cessna 170 and 172 insurance…. and the representative mentioned that, that although Basic Med required a 4-year term of renewal…. my aircraft policy small-print required that I renew ALL BASIC MED REQUIREMENTS ANNUALLY!

So… check YOUR policy fine-print. If you are on Basic Med or Sport Pilot…. your aircraft insureance MAY contain More Restrictive Compliance and Recurency than FAA.

[voorheesh]

I’m late to this discussion but here’s my take (still active CFI with basic med/retired from FAA). An instructor’s medical status is entirely separate from their status as a CFI. The requirements for a medical, basic med, or a valid DL only apply to the pilot when acting in that capacity (in an aircraft serving as a crew member). An instructor is not required to have a medical (et al) unless serving a crew member.

Therefore, if you hold a valid CFI certificate (as in Bruce’s case), your privileges and limitations remain in effect regardless of your medical status. Period. An FAA Info or AC is not regulatory and does not alter or modify a regulation. You may perform any function allowed by your current certificate.

When I did work for the FAA, I was assigned to a Regional Office and collaborated regularly with FAA legal. They drilled into me that only specific regulatory language applied. Don’t read into it! Many well meaning FAA Inspectors thought otherwise and I would have to go back and explain why we could not process their enforcement case.

By the way, do any of you remember John Lynch’s Part 61 FAQs? And he was headquarters. Don’t see them around anymore. Cheers. Harlow

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

When I did work for the FAA, I was assigned to a Regional Office and collaborated regularly with FAA legal. They drilled into me that only specific regulatory language applied. Don’t read into it! Many well meaning FAA Inspectors thought otherwise and I would have to go back and explain why we could not process their enforcement case.

Harlow, in this case I believe someone high enough to issue a official Info Letter is reading more into the regulations than is there. I've alerted AOPA and they were going to review the letter and hopefully point out the error of the letters reading of the regulations. The AOPA folks agree the letter is not regulatory but it is obviously the way someone in the FAA thinks the regulations read and therefore may try to enforce. Not to mention all the Safety Inspectors who might read the letter and not think much about what it means, then enforce the letter.

I've been doing flight reviews for 7 years without a CLASS 1,2 or 3 or basic medical. In a few cases I couldn't be the PIC of the aircraft. MOSAIC changed that now making it unusual that I couldn't be the PIC of the aircraft being used for the review. And as I believe I mentioned this letter was apparently a reaction to at least one training company employing subpart K CFIs to train and sign off Private Pilots for training they themselves didn't have the same hours as a subpart H CFI had. The letter could have been simple, it applies to subpart K CFI's only.

As I stated, the paragraph in the letter about subpart H CFI's being restricted by their medical is foolish at best. I could legally give a restricted flight review or tailwheel endorsement then immediately give an unrestricted endorsement once the applicant could be the PIC of the aircraft being used.

[voorheesh]

Bruce, I am probably missing something in this Info. I read it carefully and it appears to tell CFIs the limits in their flight review endorsements based on both the CFI and the airman’s certificate level. I cant find where it references the flying privileges that are limited based on theFFI’s medical certificate.

You are a ATP/Commercial pilot with a Subpart H CFI certificate. Because you use a drivers license in lieu of an FAA medical or Basic Med, you are limited to Sport Pilot when acting as a pilot. Nothing in MOSAIC changes your privileges as a CFI. What does change are the endorsements you can make but those are based on the certificate level of the pilot receiving instruction from you.

We are all limited when acting as PIC or safety pilot in some cases. We need a medical, basic med, or a drivers license (sport pilot). Mosaic did not change that. Even before Mosaic, Subpart H CFIs could provide instruction to Sport Pilots.

I agree AOPA should get you an answer and hopefully you will be able to continue using your CFI as before. Not to mention, your clients will continue to benefit from your experience!

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Bruce, I am probably missing something in this Info. I read it carefully and it appears to tell CFIs the limits in their flight review endorsements based on both the CFI and the airman’s certificate level. I cant find where it references the flying privileges that are limited based on theFFI’s medical certificate.

Furthermore, § 61.413 imposes the same limitations on flight instructors holding a certificate under subpart H who choose to exercise sport pilot rating privileges under subpart K. Any training, endorsement, or checking provided to a pilot by a flight instructor holding a certificate under subpart H who is exercising sport pilot rating privileges (subpart K), regardless of the pilot certificate level held by the pilot, will also be limited to sport pilot privileges under subpart J.

See the above paragraph in the letter. First I disagree that 61.413 imposes any limitations on a subpart H instructor.

It was pointed out to me by AOP that when a student is the PIC, regardless of the aircraft, I am not exercising my privileges under Sport Pilot. If the student can not be the PIC of the aircraft but I can which means the aircraft is covered under MOSAIC, then I must be the PIC and I would be exercising the my privileges under Sport Pilot. Under these circumstances it says I must issue an endorsement to the student restricting them to Sport Pilot privileges regardless of the students actual ratings held. See the my underlined text in that paragraph above.

The student would be restricted to Sport Pilot privileges until having another flight review by a subchapter H CFI not exercising the privileges of a Sport Pilot. So if my restricted endorsement allows them to be PIC of the aircraft, I can immediately perform another Flight Review or Tailwheel assessment and endorse their log with an unrestricted endorsement because I would not longer be exercising the privileges of a Sport Pilot while conducting the second review or assessment.

[KAP54]

It is interesting how interpretation of regulations can change. In 2018,the long time airport manager/FBO/CFI at my airport retired. When it came time for my BFR, the new manager, who was also a sport pilot instructor assured me that he could give me a flight review. I was skeptical, so I contacted AOPA. I was told that he was correct. Once he signed me off, I was legal to fly any aircraft that I was rated for with NO restrictions. The only catch was, I couldn't do it in my 170. It had to be done in a light sport plane. This seemed odd to me, but since he was the only game in town I proceeded to do just that. I have since done three reviews with this fellow in three different light sport planes, none of which have much in common with the 170. It always annoyed me that I couldn't use my 170. Now with MOSAIC I can do BFR'S in the 170, but will be restricted to Light sport regulations. Go figure!