I've searched this a lot and can't find a definitive answer so thought I'd toss it out there. Must you have your Instrument rating to become a CFI?

I know, I know, just get the damn Instrument first. I understand the logic behind that, but if one was looking to become a CFI as quickly as possible, can you do it without getting the Instrument rating?

To be eligible for a flight instructor certificate or rating a person must:

(a) Be at least 18 years of age;

(b) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language. If the applicant is unable to meet one of these requirements due to medical reasons, then the Administrator may place such operating limitations on that applicant's flight instructor certificate as are necessary;

(c) Hold either a commercial pilot certificate or airline transport pilot certificate with:

(1) An aircraft category and class rating that is appropriate to the flight instructor rating sought; and

(2) An instrument rating, or privileges on that person's pilot certificate that are appropriate to the flight instructor rating sought, if applying for—

(i) A flight instructor certificate with an airplane category and single-engine class rating;

(ii) A flight instructor certificate with an airplane category and multiengine class rating;

(iii) A flight instructor certificate with a powered-lift rating; or

(iv) A flight instructor certificate with an instrument rating.

FAR part 61 sub-part H-- "Flight Instructors...".
Seems overkill to me to require the instructor to have an instrument rating to teach VFR flying, but that's the FAA for you.
Depending on who you're gonna instruct, and what in, maybe sport pilot instructor would be the ticket? FAR part 61 sub-part K. You don't even need a commercial license. Of course, I don't see how you can do it for compensation then, but WTF.

I could well be the village idiot, but I read the below verbiage to say that there's an "or" clause. I'm wrong huh? No way around this (other than sport pilot CFI)? My former CFI told me that as late as 2007, he thought it was possible to have your CFI without Instrument. Paging MTV, Mike are you out there?

2) An instrument rating, OR privileges on that person's pilot certificate that are appropriate to the flight instructor rating sought, if applying for—

(i) A flight instructor certificate with an airplane category and single-engine class rating;

(ii) A flight instructor certificate with an airplane category and multiengine class rating;

(iii) A flight instructor certificate with a powered-lift rating; or

(iv) A flight instructor certificate with an instrument rating.

Pundy wrote:2) An instrument rating, OR privileges on that person's pilot certificate that are appropriate to the flight instructor rating sought, if applying for—

My understanding was that "privileges on that person's pilot certificate" meant an ATP (which includes instrument privileges). In CFI school it was explained to me that a CFI must be instrument qualified. The reasoning behind it is that you have to provide three hours of instrument training for private pilot applicants.

BTW, within the next couple of weeks I should have my CFI, CFII, and MEI!

Yep, what he said. That "or" reference pertains to the ATP certificate, which automatically includes the "I" inherently.

No instrument privileges, no CFI, except as noted...Sport Pilot. And by the way, you CAN charge for services as a Sport Pilot Instuctor....I believe....haven't studied that one much.

MTV

Yes, you can charge for flight instruction as a sport pilot CFI and you don't need a commercial or instrument rating. However, you can only teach for hire in a certified S-LSA aircraft (unless you are talking ultra light). That is somewhat limiting, but it does include the legacy aircraft like J-3, PA-11, Champ, T-craft as well as the newer ones like the Tecnam and C-162. One thing you must remember is that you can only teach at the sport pilot level. For instance, you would not be able to give a tailwheel endorsement that would be valid in any aircraft that is not LSA. The sport pilot CFI has a lot of quirks and limitations. It might work for you, but it might just be a big hassle for not much gain.

I should add that you can teach for hire (I believe) as a Sport CFI in the student's own aircraft, even if it is experimental. You just can't charge for an experimental LSA to teach in for hire.

Definitely can charge for cfi-s. I also believe that if a sport cfi gives a student a tw endorsement and that student goes on to private pilot, the endorsement is still valid and does not need another from a "full" cfi - but of course I cannot cite or argue the regs - this was the consensus I gather from see arching the topic.

Good luck getting insurance to teach tw as a cfi-s though. Best bet is in the student owners aircraft and having cfi-s named on policy.

This guy used to be local here in WA (George Hoover). Bought a Sport Cub, got his Sport license in it, then went right on and got his CFI-LSA in it and has been doing well commercially for some time. He'd probably be able to answer some of your questions. http://www.cubdriving.com/

The short answer, yes, a T/W endorsement provided by an LSA-CFI is no matter if you fly a DC-3. However, if you have a sport license, you're limited to LSA applicable taildraggers, not the endorsement.

Mike-

littlewheelinback wrote:Yes, you can charge for flight instruction as a sport pilot CFI and you don't need a commercial or instrument rating. However, you can only teach for hire in a certified S-LSA aircraft (unless you are talking ultra light). That is somewhat limiting, but it does include the legacy aircraft like J-3, PA-11, Champ, T-craft as well as the newer ones like the Tecnam and C-162. One thing you must remember is that you can only teach at the sport pilot level. For instance, you would not be able to give a tailwheel endorsement that would be valid in any aircraft that is not LSA. The sport pilot CFI has a lot of quirks and limitations. It might work for you, but it might just be a big hassle for not much gain.

This is all accurate, except that a legacy aircraft, like a J-3, Champ, etc is NOT considered an S-LSA airplane. That is a specific category of manufactured aircraft.

A J-3 is still a standard category airplane.

I know, nit picky, but the LS rules are really convoluted.

MTV

MTV is right...the legacy aircraft are not "S-LSA". What I meant to say was that they can be operated within LSA rules just as a S-LSA aircraft can. And yes, the LSA rules are convoluted.

This will sound awfully curmudgeonly, and on such a beautiful morning I really don't want to sound like the local grump, but I guess I will, anyway.

In today's world where it seems everyone wants instant gratification in all areas of our lives, I'm not surprised that there's a desire to skip a step or two to get there. We see people get their bachelors and masters college degrees without ever attending a class, we see flight students attempt to get all the answers to their learning problems by asking strangers on Internet forums, instead of asking their instructors and practicing the answers--and now we want to be able to teach without the credentials to do it.

The OP says, "I've searched this a lot and can't find a definitive answer so thought I'd toss it out there." Yet, just a tiny bit of real research, i.e., looking at the regs themselves, tells the "definitive answer". Whether anyone likes the answer is irrelevant--the answer is there, in black and white. The regs are on faa.gov for anyone to look at. Granted, they are often convoluted and difficult to understand, but this one is relatively clear--until you start to parse it into "can I do this?" or "can I do that?" In other words, can I still do some instructing, albeit in a different limited class airplane?

But the basic question is answered just by looking at the reg--if you're going to be full-fledged CFI, yup, you must have an instrument rating. That's the "definitive answer."

I think the flip-flop of the OP's question needs to be asked. If I were wanting to learn to fly, would I want an instructor who wished to circumvent regs that he was unwilling to research himself?

Cary

There were cfi's back in the day who didn't have instrument ratings. They were grandfathered in when the requirement to have a instrument rating to be a cfi went into effect. I don't know when that was, but it had to be several years ago.

I had a cfi with no instrument rating. Sprayer/fixed wing/floats/bush/helo/among other things. Still a good friend if mine. Showed me things that have kept me around longer than I would have been. He got a commercial job flying helicopters in the mid-90's and had to go get the instrument rating. I don't think he ever exercised his cfi certificate after that.

I guess the instrument rating to be a cfi is a good requirement, but it sure is too bad it's a one size fits all deal.

I think the CFI requirement for an instrument rating is overkill, if the reasoning is so he or she can give the 3 hours or so of the "solely by reference to instruments" flight training required for the private license per FAR 61.109(a)(3). A "double-eye" instructor ticket of course needs an instrument rating, since the instructor will be teaching actual IFR flying. And the requirement for a commercial license is overkill also, given the fact that a part 61 subpart K "flight instructor with a sport pilot rating" is not required to have one.
I don't think it's a case of the all-too-common-these-days wish for instant gratification to want to be able to skip the instrument & commercial requirements if they are not actually needed to properly instruct student pilots, anymore than I think doing a top overhaul is an instant gratification shortcut to avoid doing a major overhaul when fresh cylinders are all that is actually needed. It's more like not wanting to go to colllege to get a 4 year construction technology degree to be able to get a job framing houses.

hotrod150 wrote:I think the CFI requirement for an instrument rating is overkill, if the reasoning is so he or she can give the 3 hours or so of the "solely by reference to instruments" flight training required for the private license per FAR 61.109(a)(3). A "double-eye" instructor ticket of course needs an instrument rating, since the instructor will be teaching actual IFR flying. And the requirement for a commercial license is overkill also, given the fact that a part 61 subpart K "flight instructor with a sport pilot rating" is not required to have one.
I don't think it's a case of the all-too-common-these-days wish for instant gratification to want to be able to skip the instrument & commercial requirements if they are not actually needed to properly instruct student pilots, anymore than I think doing a top overhaul is an instant gratification shortcut to avoid doing a major overhaul when fresh cylinders are all that is actually needed. It's more like not wanting to go to colllege to get a 4 year construction technology degree to be able to get a job framing houses.

And, in many cases, I would agree with you. That said, frankly, a person who holds an instrument rating and commercial license also has about 200 plus hours of actual flight experience.....THAT is far more important as an instructor than titles on a piece of plastic.

The problem I see with the LSA instructor deal is that you are going to have people out there instructing who don't know how to fly themselves. Hell, it happens with CFIs who have the flight time, so it will most certainly happen with very low total time folks.

Me, I want to fly and learn from someone who actually knows how to fly. Now, total flight time is most assuredly no guarantee of that, but it's a good start.

MTV

I don't want to sound contrarian - because I do agree with you about learning from someone with high(er dual given) time. But you know you have to get there from 0 - we all do. I'll point out that if you are headed there anyway - it makes far more financial sense for a person to go through cfi-s before instrument and commercial to cfi.

Why? Well first off - once you have your cfi-s you can legally write off subsequent ratings as recurrent training - which means is a huge 30-40% discount on the money outlayed to get there because it lowers your adjusted gross income. As far as the IRS is concerned anyway - and that means you can get there faster in less money through CFI-S if you know your schedule c from a hole in the ground. Second off you will probably spend your first dual hours scraping away at flight reviews, dual only, checkouts and t/w transitions. Third off... what do you call a person who graduates last in their class at medical school? Doctor. I'd like to have some faith in the people who sign off on the prospective cfi-s, both the instructor and the dpe because they are placing their ticket on the line for that endorsement to take the tests and the ride... At least as much as it takes to sign off on a full-blown cfi. I just don't think the instrument rating and the extra time will matter much when you are in the right seat with your first primary in the left (or front) seat. It's sink or swim. I'd much rather have a greenhorn who cares about what he's doing than some asshat stepping on my head to get to the big iron.

Ya rolls yer dice and ya takes yer chances...

mtv wrote:....The problem I see with the LSA instructor deal is that you are going to have people out there instructing who don't know how to fly themselves. Hell, it happens with CFIs who have the flight time, so it will most certainly happen with very low total time folks.......

Checking FAR 61, I don't see a minimum number of flight hours listed for a subpart H CFI, but a commercial license is required and you need 250 hours for that per 61.129(a). Subpart K sport pilot instructors need 150 hours per 61.411. That does seem a bit light-- maybe that should have been 250 hours instead? Either way, I've talked to IFR/commercial/CFI pilots who in my experience didn't have much true flying time, as their hours were all spent in training- either with an instructor on board or droning along on required cross-countries to get the minimum required hours. IMHO their credentials were very misleading. A good example of something like this would be the JFK jr crash-- he had plenty of time but apparently most of it was with an instructor on board, and when the chips were down he unfortunately wasn't up to the task.
This is why when I hear a new private pilot talk about immediately starting on their IFR training, I suggest to just fly for fun for a year or so to get some experience and also get to where flying the airplane is second nature.