CTLSi wrote:drseti wrote:Andy, to further clarify (or muddle) the issue, a traditional CFI is certified inder FAR 61 Subpart H. A so-called Sport CFI is certified under Subpart K. Both are CFIs. Both can instruct with a DL medical, in an LSA. A subpart K CFI can only instruct in an LSA, and only toward a Sport Pilot rating, regardless of his or her medical (even if one has a First Class medical, this restriction still holds.) I don't see medical certificate reform as changing this in any way.
A current Subpart H CFI can also instruct in a non-LSA, with or without a medical (and even without a driver's license). He or she just can't be PIC. So, the medical is a pilot requirement, not a CFI requirement. This is important in primary instruction, when the CFI is PIC. Thus, a Subpart H CFI with a lapsed medical can only give primary instruction in an LSA, at present, and only with a valid driver's license. If the 3rd class medical is replaced by a DL, a Subpart H CFI with a lapsed medical would then be able to be PIC in a non-LSA, opening the door to him or her giving even primary instruction in a non-LSA. This, however, would not give the Subpart K CFI any additional privileges.
It seems incredible that a CFI without a medical can be in a non LSA instructing given the POSSIBLE need to take over and fly the aircraft. The tenuous definition of PIC is often argued on these boards. I don't want to get into that, but why would the FAA allow anyone to get into a non LSA under current medical requirements that assumes the role of flying the aircraft if/when a student is unable to do it?
I think the idea is that if the student is acting as PIC, there should be no circumstances short of medical incapacitation of the *student* that would warrant him "taking" control. He's essentially a passenger at that point, acting in an advisory capacity. Just because he's a CFI doesn't mean he can snatch the controls from anybody he's riding with.