VL Roberts wrote:No where does the regulation say "appropriate" medical.
Actually, the word "appropriate" does appear in the FARs with respect to a medical certificate. (I can't cite the specific reg off the top of my head, but I researched this some months ago.) At the time that reg was written (pre-LSA), I'm sure that by "Appropriate" they meant third, second, or first class. They certainly didn't consider driver's licenses, but those are now appropriate medical certificates in some circumstances. Furthermore, I ran this interpretation past John Yodice (former AOPA counsel), and he unofficially validated my interpretation. Although this hasn't been tested at FAA (I'm certainly not going to bring a test case, and John advised against doing so), he did say that position seemed reasonable to him, in his professional estimation.
The regulation breaks it down to operations requiring a third class and operations requiring either a third class or a drivers license. If a CFI is operating with only a drivers license he has the privileges of a Sport CFI only and instructing for Private is not one of the privileges.
At EAA.ORG there is a Sport Aviation "ask the expert" Q and A. The answer given for CFI's with no medical is that they would be restricted to the privileges of a Sport Instructor only.
VL Roberts wrote:At EAA.ORG there is a Sport Aviation "ask the expert" Q and A.
In my experience, any time you ask two experts, you get three mutually contradictory answers. I'm with FFF: let common sense prevail.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV [email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
VL Roberts wrote:At EAA.ORG there is a Sport Aviation "ask the expert" Q and A.
In my experience, any time you ask two experts, you get three mutually contradictory answers. I'm with FFF: let common sense prevail.
I'm all for common sense, but that is not what always happens when it comes to regulation. For some , the "common sense" interpretation is what is most favorable for them.
To answer the OP's question, to eliminate any doubt , receive all instruction from a Subpart H instructor with a current medical. Otherwise , there will always be a cloud over your head until the FAA legal people issue a definitive ruling.
Currently, I would favor EAA over AOPA when it comes to interpretations of Sport rules.
VL Roberts wrote:Currently, I would favor EAA over AOPA when it comes to interpretations of Sport rules.
I understand. But, affiliation notwithstanding, when it comes to interpreting FARs, I would favor an aviation attorney over an "expert" of unspecified credentials.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV [email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
VL Roberts wrote:Currently, I would favor EAA over AOPA when it comes to interpretations of Sport rules.
I understand. But, affiliation notwithstanding, when it comes to interpreting FARs, I would favor an aviation attorney over an "expert" of unspecified credentials.
The EAA is expert on the Sport Rules, the organization was involved with the development of the Sport Rule, can Mr. Yodice make the same claim?
The EAA put their interpretation in black and white, Mr Yodice gave an "unofficial " interpretation . Would he be willing to put that interpretation in writing? He also advised you not to query the FAA on this matter, and for good reason.
Spin it anyway you want but CFI's without medicals are in the same boat as Sport CFI's.
VL Roberts wrote:He also advised you not to query the FAA on this matter,
Actually, that was my take on the risk of requesting Letters of Interpretation (on any topic) from FAA Legal. John merely concurred with it. I'm not saying I'm right, or he is, or EAA is, merely that FAA hasn't clearly said one way or the other, and that's probably a good thing.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV [email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
VL Roberts wrote:He also advised you not to query the FAA on this matter,
Actually, that was my take on the risk of requesting Letters of Interpretation (on any topic) from FAA Legal. John merely concurred with it. I'm not saying I'm right, or he is, or EAA is, merely that FAA hasn't clearly said one way or the other, and that's probably a good thing.
Why should the FAA say anything, this practice hasn't been brought to their attention. Whatever anyone may believe, full disclosure should be made to Sport Pilot students.
Yes, I'm all for full disclosure. Meanwhile, I do believe (perhaps naively) that logic should prevail. How is it logical that one's decision to let a medical lapse should negate four decades of successful teaching experience?
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV [email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
drseti wrote:Yes, I'm all for full disclosure. Meanwhile, I do believe (perhaps naively) that logic should prevail. How is it logical that one's decision to let a medical lapse should negate four decades of successful teaching experience?
If logic prevailed, A Sport CFI basic instruction would count towards a Private. FAR 61.23 doesn't allow any wiggle room, it says what it says. Unfortunate, but I think EAA's answer is the correct one.
drseti wrote:Yes, I'm all for full disclosure. Meanwhile, I do believe (perhaps naively) that logic should prevail. How is it logical that one's decision to let a medical lapse should negate four decades of successful teaching experience?
It doesn't. You're still a Commercial Pilot and still a CFI and still legal PIC in LSA. And, per the OP's question, you were instructing a student pilot toward the requirements of a Sport Pilot certificate. So now, potentially years later, someone wants to say the time is not legal toward a Private license because you were flying, and perfectly legal, with a driver's license. I don't buy it.
Thanks for the responses everyone! So many different interpretations of this gray area regulation.
BTW FFF, I am not a CFI or CFI-SP, just a student sport pilot wondering about this particular situation.
FlyingForFun wrote:Here is Paul Hamilton's interpretation:
"Here is a unique situation where a subpart H (private) flight instructor (CFI) has a current flight instructor certificate but let his 3rdclass medical expire. He/she can instruct a student private pilot in a light sport aircraft without a medical and the time counts towards a sport pilot and private pilot because he/she is pilot in command (PIC). All hours count towards a sport and private certificate (except night) because the CFI has a valid Subpart H flight instructor certificate and is PIC of the LSA. He/she cannot fly or provide instruction in a non LSA, at night in any aircraft or in IFR conditions in any aircraft because he/she cannot be pilot in command."
