Subject: Fwd: Re: CFI renewal ambiguity


Return-Path: <k.allan.pinkston@faa.gov>
Subject: Re: CFI renewal ambiguity
To: MARKBOYD@aol.com

Mark,
You are correct, "applicant" or "applications" is the intention and would
have been better.  We too often mix terms or use the same word in various
and numerous context.  "Student" should only be used for those that hold a
student pilot certificate, but "student' obviously works well for someone
receiving training as it was used in this case.  There was no intent to
exclude the possibility that the same person could prepare for advanced
ratings or certificates.

Allan Pinkston, AFS-640
(405) 954-6472




                                                                                                                                       
                      MARKBOYD@aol.com                                                                                                 
                                               To:       K Allan Pinkston/AMC/FAA@FAA                                                  
                      08/30/2002 01:55         cc:       mjboyd@cse.ucsc.edu                                                           
                      PM                       Subject:  CFI renewal ambiguity                                                         
                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                       




K.Allan.Pinkston@faa.gov


Dear Sir,

  I have a question about 61.197(a)(2)(i).  I recently
renewed my CFI by showing the examiner a record of
five recommendations for practical tests where there
were four passes.  However, I had only recommended
four students (one I had recommended for a private
and passed, then a year I recommended him for an
instrument and he failed).

  61.197(a)(2)(i) says the instructor must have
recommended five "students" not endorsed five
applications.  Was this the intent of the section?

  Or was the intent "applications," meaning (in the
most extreme case) that an instructor with only one
student could recommend him for a

private ASEL, then
private AMEL, then
instrument ASEL, then
commercial ASEL, then
commercial AMEL,

and if that one student passed at least 80% of these
tests the instructor could renew?

  The FSDO inspector interpreted the section this
way, but based on my other BFR and IPC and Wings
activity, determined I would qualify under
61.197(a)(1)(ii) anyway as "in a position involving
the regular evaluation of pilots," so in
my case it made no difference.

  Perhaps using the word "applications" instead of
"students" and "at least 80 percent of those
applications were approved on the first attempt"
would be more clear.

Mark J. Boyd
602 Chestnut #1
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
(831) 425-2693
markboyd@aol.com


