Jump to content

Private pilot add on rating


Tjh

Recommended Posts

I'm looking for the specific flight training requirements for the private pilot helicopter add on rating. Some schools advertise 30 hrs others 35. I can't seem to find the add on training requirements in Part 61. Can someone provide the specific CFR that addresses the add on rating? I do understand that I do NOT have to take the Helicopter Knowledge Test.

 

Thanks!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The basic requirement for what you're looking for is found in 14 CFR 61.63( a ), and 61.109( c )

 

61.63 prescribes what's necessary to add a rating to a pilot certificate. In this case you appear to be asking about adding a rotorcraft category rating to a pilot certificate. If you do not already hold a rotorcraft rating, you'll need to meet all the training requirements for the pilot certificate at the level you seek (private, commercial, etc). You won't need the knowledge test ("written exam") if you already hold a pilot certificate at that level.

 

For private pilot privileges in rotorcraft, helicopter, you'll need a minimum of 20 hours of dual flight training and ten hours of solo, as prescribed by 61.109, copied below.

 

Additionally, I haven't copied it, but Part 141, Appendix B, prescribes the flight school helicopter requirements, which are five hours less; 20 hours of dual flight training and five hours solo.

 

Whether you complete the training in the minimum required hours prescribed by the FAA, however, is up to you.

 

 

§61.63 Additional aircraft ratings (other than for ratings at the airline transport pilot certification level).

(a) General. For an additional aircraft rating on a pilot certificate, other than for an airline transport pilot certificate, a person must meet the requirements of this section appropriate to the additional aircraft rating sought.

(B) Additional aircraft category rating. A person who applies to add a category rating to a pilot certificate:

(1) Must complete the training and have the applicable aeronautical experience.

(2) Must have a logbook or training record endorsement from an authorized instructor attesting that the person was found competent in the appropriate aeronautical knowledge areas and proficient in the appropriate areas of operation.

(3) Must pass the practical test.

(4) Need not take an additional knowledge test, provided the applicant holds an airplane, rotorcraft, powered-lift, weight-shift-control aircraft, powered parachute, or airship rating at that pilot certificate level.

 

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=ebb4ad493b6c0583d55897341f272af9&mc=true&node=se14.2.61_163&rgn=div8

§61.109 Aeronautical experience.

© For a helicopter rating. Except as provided in paragraph (k) of this section, a person who applies for a private pilot certificate with rotorcraft category and helicopter class rating must log at least 40 hours of flight time that includes at least 20 hours of flight training from an authorized instructor and 10 hours of solo flight training in the areas of operation listed in §61.107(B)(3) of this part, and the training must include at least—

(1) 3 hours of cross-country flight training in a helicopter;

(2) Except as provided in §61.110 of this part, 3 hours of night flight training in a helicopter that includes—

(i) One cross-country flight of over 50 nautical miles total distance; and

(ii) 10 takeoffs and 10 landings to a full stop (with each landing involving a flight in the traffic pattern) at an airport.

(3) 3 hours of flight training with an authorized instructor in a helicopter in preparation for the practical test, which must have been performed within the preceding 2 calendar months from the month of the test; and

(4) 10 hours of solo flight time in a helicopter, consisting of at least—

(i) 3 hours cross-country time;

(ii) One solo cross country flight of 100 nautical miles total distance, with landings at three points, and one segment of the flight being a straight-line distance of more than 25 nautical miles between the takeoff and landing locations; and

(iii) Three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop (with each landing involving a flight in the traffic pattern) at an airport with an operating control tower.

 

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=ebb4ad493b6c0583d55897341f272af9&mc=true&node=se14.2.61_1109&rgn=div8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget SFAR 73...if you happen to pick a school that uses Robbie's. That might bump it up to 20 hours? :D

 

And that's before he can solo. Which means a new minimum of 30 hours. 20 dual required by SFAR 73, plus the 10 solo required by 61.109 referenced by avbug

Edited by ridethisbike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only do you not need a current flight review to take a practical test, the practical test for the new rating counts for a flight review (in lieu of), and resets the calendar clock.

 

Your flight review in a fixed wing airplane would be necessary to act as pilot in command of a fixed wing aircraft, because you were rated in airplanes, correct? You were taking the practical test for a helicopter, as an add-on category/class rating?

 

During the practical test, you are acting as pilot in command, unless the examiner agrees to do so. In this case, you're taking a test for a rating that you don't hold, do while you're the legal pilot in command for the flight under 14 CFR 61.47( b ), you're exempted from requirements relating to carrying a passenger as PIC, by 61.47( c ).

 

61.56( c ) provides that you can't act as pilot in command of an aircraft, unless you have a current flight review (or have met the other requirements in lieu of a flight review). In this case, however, you're acting as pilot in command only for the purposes of the practical test, and in a category and class for which you're not yet certificated beyond a solo endorsement. In essence, what you're doing is making a solo flight with a non-passenger who is there to observe; your recency of experience isn't required by 61.56 (flight review) when operating the helicopter solo. It's covered by your instructor's solo endorsement.

 

The examiner was wrong.

Edited by avbug
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pokey

maybe the examiner wasn't current? :S

 

i guess once you get to the day of the checkride tho, the examiner wears the pants. I had one examiner that refused to fly in the owner's cessna 150 because it didn't have an interior (it had seats, just no plastic or headliner) was completely airworthy tho. He made him rent another plane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The interior is part of the type design. If the aircraft was manufactured in a given condition and included the interior, then that interior is part of the type design and any operation that deviates from the type design needs an airworthiness approval (337, STC, MEL, or otherwise altered in a manner acceptable to the Administrator). No interior? No log entry? Nothing to establish airworthiness? The examiner is correct to reject the airplane.

 

If the aircraft was manufactured with a part, it had better be present and operative, or properly altered. Simply missing isn't acceptable; it makes the aircraft unairworthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pokey

The interior is part of the type design. If the aircraft was manufactured in a given condition and included the interior, then that interior is part of the type design and any operation that deviates from the type design needs an airworthiness approval (337, STC, MEL, or otherwise altered in a manner acceptable to the Administrator). No interior? No log entry? Nothing to establish airworthiness? The examiner is correct to reject the airplane.

 

If the aircraft was manufactured with a part, it had better be present and operative, or properly altered. Simply missing isn't acceptable; it makes the aircraft unairworthy.

 

what makes you think it wasn't properly documented? plus it was NOT my student, NOT my airplane. Mind reading again? but TY again Mr Know-it-all.....lucky you wasn't there, you would have grounded it <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You also need to have a current BFR in your prior rating if you're doing an add-on checkride.

 

Not knowing this on the day of my helicopter add-on checkride, I actually had to go next door and hop in a Cessna 182 for a BFR..hop out and immediately go take my checkride in the R22.

 

 

It came from our school's longtime examiner. I guess he could be wrong but he wasnt giving my checkride unless I was BFR current in fixed.

 

As stated in the post #10 above this DPE was incorrect (§61.47).

 

Always remember, if you have an issue with any DPE, pass the information along to your local FSDO. The DPE is there to serve you. If enough like-minded people inform their FSDO of these issues they’ll see some changes.

 

Your DPE is held to a written standard too.

13-504 INSPECTION.

A. Annual Inspections. All examiners must undergo inspection at least once a year. National and regional guidelines may require more frequent inspections.

B. High Activity DPE. In addition to the annual inspection described above, high activity examiners will undergo evaluation at least one additional time during the year. This additional inspection requires that an inspector observe the examiner administer at least one complete practical test.

C. Other Inspections. In addition to the inspections and surveillances described in subparagraphs 13-504A and B, an aviation safety inspector (ASI) may want to consider additional inspections and surveillance of examiners under the circumstances listed below.

An examiner whose practical test passing rate exceeds 90 percent;

An examiner who conducts three or more complete practical tests on a given day;

An examiner who tests a student trained by that examiner without approval from the supervising field office or FAA office;

An examiner whose certification file error rate exceeds 10 percent;

An examiner who is the subject of a valid public complaint; or

An examiner who has been involved in an accident, incident, or Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) violation.

NOTE: ASIs, in consultation with their FSDO management, may use their discretion and judgment in the kind and frequency of monitoring and inspections of their individual examiners. For example, an ASI should consider the difference between a pass rate exceeding 90 percent for a DPE that has conducted very few practical tests, and a pass rate exceeding 90 percent for a high activity DPE. Similarly, if a DPE’s error rate is above 10 percent, the ASI should consider whether the DPE has conducted very few practical tests or is considered high activity. Also, in a case where a DPE may have an excellent record for serving the public, and one applicant files a complaint, the ASI may want to discuss the complaint with the DPE, but the depth and detail of the monitoring / inspection / surveillance may not have to be significant. Again, we expect ASIs to use their discretion and judgment and be professional.

High Activity DPE. An examiner who conducts 50 or more practical tests during a

given quarter.

REF: Vol13, Ch6, Sec1

The following explains §61.47 in more detail:

 

In your example, the pilot taking a practical test does not meet any of the circumstances for logging PIC time in section 61.51 (e). The pilot is neither the sole occupant of the aircraft nor acting as PIC of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required. That pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls but is not rated and does have privileges for the aircraft.

Under the section 1.1 definition, a pilot must be rated in the aircraft to act as PIC. An exception to this rating requirement has existed since the FAA issued section 61.47 (then as 14 C.F.R. § 61.26) on July 3, 1965, 30 FR 8515.

In that final rule, the FAA explained that an unrated pilot is qualified to act as PIC during a practical test because that pilot possesses the appropriate experience prior to the practical test for the particular certificate or rating.

Though there have been multiple changes to Part 61 in the intervening years, this exception never has been withdrawn. No similar exception has been made with respect to logging PIC time under section 61.5I(e).

It is inconsistent that a pilot is permitted to act as PIC but not log PIC time when both sections 1.1 and 61.51 require that the pilot be rated for the aircraft, and the pilot must possess the appropriate experience prior to the practical test. Therefore, a pilot may log PIC time for the practical test.

With respect to the student flight referenced in your letter, the student pilot may log PIC flight time for the practical test for the same reason even though the student pilot does not meet any of the section 61.5 1(e)(4) circumstances.

REF: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2009/murphy%20-%20(2009)%20legal%20interpretation.pdf

Edited by iChris
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"add on helicopter ratings..."

 

The whole concept... makes me shudder. Next step, the commercial helicopter "add-on rating"...

 

A really, really, good idea...? Or not? Well, I have (some) experience with the end results.

 

Judge for yourself:

 

 

He was a really nice fellow. Everybody liked him.
And he had already established a reputation as a dependable wrench. All he needed now was a flight check out on a Bell 47 G3. A month or two on my boat, and then, all going well, my boss would put him on another boat on his own, as pilot-mechanic. Great.

Trouble was...
He couldn't fly for toffee. I knew that within the first few minutes.
I've got quite a few thousand hours flight instruction given under my belt, and I don't get nervous easily.
But this fine lad...
Our very first tuna boat take-off, from the ship, underway, in relatively benign conditions, was a white knuckled, grossly-out-of-balance, hop-skip-and-stagger affair. And pray. Holy...
I started making mental notes. Little did I know that I was going to end up with over two pages worth of detailed listings of areas requiring serious remedial training.
It started with "the death grip from hell". You could throw a copper coin between two Scotsmen, and announce:

"That's your penny!"

...and you couldn't possibly get a tighter grip. (That's how they make copper wire in Scotland, by the way)
From "the death grip from hell", which he was very loth to relinquish under any circumstances, (including near crashing), we graduated to a peculiarly wooden style of flying. He never 'went with' the helicopter. He never rode it like a Master on his pony. He just tried to overpower the girl with brute force, manifested by gritted teeth and furious, scowling concentration. My entreaties to "relax!" were met by complete non-comprehension.
His sense of depth perception was so skewered, that we would be on short finals at two hundred feet above the helideck, whereupon he would just lower full collective.... and the very next time around, we would be coming in level with the helideck, far too low, in a borderline HOGE struggling high hover-taxy.
I tried everything.

 

The whole sad story about this particular proud holder of a brand spanking new Helicopter Commercial Add-on rating is available here:

 

"I have control!...JESUS!"

 

:unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm at a loss as how one could say ought about adding a certificate or rating: it's nothing more than additional training. There's nothing sinister about adding a rotorcraft rating to a pilot certificate that already contains a fixed wing rating any more than one should be concerned about training in a single engine airplane after obtaining a private or commercial in a helicopter.

 

If one is foolish enough to step beyond one's means after obtaining certification, that has nothing to do with an "add on," it has everything to do with poor judgement...but certainly no worse than the fool that hires the inexperienced aviator. Caveat employer.

 

An employer that hires cheap and cuts corners and is willing to take the least experienced, sorry excuse for an aviator possible shouldn't expect a lot. Discretion is more than just the better part of valor; it has a lot to do with keeping one's fleet intact, too.

 

As for the 747; my initial training in type lasted about six weeks, the lowest time pilot there was around 5,000 hours, the highest around 25,000 hours. My upgrade lasted four VERY intensive weeks of ground school followed by full motion simulator, then several trips around the world on IOE line operations before a line checkride with the company POI, an FAA inspector. The 747 is not necessarily a difficult airplane to fly; it flies beautifully, but it's all about mass management, and systems and crew coordination, and we did see a relatively high wash-out rate in each class, for various reasons.

 

Regardless of the transition, whether it's one aircraft type to another or one category to another, one needs to devote adequate attention to the training, and in the final analysis, it's all about judgement, not monkey skills. At the conclusion of my IOE training, before I was signed off to take the line check for my captain upgrade in the 747, the check airman simply asked "are you ready?" It wasn't a question to be taken lightly, and he expected good judgement in response. The same should be true of any situation; the pilot who undertakes a job or assignment on the assumption that he's ready when he really isn't makes a mistake that may cost him and his personnel their lives, and the company an aircraft, and their reputation.

 

The employer also bears a high responsibility in determining that the pilot is ready. Any employer that simply throws the pilot to the wolves and grants carte blanche aircraft access to do the job, when the aviator hasn't been thoroughly vetted and checked, is also acting irresponsibility. The employer bears the burden to ensure that the person hired and the person released to do the job is up to the task.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember soloing the space shuttle for the first time. NASA didn't think I was ready and neither did I, but everyone else in my astronaut class had come down with a nasty case of the "cosmonaut cough" (a night of heavy drinking and oysters out on Merritt Island). I forgot to lower the gear and slid almost 7000 meters before coming to an inglorious and screeching halt. Lesson learned!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Avbug

 

I don't have an issue at all with people adding qualifications or experience. I'm all for that part. Where I wonder is the part where a serious amount of fixed wing time (plus Commercial) qualifies an applicant for a vastly reduced flight hours requirement for his Commercial Helicopter License.

 

If you read the story line, you'll see what I mean.

 

A Blip on the Radar (Part 24A) "I have control!....JESUS!"

 

(and Parts 24B, 24C, 24D, and 24 E) (See www.chopperstories.com)

 

 

 

Soon he was setting us up for a "fly by". Silently, without a word, I watched. He was totally pre-occupied with his audience. He was waving like a Royal. Slower and slower we went. Now we were down to two hundred feet. The speed was bleeding steadily off. Fifty knots. Forty knots. Thirty… But he hadn't looked inside for a while now. He was half hanging out the bubble. We were flying doors off, and his arm waved gaily at his best muckers below.
Still slower. I knew there was an onshore breeze of eight to ten knots. We were heading towards the shore. He was setting us up for a down wind, low, slow fly by. Alarm bells were going off in my mind.
But not in his…
I watched silently, and thought back to another student of mine. Arthur. My friend of the "over backwards autorotation". Who I had let go as far as I had dared. Until I honestly thought I had better get involved, or he would kill us both… Another story. I'll tell it, some day.
Twenty knots…
And still he hung out the open door, waving. A truly magnificent smile on his face. I wondered if that was how he had greeted the native villagers up in the mountains. The great Chief in the Sky, coming in his chariot, waving gloriously at the unwashed masses huddled below…
Fifteen knots…
We were experiencing the first bumps as we started losing translational lift. Surely he would look inside now…
The alarm bells in my mind were now jumbo sized claxons, with red lights flashing everywhere.
More bumps… a little jolt. A shake. A quiver. The poor little helicopter was trying to talk to its Master.
Hey Boss, I'm beginning to struggle here…
No reaction. He was totally transfixed by the figures on the helideck below. He had not looked inside since the air speed dipped below fifty knots.
Twelve knots…
The helicopter was shaking now. Surely, surely, he would realize something was amiss. I was itching to grab the controls, but aware that I should give him every opportunity to learn from this.
Ten knots…
Now it was getting to be dangerous. We had a breeze from our six o'clock, and he was holding two hundred feet. The aircraft was trading speed off to maintain height. But he didn't know…
Eight knots… seven… five….
The airspeed was bleeding off to zero. I was silently coiled like a spring. The machine was now clearly sending signals that something was horribly wrong. She was shaking her head, trembling, struggling…
And STILL he waved the Royal Wave out the door.
Unbelievable. No clue. Absolutely no clue…
We were now seconds away from losing all airspeed. What was going to happen now was a "partial unknown".
For sure, the machine was so far above HOGE capabilities, that there was "no way, Jose" that we could maintain a hover. But the result would be interesting. No machine quietly and gently sinks downwards when it can't hover anymore. It would be nice if that were to be the case. If we knew that a helicopter merely maintains its heading, and gently sinks, when it loses HOGE capability. If that were the case, then many hundreds of deceased helicopter pilots (and their passengers) would be alive today. A pilot could then afford to ignore HOGE considerations, knowing that all he had to do was recover from the gentle, steady descent. It would be nice…
The truth is that loss of airspeed above HOGE can transform a hitherto gentle beast of burden into a raging, demented, wildly gyrating Chamber of Death. There is no Rule Book anymore. Nobody can tell you exactly what is going to happen. But we can give you an approximation… I stared at the airspeed indicator, now trembling towards zero, and thought back...

 

and again... (remember, this chappie had a COMMERCIAL helicopter license...)

 

 

 

What do you do? If there is one trick I have learned as a Flight Instructor, then it is to never scold a student. When things are really bad, I mean "really bad", I mean "shockingly bad", then the best thing a Flight Instructor can do is to take the student quietly aside, and ask HIM the question: "Well, my friend, how do YOU feel you did? Tell me about what YOU think?"
In most cases, the student will beat himself up much worse than you would. And what you're looking for there, is to see if he is aware himself as to what is going on. Very often, as a Flight Instructor, you will listen to a remarkably intelligent self analysis. That's great. Now you know HE knows. And now it becomes easy. All you have to say is: "Good! I'm glad to see you have a very good awareness of what is going on. That is really helpful. And actually, it's not as bad as you think. I see some real positives here….." In a sense, you let the student beat himself down a bit, and then you build him back up. Mostly, it works very well. Mostly.
I tried it with our friend. Quietly, sympathetically, I put the question to him.
"Well, my friend, how do YOU feel you did? Tell me about what YOU think?"
There was a pause. A silence. He weighed it all up carefully.
I held my breath.
"Well", he said eventually. "I guess…"
He was looking resigned.
"I guess I knew I was going to be in trouble when you said we were going to do slope landings…"
Why was that, I asked him.
"Well, because… you see… I've NEVER DONE THEM BEFORE…"
???????
I was lost for words. I tried hard to formulate my sentence:
"You mean.. you mean you have a COMMERCIAL HELICOPTER License and you have NEVER been shown how to perform slope landings…??"
He shook his head.
"No."

 

I'm serious...

 

:huh:

 

(PS: and I know you're gonna ask.... yes, his CFI was also his examiner...)

Edited by Francis Meyrick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Avbug

 

I don't have an issue at all with people adding qualifications or experience. I'm all for that part. Where I wonder is the part where a serious amount of fixed wing time (plus Commercial) qualifies an applicant for a vastly reduced flight hours requirement for his Commercial Helicopter License.

 

 

There's no such thing as a commercial helicopter license. There's only a pilot certificate, with ratings that may be added for airplane, rotorcraft, lighter than air, etc. Adding a rating is nothing more than adding a qualification.

 

If a 300 hour pilot who holds a commercial pilot certificate has a scant 40 hours of helicopter time, then that person is a 40 hour helicopter pilot. If an employer is stupid enough to hire him or her with that little experience, it's on the pilot for taking the job, and it's on the company for thinking so little of their own equipment, personnel, clients, and reputation that they'd be willing to bet it all on someone with no experience.

 

It has nothing to do with adding a rating. It has everything to do with the pilot who exercises the poor judgement, and the employer who does the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There's no such thing as a commercial helicopter license. There's only a pilot certificate, with ratings that may be added for airplane, rotorcraft, lighter than air, etc. Adding a rating is nothing more than adding a qualification.

 

If a 300 hour pilot who holds a commercial pilot certificate has a scant 40 hours of helicopter time, then that person is a 40 hour helicopter pilot. If an employer is stupid enough to hire him or her with that little experience, it's on the pilot for taking the job, and it's on the company for thinking so little of their own equipment, personnel, clients, and reputation that they'd be willing to bet it all on someone with no experience.

 

It has nothing to do with adding a rating. It has everything to do with the pilot who exercises the poor judgement, and the employer who does the same.

I followed your footsteps and got an SR 71 job as a student pilot on my 3rd class medical. I just talked a big game over e mails and they sent the Concorde to pick me up. It's good to be king. I'm starting to learn from you kind sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consistently, you manage to offer zero to the conversation. Nothing. Far from impressive, it's a wonder that you manage to draw a breath without choking on your own lungs.

I guess I need to get with you about proper respiration because I hear your moms basement is CRAZY muggy this time of year. What brand of humidifier did your mom spring for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...