Question for CFI's

[Joecub]

Hi Guys, New here.... I'm an 11,000 hour CFI fixed wing guy thats starting my rotor wing ratings. My question is; my 141 school wants me to do my private license first then my commercial, and I would like to go straight to a commercial add on. The flight school owner says it will actually be cheaper to go there route. I guess part of my problem will be having a 250 hr instructor wanting to take and show me how to talk on the radio in class B airspace, or show me how to do a cross country, when I already do that for a living.... Do I need to swallow my pride and do private first, or should I push for commercial add on? No offense to you young CFI's struggling to make it out into the real world, been there...don't wanta do it again.

[romanweel]

I guess part of my problem will be having a 250 hr instructor wanting to take and show me how to talk on the radio in class B airspace, or show me how to do a cross country, when I already do that for a living....

 

Can't speak to it being any cheaper, but I don't think it'll hurt. As for your concerns, I actually was a 250 hour pilot when I got my first 5,000hr add-on student, and I know (for me, at least) there was never a question who had the higher level of experience. I tried my best not to "teach" him things he already knew, and I was always careful not to step on his pride. If you've got a 250hr pilot worth his salt, he'll do the same. If not, ask for an instructor switch.

 

Btw, as an add-on applicant, you aren't required to do the cross-country portion of the checkride...unless your 141 school insists, of course. You're also not required to take the written again, though I'm sure you knew that...again, provided your school doesn't insist on it. So all your flight time for "Private" training is actually commercial training anyway, it's all the same stuff, just to different standards.

 

As a side note, you might offer to take your CFI through airspace he hasn't gotten to fly much, if you're feeling benevolent...if he's a real pilot, he'll appreciate the pressure-less experience of having a more experienced pilot in the cockpit again. Once you've learned to hover the stubborn beast, that is. (always remember, he may have less time in the AIR, but you've got significantly LESS in the upside-down weed-whacker with the personality of an untrained attack dog)

[rick1128]

Joe,

 

I did this a few years ago. Doing the private first and then the Commercial will not be any cheaper. And it may be more expensive. After all you will have to pay 2 examiner fees and take 2 check rides. And you are not required to do the private first. I did just the commercial and personally I would do it that way again. You are not required to a written and the school has no say on that at all. Check the PTS's for the requirements, you are not required to do the cross country portion of the checkride, unless the examiner asks for it and most will not. Next question why 141 school? I don't believe that 141 gives any real advantage.

 

A couple of suggestions. First if you can find one, do your training with an instructor that has both FW and RW ratings. That means they have done an add-on rating. You will run into some different problems that most RW students will not. Also you will have some issues with negative transfer. It doesn't really manner which way they transition, everyone will have negative transfer problems. The more experienced the pilot the bigger these issues could be. So don't get discouraged. And that is why having an instructor who has been through that will be a big help.

 

A couple of points. First when you are training, legally you are a student pilot, but then again you are not. Legally you will only need 2 sign-offs during your training. The solo sign-off and the sign-off for the check ride. You will not need any sign-offs for your cross-countries. A lot of schools make a big deal about PIC time. Check Part 1, solo time is PIC time and since you are a certified pilot, you can log it as such. Keep in mind that you are a certified pilot, all you are doing is adding an additional rating.

 

A lot of instructors, especially low time ones, are unfamiliar with add-on ratings. So you might have to sit down with them and discuss what the regs really say from time to time. You already hold a commercial or ATP, don't let them try to talk you into doing helicopter instrument training. Unless you are looking toward getting the helicopter instrument rating. And even then it can be done more efficiently later. Your FW instrument rating or ATP is more than sufficient. I have yet to see an examiner that has had an issue with accepting your current certificate as meeting the requirements of instrument time requirement.

 

If you are going to go further in this venture, do your CFI as soon as you can after your Commercial. Then do your Instrument rating and CFII at the same time. That is probably the most efficient to do it.

 

Good luck.

[RkyMtnHI]

Joe, welcome to the dark side!! :-)

 

i totally agree with Rick on this (imagine that!).

 

call around, speak with some more folks about your goals and see what they say.. talk with someone like Rick that has done this before.. he is right on.

 

jmho,

 

dp

[rotorrodent]

I guess part of my problem will be having a 250 hr instructor wanting to take and show me how to talk on the radio in class B airspace, or show me how to do a cross country, when I already do that for a living....

 

******************************

Yes that is your problem...just because you have a few fix wing hours doesn't mean you know everything. You are over simplifying what you expect to learn as a Private Rotorcraft pilot. The training isn't about what you know or don't know. It is all about experience. You will learn things on your private cross country that you don't know about at this time. He is not going to teach you about talking in Class B. You are going to teach him! Sure, the 250 hr CFI will be humbled in your presence and will learn something from you. But you will learn a lot more from that CFI. Remember this: he knows how to fly a helicopter and you don't!

 

Might I suggest that you pack away your ego, take on a humble attitude and enjoy the experience of your Private rotorcraft flying. It's not about the end rating...it's about the "experience" along the way.

 

Yes, you can go straight on to the Commercial. I would highly recommend that you do the Private then move onto the Commercial.

 

I know a 30,000 hr fixed wing, Airline Pilot who did the Private first and was glad he did. He has been flying for 40+ years and has been flying airplanes since they had dirt floors! Do you think that he knows anything about flying helicopters?

 

He swallowed his pride, put on the humble pie, and did the Private first. His suggestion would be the same to you.

 

Your career in aviation is all about "attitude" not "altitude".

 

Cheers

 

Rotorrodent

CFII Helicopter

CFII ASMEL

[justfly]

They're NOT airplanes! In some ways they are similar, but the seduction of complacency in that regard can kill you. You are sitting with similar controls for hands & feet (+collective), the same axes of rotation, looking at most of the same instruments, often the same view out the window, BUT, there are differences, CRITICAL differences.

 

The more fixed-wing time you have, the MORE difficult it can be to avoid reacting in "fixed-wing ways". It isn't even necessarily conscious thought you'll be fighting, rather cerebellar programming and spinal cord reflexes. By time your cerebral cortex has time to "think", "ohh... that wasn't correct...", your 11,000 fixed-wing-hr programmed reflexes have doomed you! One small more-annoying-than-lethal example will be your feet in a climbing right turn. You'll want to unconsciously coordinate that turn with a little right pedal - good luck with that.

 

For some real-world lethal examples, read SN-29 Airplane Pilots High Risk When Flying Helicopters, especially if you will be flying the R22! Remember, those Safety Notices are often issued following lessons paid for at a terrible cost.

 

Instead of the relaxed demeanor that often pervades the single-engine fixed-wing cockpit, you'll want to adopt more of the spring-loaded, ready-to-respond manner you assume in the critical phases of multi-engine fixed-wing flight. "...if something bad has not happened it is about to." http://www.nixwebs.com/SearchK9/helitac/harryreasoner.htm

 

Though Rick has given you some solid advice, I would look carefully at the seemingly harsh comments in Rotorrodent's reply. He too has given you sage advice. Tread respectfully and enjoy!!

[romanweel]

Sorry, rick1128, but I gotta take issue with a couple of points.

 

...You are not required to a written and the school has no say on that at all.

Not so sure you can count on that. Check the school's policies. When you go 141, you do it the way they say you do it.

 

...A lot of schools make a big deal about PIC time. Check Part 1, solo time is PIC time and since you are a certified pilot, you can log it as such...

 

Let's look at this. You need (for commercial heli) 50 hours helicopter, 35 heli PIC. If you fly all those 35 solo, that leaves the OP 15 hours dual instruction to go from zero to commercial PTS in a helicopter. Do-able? Um. Maybe. Bear in mind that 5 of those 15 have to be spent under the hood. Or alternatively, 5 additional hours spent in a heli simulator.

 

...You already hold a commercial or ATP, don't let them try to talk you into doing helicopter instrument training... Your FW instrument rating or ATP is more than sufficient. I have yet to see an examiner that has had an issue with accepting your current certificate as meeting the requirements of instrument time requirement.

 

Not so. Reg clearly states,

61.129©(3)(i) Five hours on the control and maneuvering of a helicopter solely by reference to instruments using a view-limiting device including attitude instrument flying, partial panel skills, recovery from unusual flight attitudes, and intercepting and tracking navigational systems. This aeronautical experience may be performed in an aircraft, flight simulator, flight training device, or an aviation training device;

 

I don't see any wiggle room there; 5 hours under the hood in a heli or FTD, regardless of prior experience. If the examiner is overlooking this, that seems more like luck than the infallibility of FAA examiners' reg interpretation. And for my 2 cents, IFR in an airplane is nothing like attitude flying a helicopter. You need those 5 hours.

 

My final note goes like this. If you're afraid they're going to try to "talk you into" anything, find another school. If you're afraid the instructor doesn't know what he's doing and doesn't care, find another instructor. There are scheister schools and instructors out there, but I don't think the majority are trying to shaft you. If they say it'll be cheaper, listen to their reasons. Do your own figuring. Listen to the people on the forum, but take everything with a grain of salt. Bottom line, it's your decision who you go with and which direction you take...make sure you're going with a school and an instructor you trust. And for heaven's sake, look those regs up yourself as even the prime wisdom of VR forum posters is subject to error!

[Pohi]

Hi Guys, New here.... I'm an 11,000 hour CFI fixed wing guy thats starting my rotor wing ratings. My question is; my 141 school wants me to do my private license first then my commercial, and I would like to go straight to a commercial add on. The flight school owner says it will actually be cheaper to go there route. I guess part of my problem will be having a 250 hr instructor wanting to take and show me how to talk on the radio in class B airspace, or show me how to do a cross country, when I already do that for a living.... Do I need to swallow my pride and do private first, or should I push for commercial add on? No offense to you young CFI's struggling to make it out into the real world, been there...don't wanta do it again.

 

Forgive my igorance; I have read all of the posts before but not again today so if I repeat anything already stated I alm sorry.

 

in my humble opinion;

 

do whatever gives you the warm and fuzzies

 

if you have a noob 250 hour instructor trying to teach you how to do the things you do for a living; why not take that opportunity to show this poor fellow how thins are done in your world? it cant hurt, takes zero effort on your part, and you might influence this person for the best.

 

Pride kills

 

Asking you to do again a what you do for a living a few more times to help another up and coming aviator is not that too much to ask. This is, if the overall cost to you is nothing. if it cost you thousands more to help a CFI in need, then a reevaluation is necessary

[JDHelicopterPilot]

Forgive my igorance; I have read all of the posts before but not again today so if I repeat anything already stated I alm sorry.

 

in my humble opinion;

 

do whatever gives you the warm and fuzzies

 

if you have a noob 250 hour instructor trying to teach you how to do the things you do for a living; why not take that opportunity to show this poor fellow how thins are done in your world? it cant hurt, takes zero effort on your part, and you might influence this person for the best.

 

Pride kills

 

Asking you to do again a what you do for a living a few more times to help another up and coming aviator is not that too much to ask. This is, if the overall cost to you is nothing. if it cost you thousands more to help a CFI in need, then a reevaluation is necessary

[/quote

 

 

The only problem is that the way the "real world" in Helicopters and the "real world" in airplanes are not anything alike. Since he has no helicopter time I don't really see him being able to do that aside from things like airspace and maybe navigation.

[rick1128]

Sorry, rick1128, but I gotta take issue with a couple of points.

 

Not so sure you can count on that. Check the school's policies. When you go 141, you do it the way they say you do it.

 

The school, even 141 schools have no say about writtens. It is controlled by the FAA in general and by Order 808.6d in particular. See the below except. So the only written exams you would have to do is one for the CFI-H add-on, the CFII-H add-on and the ATP-H add-on.

 

Order 8080.6d 7-14. TRANSITIONING BETWEEN POWERED AND NONPOWERED CATEGORY AND CLASS

RATING TESTS.

a. When applying for an additional category or class rating, a knowledge test is NOT

required for an applicant who holds a recreational, private, or commercial pilot certificate with a category and class rating for powered aircraft.

 

b. When applying for a category or class rating for powered or nonpowered aircraft, a

knowledge test IS required for an applicant who holds a recreational, private, or commercial pilot certificate with a category and class rating for nonpowered aircraft, i.e., glider and hot air balloon.

 

Let's look at this. You need (for commercial heli) 50 hours helicopter, 35 heli PIC. If you fly all those 35 solo, that leaves the OP 15 hours dual instruction to go from zero to commercial PTS in a helicopter. Do-able? Um. Maybe. Bear in mind that 5 of those 15 have to be spent under the hood. Or alternatively, 5 additional hours spent in a heli simulator.

 

Not so. Reg clearly states,

61.129©(3)(i) Five hours on the control and maneuvering of a helicopter solely by reference to instruments using a view-limiting device including attitude instrument flying, partial panel skills, recovery from unusual flight attitudes, and intercepting and tracking navigational systems. This aeronautical experience may be performed in an aircraft, flight simulator, flight training device, or an aviation training device;

 

I don't see any wiggle room there; 5 hours under the hood in a heli or FTD, regardless of prior experience. If the examiner is overlooking this, that seems more like luck than the infallibility of FAA examiners' reg interpretation. And for my 2 cents, IFR in an airplane is nothing like attitude flying a helicopter. You need those 5 hours.

 

It states that requirement can be done in an AIRCRAFT. It doesn't say helicopter. If it was limited to helicopter, it would state helicopter. If you compare © with (a) and (b)you notice that a and b specifically state airplane. This section has been in the regs for many years and it has been accepted by DPE's as meaning that the pilot must have some instrument training, but not limited to helicopters. Instrument flying is instrument flying. It makes very little difference if you are in an airplane or a helicopter. You do not hover a helicopter on instruments. The procedures are the same, just differences in techniques and control usage. I did a Instrument add-on and have taught a couple of Helicopter Instrument add-ons. It has been my experience that if the pilot with an airplane instrument rating is fairly current, they will be more than ready for the Helicopter Instrument rating checkride, by the time they get their 15 hours.

 

My final note goes like this. If you're afraid they're going to try to "talk you into" anything, find another school. If you're afraid the instructor doesn't know what he's doing and doesn't care, find another instructor. There are scheister schools and instructors out there, but I don't think the majority are trying to shaft you. If they say it'll be cheaper, listen to their reasons. Do your own figuring. Listen to the people on the forum, but take everything with a grain of salt. Bottom line, it's your decision who you go with and which direction you take...make sure you're going with a school and an instructor you trust. And for heaven's sake, look those regs up yourself as even the prime wisdom of VR forum posters is subject to error!4

 

While most schools may not be out to shaft you, keep in mind that school owners will look out for their best interests first. It is the way of the world and you have to look out for your best interests.

 

Next, many lower experienced instructors may not be familiar with all the nuances of the regulations. The regs are not as black and white as many think they are. If they were, then you wouldn't see so many 'letter of interpretation' from the FAA. Plus there are items like FAA Orders that they issue to Inspectors and DPEs.

 

While your already having a certificate will help you in some areas, in others it could be a detriment. And while Justfly did make a good note about SN-29, keep in mind that Frank Robinson is well known for being quite opinionated in certain areas. There are many dual rated pilots out there who are operating both types of aircraft with no problems. But you do need to keep in mind which one you are flying.

 

While your instructor may be a low time pilot, he does have more helicopter experience than you. His/Her job is to train you to become a helicopter pilot. If they do it correctly, they will concentrate their endeavors in areas that you are unfamiliar with and leave things like Class B airspace alone. I was fortunate in that through my employer at the time, I had access to several very highly experienced utility pilots. And from them I got the real skinny on things like confined areas, slope landings, etc.

Edited October 10, 2010 by rick1128

[apiaguy]

A few things,

 

I went thru this and I felt the way everyone has described.. (like I was a pompus pilot and had some jackhole cfi who knew nothing but how to keep the helicopter from crashing)... I was pretty much right.

 

I would recommend u find a school that does lots of add-on stuff and knows the routine and have higher time instructors... the one off hand I think of on here is marpat as I agree with their interpretation on the regs regarding add-on's.. so go sit down with your choice and make sure you both agree on the requirements before you start..it will help avoid alot of headaches.

 

2nd is the FAA just changed the regs on the instrument requirements for commercial this spring and what romanweel put for instrument is correct... you now have to have a min. of 5 IN HELICOPTER of attitude flying by ref. to instruments for the commercial

[Goldy]

It states that requirement can be done in an AIRCRAFT. It doesn't say helicopter. If it was limited to helicopter, it would state helicopter.

 

You are referencing old rules...ie, those found in the 2010 FAR's, but old just the same. It has to be done in a helicopter....any instrument hours you put in that fixed wing dont count anymore....just affirming what APIAGUY is saying.

[rick1128]

2nd is the FAA just changed the regs on the instrument requirements for commercial this spring and what romanweel put for instrument is correct... you now have to have a min. of 5 IN HELICOPTER of attitude flying by ref. to instruments for the commercial

 

 

While Section © does say helicopter, the last sentence states 'aircraft'. An aircraft does not have to be a helicopter. If you look at section A Airplane Single Engine and Section B airplane Multi engine, you see that they state in the last sentence 'Airplane Single Engine' and 'Airplane Multi Engine' respectively. If the FAA had intended to require it to be done in a Helicopter, they would have so stated. If you further into 61.129, Section (D) gyrocopter states the same as the Helicopter Section. I don't know of any gyrocopters that have enough instruments to meet the requirements of that paragraph. And in Section (E) Powered Lift, it reads the same as the airplane sections.

 

"Five hours on the control and maneuvering of a helicopter solely by reference to instruments using a view-limiting device including attitude instrument flying, partial panel skills, recovery from unusual flight attitudes, and intercepting and tracking navigational systems. This aeronautical experience may be performed in an aircraft, flight simulator, flight training device, or an aviation training device;"

 

Nowhere in that paragraph does it say instrument training has to be in a helicopter. It is my position that you can do the instrument portion in any aircraft, including airplane that has the equipment to adequately do the procedures required by the regulation.

 

Goldy, I got these right off the FAA website and they are listed as the current regulations. Previously, the reg stated 10 hours of instrument training. Further more, if the FAA intended to limit the training to helicopters, it would so state in the last sentence. I realize that there a lot of instructors, inspectors and DPE's out there that are this paragraph limits the training to helicopters, I beg to differ and a letter of interpretation may be needed to clarify this.

Edited October 11, 2010 by rick1128

[Goldy]

 

"Five hours on the control and maneuvering of a helicopter solely by reference to instruments using a view-limiting device including attitude instrument flying, partial panel skills, recovery from unusual flight attitudes, and intercepting and tracking navigational systems. This aeronautical experience may be performed in an aircraft, flight simulator, flight training device, or an aviation training device;"

 

Nowhere in that paragraph does it say instrument training has to be in a helicopter. It is my position that you can do the instrument portion in any aircraft, including airplane that has the equipment to adequately do the procedures required by the regulation.

 

Goldy, I got these right off the FAA website and they are listed as the current regulations. Previously, the reg stated 10 hours of instrument training. Further more, if the FAA intended to limit the training to helicopters, it would so state in the last sentence. I realize that there a lot of instructors, inspectors and DPE's out there that are this paragraph limits the training to helicopters, I beg to differ and a letter of interpretation may be needed to clarify this.

 

Rick- While I see your point, my personal interpretation is not the same (not that it matters much!). I see just the opposite. If they didnt expect those 5 hours to be in a helicopter they would not have changed the wording previously as "aircraft" to now saying "helicopter". The last line simply refers that those 5 hours can be in an aircraft (meaning helicopter, differentiating the real thing from a flight sim.).

 

I will agree with you that once again, the FAA has issued new and improved rules that are just as confusing and subject to interpretation as the old ones were!

[Trans Lift]

I agree with Goldy. That reference to aircraft, IMO, means as an alternative to a sim, etc. The first line clearly states that it must be in a helicopter. You are not going to be maneuvering a helicopter at any other time solely by reference to instruments unless you are flying IFR or simulated IFR.

[Rogue]

Don't forget 61.125, what self respecting CFI would sign you off without verifying 61.125 ?

 

 

You state that you are yourself a CFI, would you just sign-off on someone who walk up to you and showed you their license ?

 

With that said, it should only take some conversation while flying around to convince them you are well versed in the knowledge areas of 61.125 if you are half as experienced as you say you are.

[romanweel]

Question to the general 141 public. I was trained 61 and have just recently successfully sent a new TCO through the FSDO for 141 certification. So I've been combing part 141 and Order 808.6d pretty carefully.

 

The school, even 141 schools have no say about writtens. It is controlled by the FAA in general and by Order 808.6d in particular.

 

My understanding was that if it's in the approved syllabus as being required, then it's required. So if my school specifies its Private Candidates have to take and pass a particular test (be it one I've written, one found on AOPA's website, or one the FAA administers), then that test is mandatory, no matter what the regs specify. The TCO and associated syllabus essentially ARE your requirements, which are over and above the bare bones of the reg requirements. Is this not the case?

 

Next, many lower experienced instructors may not be familiar with all the nuances of the regulations. The regs are not as black and white as many think they are.

While your instructor may be a low time pilot, he does have more helicopter experience than you.

 

 

I'd have to disagree again. Regs are nuanced to the extent your FSDO agrees they're nuanced. In some cases they are pretty severely black and white. I've heard of a couple situations in which a particular procedure was approved...until the day someone at FSDO decided it WASN'T approved, and they revoked over 50 certificates issued during the period that procedure was in favor. As much as I can, I try to go with black and white. If it looks grey, ask someone from the local FSDO.

[rick1128]

My understanding was that if it's in the approved syllabus as being required, then it's required. So if my school specifies its Private Candidates have to take and pass a particular test (be it one I've written, one found on AOPA's website, or one the FAA administers), then that test is mandatory, no matter what the regs specify. The TCO and associated syllabus essentially ARE your requirements, which are over and above the bare bones of the reg requirements. Is this not the case?

 

I was not talking about school written exams. I was referring to the FAA written exams. If you check Order 8080.6, it states that holders of a Private or Commercial certificate are not permitted to take those exams again. So if you are going for an add-on rating, all you are doing is adding a rating to your certificate. It would be like requiring a Commercial pilot that has a SE Land rating to do another Commercial pilot written because he is adding a multi-engine rating.

 

I'd have to disagree again. Regs are nuanced to the extent your FSDO agrees they're nuanced. In some cases they are pretty severely black and white. I've heard of a couple situations in which a particular procedure was approved...until the day someone at FSDO decided it WASN'T approved, and they revoked over 50 certificates issued during the period that procedure was in favor. As much as I can, I try to go with black and white. If it looks grey, ask someone from the local FSDO.

 

Be very careful about opinions and interpretations given by a FSDO. You will notice that they never give them in writing. There are reasons for that. First it is not their job to give opinions or interpretations, it is FAA Legal's job. Second, is because when Legal dumps on you, they will say, "We never told them that". The only legal interpretations that have any standing in front of a Federal Judge or an Administrative Law Judge is an interpretations that is issued by Legal and in writing. I personally know of 2 FSDOs that got hammered for giving out interpretations that were contrary to Legal's opinion. In fact one was hammered so bad that people from Washington HQ were sent in to clean house at the FSDO. The lack of written responses from the FSDO's is one of the reasons, I do 'Memos For Record' any time I deal with the FAA. Even on a ramp check.

 

Spend some time reading some of the interpretations that Legal issues. They can be quite interesting and illuminating at times. And you will see that many regs are nowhere near as black and white as you would believe.

[romanweel]

Spend some time reading some of the interpretations that Legal issues. They can be quite interesting and illuminating at times. And you will see that many regs are nowhere near as black and white as you would believe.

 

I'd also recommend taking a class or two on aeronautical law. According to the case decisions I've studied, sometimes Legal crosses FSDO, and sometimes they back FSDO. Sometimes Legal backs FSDO and directly contradicts a ruling Legal had previously endorsed. And vice versa. Nothing be cut and dried, but everything be black and white. Nuanced? I'd more likely call it "darn confusing because the rules keep changing."

 

For the OP, go with local practice. But be advised, "conventionally accepted" now is not necessarily tolerable down the line. Cover your bases. Fly under the radar.

[Goldy]

Fly under the radar.

 

That's the best advice yet.