New commercial rating interpretation

[Vindicated0721]

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2010/101104instrumental.html?WT.mc_id=ebrief

 

Has anyone else seen or heard of this. My examiner just sent it over to my instructor. It is absolutely ridiculous and very frustrating! I just did my instrument check ride, I have 50 hours of foggle time and an fresh instrument rating. I am a about to take my commercial check ride in a week or two, but now I have to wait and shell out more money for 10 more hours of foggle time. This is bs. A non instrument rated pilot can just do 10 hours of foggle and he is good to go. I have 50 and a cert but still need another 10! That makes no sense.

The FAA most likely resend the interpretation, but the FAA is not well known for doing things quickly. So either I have to just sit around and put my commercial rating on hold (which I've worked very hard) or sell out the time and the money (which I don't have) for 10 more hours of foggle time.

[shb47]

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2010/101104instrumental.html?WT.mc_id=ebrief

 

Has anyone else seen or heard of this.

 

This LOI is fairly recent. I don't recall this interpretation ever being mentioned before in my 45 years of flying, probably because it is obvious nonsense.

 

Agree it is total BS. I got an add-on commercial RH a couple of years ago, and since I had an ATP the question never came up. What's changed? One more example of government run amok.

 

Keep us posted on how you handle it.

[rick1128]

This LOI is fairly recent. I don't recall this interpretation ever being mentioned before in my 45 years of flying, probably because it is obvious nonsense.

 

Agree it is total BS. I got an add-on commercial RH a couple of years ago, and since I had an ATP the question never came up. What's changed? One more example of government run amok.

 

Keep us posted on how you handle it.

 

What happened is that the FAA changed the wording on the commercial pilot requirement in the last change they made on Part 61. I can understand why they did it. Primarily it was done because many pilots were getting a multi engine rating and didn't get any instrument training with that rating so there were some accidents. It used to state 10 hours of instrument training. Now it states 5 hours on the control and maneuvering of a helicopter by reference to the instruments. One of the reasons it states it this way is that this paragraph of regulation allows the use of an aircraft, simulator, flight training device or an aviation training device to conduct this training. Only the helicopter and Gyro-copter commercials are this way. I realize it doesn't make any sense, after all what is the purpose of a Helicopter instrument rating if not for the control and maneuvering of a helicopter by reference to the instruments. but keep in mind FAR 0.1 'Don't let common sense over-ride the rules.'

 

You have a few options there. You can wait for the LOI from legal to come out which it will in the near future. However, keep in mind that FAA Legal doesn't work very fast. Another is check with your instructor for the instrument rating to see if he would give you a letter stating that he has trained you on the control and maneuvering of a helicopter by reference to the instruments and then check to see if the DPE will accept that. They should as the PTS indicates a written statement from the instructor. I wouldn't have your instrument instructor add anything to your present logbook entries. As that could open a can of worms nobody wants.

[R22139RJ]

That is a little bogus but sometimes you just have to make people happy with BS. If the interpretation stands, the worst thing is that you have to do 5 more hours of hood time. You'll get more practice and be that much closer to ATP requirements. Good luck.

[Goldy]

I spoke to a local help DPE about this a few months ago. He said it was very clear that each section of flight requirements stand on their own and you could not "share" time from one requirement to the next. For what it's worth, he thought it would stay that way even after interpretations came out.

[rick1128]

I spoke to a local help DPE about this a few months ago. He said it was very clear that each section of flight requirements stand on their own and you could not "share" time from one requirement to the next. For what it's worth, he thought it would stay that way even after interpretations came out.

 

Goldy,

 

I believe that there will be a LOI out in the somewhat near future clarifying this. That particular paragraph of 61.129 is more than a little ambiguous. There are DPEs and FSDOs out there say that the training if not done in a simulator or FTD must be in a helicopter even though the paragraph states 'aircraft'. While each regulation does stand on their own, they also don't stand on their own as they are all interlinked.

[heli.pilot]

I couldnt find the exact page I was looking for, but I found this page:

 

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cfvAgIEy4KcJ:www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afs/afs800/afs810/checklist/media/aero-exp.doc+commercial+pilot+readiness+checklist&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

It lists 10 hours of instrument time (must have been written prior to the reduction to only 5 hours), but it specifically says the following:

 

"NOTE 4: Applicants for a commercial pilot certificate with the airplane single engine, airplane multiengine, helicopter, gyroplane, or powered-lift ratings and who already holds an instrument rating that is appropriate to the category and class rating sought are not required to accomplish an additional “. . . 10 hours of instrument training . . .” as stated in § 61.129(a)(3)(i); § 61.129((3)(i); § 61.129©(3)(i); § 61.129(d)(3)(i); and § 61.129(e)(3)(i). However, the required commercial pilot training hour requirements [i.e., ". . . on the areas of operation listed in § 61.127 . . ."] of 20 hours in § 61.129(a)(3), ((3), ©(3), (d)(3), and (e)(3) cannot be reduced to 10 hours."

 

The page I was looking for, and couldn't find, mentioned the 5 hour requirement and also mentioned that it was NOT intended that an applicant who already held an instrument rating accomplish an additional 5 hours of instrument training. It was posted a while back on the FAA website as an "aeronautical experience checklist".

 

And yes, I did read the first paragraph that states:

 

STATEMENT: This checklist is not to be used in lieu of Part 61 and Part 141. This checklist has been prepared as merely a quick reference on the required aeronautical experience requirements of Part 61 and Part 141.

 

So yes, it's an unofficial list of requirements, but it totally contradicts what the FSDO is saying.

 

It makes no sense to me at all why an commercial applicant WITH AN INSTRUMENT RATING would need another 5 hours...

[Helibear]

Just to clarify the situation.

You have a private pilot certificate with a rotorcraft helicopter rating. You are undergoing training for your instrument rating and your commercial certificate parallel. Who say's that the training you got was not for the 5 hr requirement in 61.129? The LOI states that training for 61.129 counts towards 61.65. So if 5 of your IFR hrs where commercial training everything is fine.

If your CFII signs the endorsement that you meet the requirements for 61.129 there should be no problem at all. The fact that you did you IFR checkride before your commercial checkride does not mean that your training was not for your commercial certificate.

 

So far we haven't had any problems with this practice.

 

What am I missing??

 

Have a nice day

 

Helibear

[rick1128]

Just to clarify the situation.

You have a private pilot certificate with a rotorcraft helicopter rating. You are undergoing training for your instrument rating and your commercial certificate parallel. Who say's that the training you got was not for the 5 hr requirement in 61.129? The LOI states that training for 61.129 counts towards 61.65. So if 5 of your IFR hrs where commercial training everything is fine.

If your CFII signs the endorsement that you meet the requirements for 61.129 there should be no problem at all. The fact that you did you IFR checkride before your commercial checkride does not mean that your training was not for your commercial certificate.

 

So far we haven't had any problems with this practice.

 

What am I missing??

 

Have a nice day

 

Helibear

 

HB, I believe where Vindicated's problem is, is in how his instrument time was entered into his logbook. It sounds like he was caught between the reg changes. It seems to happen every time there is a change in Part 61. While for Part 141 there is usually a carry forward allowance for those so caught, normally it doesn't cover Part 61 students.

Edited November 29, 2010 by rick1128

[Vindicated0721]

Yeah. Definitly caught between regs. I have 50 hours of simulated instrument time and I just got my instrument rating just the other week. My DPE sent my CFI an email with that story saying that if the LOI is not rescended then I won't have the requirements for my commercial check ride which is suppose to be some time next week or so.

It just sucks that I was all set with the aeronautical experience for commercial but now all of a sudden I'm not.

 

Also the DPE just did my instrument check ride so he is familiar with my hours.

 

The reg makes no sense though because who says which hours were going towards my instrument and which were going towards commercial. I have more than enough for both.

 

It's not the end of the world but it is a pain.

[heligirl03]

My experience is also that it is syntactical....all in how the training is logged. The CPL training counts towards the IR but not vice versa, so 5 hours pre- IR must be flown and logged toward a CPL. Then they will count toward both.

 

The interpretation itself makes legal sense if you read the regs as written. The CPL 5hr IFR AE requirement is a certificate-specific dual instruction requirement, while the 50 hours of IFR for an IR are a general requirement.

 

Definitely a pain for those caught in between but not really a problem otherwise. We got this interpretation last spring (same deal, new IR student went in for CPL checkride and got bumped until she got those 5 more hours), so my more recent IFR students had at least 5 hours of CPL IFR training logged when they went in for their IR checkrides.

 

Happy Holiday flying!! Actually saw the sun for awhile today up here in the PNW

 

HG03

[IFLY]

My Chief Flight Instructor sent an email to the FAA about this problem with reasons and supporting documentation and he received a call back from them and they said they will recind this ruling and basically set it back to the way it was. Should be hearing something in the next couple of weeks about it.

 

Jerry

[Vindicated0721]

Too bad my commercial check ride is next Wednesday. My DPE basically told me to just suck it up and do the 5 hours. Lol. So that's what I'm going to do.