Bringing back a dead horse

[iChris]

This subject is not really a dead horse as long as it's still misunderstood. The quote below is a common misinterpretation.

 

They say 40 hours flight time
.... Anything counts
20 hours of training and 10 solo in the areas of operation listed in 61-107-b-1

That means you need 20 hours of airplane specific training and 10 hours of airplane solo.

Helicopter stuff doesn't count because helicopter training doesn't fall under 61-107-b-1. Helicopter stuff is 61-107-b-3.

Therefore, your helicopter training doesn't satisfy the regs as they are written.

However, the only opinion that technically matters is the DPE you go to (and the person who endorses you before you go).

 

The quote below is a correct summary of the original text. In the original text you have independent clauses that stand alone (i.e., it expresses a complete thought). The coordinating conjunction “and” connecting the clauses; however each clause is independent of the other.

 

A review of sentence structures, phrases, independent clauses, dependent clauses, and Compound-Complex sentences, may help when read the CFRs. CFRs are sometimes hard to read and understand.

REF Link: Sentence Types

 

This is how I was taught it, the guy who taught it to me owned the FBO outside the gates of Mother Rucker and has a stack of 8710s thicker than the FAR/AIM book (in other words has done more add-ons than you can shake a stick at) and last but not least if he were wrong than I need to give all my certificates back and I'm not about to do that.

 

61.109.a "Except as provided..."

1. "...must log 40 hours of flight time"
2. "...that includes 20 hours of flight training..."
3. "...and 10 hours of solo flight training in the areas of operation listed in 61.107.b.1"
4. "...and the training must include..."

 

So to summarize numbered list -

 

1. is checked off by previous training
2. is checked off by previous training
3. is checked off by 61.109.a & a.5
4. is checked off by 61.109.a

As I said, this is how it was taught to me, it is how I obtained my license and of course people are free to interpret it a different way.

 

 

REF: Office of the Chief Counsel to Mr. Larry J. O'Mara; July 2012

 

Another common misinterpretation.

 

 

So my read is 40 hours TT, 20 hours of training in a single-engine airplane and 10 hours solo in a single-engine airplane. 10 hours of your helicopter time counts towards the fixed wing add-on.

 

I would talk with your DPE prior to your check ride to satisfy him.

 

You literally changed the context and meaning of the original text, that's why I questioned your interpretation.

 

As a matter of fact iChris, I did. I'm pretty good at understanding the role that punctuation plays in a sentence. I also understand what the term "literally" means. Therefore, I literally take what the regs say, literally.

If they want them to mean something other than what they say, then they need to learn how to write.

 

Lastly, remember, your DPE is held to a written standard too. The DPE's opinion technically has no standing if it conflicts with any CFR or FAA legal interpretation.

 

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.

Edited May 29, 2014 by iChris

[Jaybee]

This subject is not really a dead horse as long as it's still misunderstood.

 

Amen.

[Pohi]

One of these days you guys will understand. I have faith in you.

[Jaybee]

One of these days you guys will understand. I have faith in you.

 

I understand just fine - people pay a lot of money to go to schools and be taught wrong. Then trying to get them to believe that they were taught wrong is like trying to talk a tree into moving, law of primacy and such stuff.

 

Lol Jaybee. That's just an opinion, I deal with facts :-)

 

Well then here is a fact for you - the Chief Counsel's opinion will stand the test of the court. Will yours ?

 

I'm going to walk away now, something about leading a horse to water and not drinking comes to mind and I got better things to do then right all the wrongs of the world.

[Pohi]

Haha, Jaybee, you need to get a sense of humor. And yes, as a matter of fact, my opinion will stand up in court. I'll get a better lawyer (or 3) than that douche and I'll win. So there

[Pohi]

On second thought, why would I go to court? I'm not the one cutting corners like you are. You had better hope that clown's word is enough to save your certificates.

[Jaybee]

originally I thought it was funny... but then just sad that you still dont get it

[Jaybee]

Haha, Jaybee, you need to get a sense of humor. And yes, as a matter of fact, my opinion will stand up in court. I'll get a better lawyer (or 3) than that douche and I'll win. So there

 

This is like walking by a train wreck, you should just keep walking but....

 

"that douche" - real professional. Is that what you would tell the judge? "Well that guy (the Chief Counsel) is a douche so his opinion doesn't matter"

 

LOL, you are funny !

 

"So there" - are we three years old again ?

 

LOL, you are funny !

 

No, I don't plan to go to court but as they teach us,,, start at the accident scene and work backwards. Did you not study accident cases as part of your learning process ? Are you not aware of how the legal system works? You words indicate that neither would be true.

 

"Cutting corner" - hardly, if I did than so did a whole stack of 8710s under the watchful eyes of the local FSDO. I'm not a betting man but I'll put my money on the 40 years of experience of my instructor.

[Pohi]

You need to understand that just because other people do things and have done things for a while, that it doesn't make them right.

 

You will get there. Some people just take longer than others. I'll keep helping you through these rough times you are having.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Pohi

[Whistlerpilot]

Hey Clay how did you make out? I did a fixed wing add on 4 years ago and it took me a few more than the absolute minimum hours (17?), but I was able to do it in 20 hours if I recall.

[clay]

that damn dead horse is back.......

 

anyone have a working link to the letter from the chief counsel about this topic? the included link doesn't work.

[iChris]

that damn dead horse is back.......

 

anyone have a working link to the letter from the chief counsel about this topic? the included link doesn't work.

 

 

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/data/interps/2012/o'mara%20-%20(2012)%20legal%20interpretation.pdf

Edited March 2, 2018 by iChris

[WolftalonID]

Additionally there is this LOI. It also agrees but more directly to the arguments above. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/data/interps/2015/mclellan%20-%20(2015)%20legal%20interpretation.pdf

Edited March 2, 2018 by WolftalonID