New Commercial ACS... complex plane not required?

paflyer said:
Ah, there's the rub. So much for using my six-pack ol' Cherokee.
Click to expand...
Always!

Technically advanced aircraft (TAA) are equipped with new-generation avionics that combine computers and modern navigational aids for both system redundancy and to improve pilot situational awareness. Pilots often refer to the panel as a "glass cockpit." For the FAA to classify an aircraft as a TAA, it must have an IFR-approved GPS with moving-map display; a multifunction display (MFD) with a minimum of traffic, weather, or terrain information; and an autopilot.
 
DesertNomad said:
So do you need a TAA for the CPL checkride?
Click to expand...

No, basically any single engine plane that you can use for a private checkride can be used for a commercial or CFI checkride. They had proposed a change to require a TAA or complex aircraft for the checkrides but it looks like they decided that wasn’t necessary.
 
paflyer said:
Ah, there's the rub. So much for using my six-pack ol' Cherokee.
Click to expand...

5. Guidance. The FAA has determined that any airplane may be used to accomplish the tasks prescribed in the initial commercial pilot with an airplane single-engine rating practical test or a flight instructor with an airplane single-engine rating practical test, provided that airplane is capable of accomplishing all areas of operation required for the practical test and is the appropriate category and class for the rating sought. Therefore, the airplane used for the practical test must still meet the requirements specified in § 61.45.
 
MauleSkinner said:
How many re-examinations do you suppose are going to have to happen now? ;)
Click to expand...

Not mine. My certificate is legitimate. Not one of those new age fuzzy feel good ones issued without any Arrow or Cutlass time.
 
And I had just started practicing the maneuvers in my cheap 172 club plane to learn them well and then transfer that to a complex to hopefully shorten the complex time needed in order to save money. This is great news. Still can't believe it.

LTeBbN8.gif
 
Still need 10 hours of complex, though you can do it for just the XC stuff now and 100% with a CFI so no true proficiency needed in a complex.

I am very interested to see the effect of this on my CMEL add-on students who did the minimum for complex time-building. I think they may get their lunch packed by a medium performance light twin, but time will tell.
 
Is it a coincidence that this comes out a couple weeks after a DPE was killed giving a commercial checkride in a certain complex airplane? Is the ERAU Arrow fleet still totally grounded?

Not that I think the ACS change is necessarily a bad thing, but the timing is rather fishy.

Landing Fees said:
I don't think they can make a huge change like that without opening to public comment. I am going to invalidate my commercial pilot's certificate until I get the whole truth.
Click to expand...

As the PTS/ACS is not a regulation, they can change it whenever they want.
 
TommyG said:
That great, the new generation CFIs can teach stuff they were never tested on during a checkride. See how that goes.
Click to expand...

That was my initial thought as well, but there are already plenty of items that a CFI only gets Oral time on that they don't have to prove in the plane during the checkride. Doesn't mean it is a good idea, but I get why they did this.
 
The stupidest thing the FAA does is allow a commercial ME test in a plane with counter rotating props and low HP engines.
 
TommyG said:
That great, the new generation CFIs can teach stuff they were never tested on during a checkride. See how that goes.
Click to expand...
You mean like the old generation CFIs could teach in a high performance airplane they were never tested on during a checkride?

I guess the sky is falling.
 
I was never tested on the CFI checkride on numerous Garmin and Avidyne products. :)

Gasp! Death from the sky is imminent for the school bus full of unwitting nuns. :)
 
dmspilot said:
Is it a coincidence that this comes out a couple weeks after a DPE was killed giving a commercial checkride in a certain complex airplane? Is the ERAU Arrow fleet still totally grounded?
Click to expand...

I suggested the same thing on the red board and was told they are not related. Still seems like a strange coincidence to me.
 
dmspilot said:
Is it a coincidence that this comes out a couple weeks after a DPE was killed giving a commercial checkride in a certain complex airplane? Is the ERAU Arrow fleet still totally grounded?

Not that I think the ACS change is necessarily a bad thing, but the timing is rather fishy.



As the PTS/ACS is not a regulation, they can change it whenever they want.
Click to expand...

No, there have been published proposed changes along these lines since at least late last year. The earlier versions called for swapping a TAA (tech advanced aircraft) for complex.
 
Great news!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
This is great. I'm a few weeks from taking my CPL ride, and just had to start with a new school (1st hour was Saturday).

I have a Complex endorsement and plenty of time in Arrows and Mooneys - seemed ridiculous to have to go through all that work to show that I can swing the gear.
 
I’m pretty excited about this too. I’ve been seriously considering getting my CFI, and being able to do it in a cheap(er) DA20 will be fantastic.
 
In then past, I sent a couple Commercial applicants to their checkrides in one of my Citabrias, to do the air work. I think examiners enjoyed the choice. Still had to do a portion of the ride in a complex, however, and we used an Arrow or Mooney for a few turns around the pattern.

This is a welcome change.
 
ZeroPapaGolf said:
No, there have been published proposed changes along these lines since at least late last year. The earlier versions called for swapping a TAA (tech advanced aircraft) for complex.
Click to expand...

It would be expected that they would finalize any changes to Part 61 first, before they would change the ACS. But one has to go through the NPRM process and the other doesn't. Seems they wanted to hurry things along. As posted above, David St. George from SAFE holds the same view.

The typographical errors, backdating the effective date, and having it spontaneously appear on the website with no fanfare all suggest that they were trying to push this through because of the ERAU accident. Usually new ACS's are announced and published at least a month before the effective date. So I don't think this was just business as usual.
 
Last edited:
To be honest...I was looking forward to flying something a little higher performance than my Cherokee 140 lol. But I guess if I can do it in my airplane it would save me some money (minus the 10 hours of complex still needed). Guess this means I can do my CFI in it too.
 
mscard88 said:
Comment from SAFE's David St. George:

https://safeblog.org/2018/04/25/easier-is-not-necessarily-better-but/
Click to expand...

For those that thought the recent accident may have contributed:

Obviously there is always a compromise between safety and proficiency in all our training standards but I think the recent Piper Arrow accident in Florida tipped the scales on this decision.

SAFE clearly stated our position on the proposed NPRM changing comples standards in August 2016; lowering the training requirements is not commensurate with greater safety. But given grave concerns about the Piper Arrow wing spar issues, many flight schools are already operating under an FAA Waiver that eliminates the complex requirement. Why should Part 61 candidates not have this same relief from this regulation for a complex A/C on tests?
 
CC268 said:
To be honest...I was looking forward to flying something a little higher performance than my Cherokee 140 lol. But I guess if I can do it in my airplane it would save me some money (minus the 10 hours of complex still needed). Guess this means I can do my CFI in it too.
Click to expand...

Nothing is stopping you from doing it anyway if that's what you were looking forward to. But it definitely would be cheaper in your plane.
 
mscard88 said:
Comment from SAFE's David St. George:

https://safeblog.org/2018/04/25/easier-is-not-necessarily-better-but/
Click to expand...
"For older pilots there was a lot of justifiable grumbling about “lowering standards” and future safety implications."​

Ha! Here's one "older pilot" who never thought it made sense in the first place to shift emphasis from "ability to maneuver" to "ability to retract". Those of us who didn't have to fly complex aircraft to earn commercial and CFI certificates spent all our practice time maneuvering (and getting quite good at it too) instead of diluting it with complex checkouts. The Colgan Air crew at Buffalo would have benefited from more maneuvers, less complex time, IMO.
 
Grum.Man said:
I see a lot of insurance claims happening in the near future.
Click to expand...

Yep. Especially on twins with fresh MEIs in the right seat who will have very little retract experience and only one checkride using the multi under their belt with a retract.
 
dtuuri said:
"For older pilots there was a lot of justifiable grumbling about “lowering standards” and future safety implications."​
Click to expand...

Already changed my signature.
 
Z06_Mir said:
Yep. Especially on twins with fresh MEIs in the right seat who will have very little retract experience and only one checkride using the multi under their belt with a retract.
Click to expand...
It would be two checkrides, wouldn't it? One commercial multi and one CFI multi?
 
MauleSkinner said:
It would be two checkrides, wouldn't it? One commercial multi and one CFI multi?
Click to expand...

Yes. But still... only 10 required for both rides combined is required. Granted I'm sure most people will take more training, but how much fundamental skill is gained in just 10 hours? Especially if your 10 hours is not only in a brand new class (MEL) but also the highest performance thing you've ever flown?
 
Z06_Mir said:
Yes. But still... only 10 required for both rides combined is required. Granted I'm sure most people will take more training, but how much fundamental skill is gained in just 10 hours? Especially if your 10 hours is not only in a brand new class (MEL) but also the highest performance thing you've ever flown?
Click to expand...

Have seen people post here that they did the MEI itself in nearly that little time, just for comparison. I also don’t know how comfortable I would feel if I had done mine that quickly. As far as students go, I’ll cross that bridge when I get to it, but I’d be a bit nervous for all but the best students.
 
For me, learning how to fly complex aircraft was trivial compared to the other commercial requirements.
 
ZeroPapaGolf said:
No, there have been published proposed changes along these lines since at least late last year. The earlier versions called for swapping a TAA (tech advanced aircraft) for complex.
Click to expand...
Two years at this point. The Proposed Rule was published May 2016.
 
ZeroPapaGolf said:
No, there have been published proposed changes along these lines since at least late last year. The earlier versions called for swapping a TAA (tech advanced aircraft) for complex.
Click to expand...

midlifeflyer said:
Two years at this point. The Proposed Rule was published May 2016.
Click to expand...

Doesn’t mean the “proposed changes” weren’t hurried along after a death. But we here won’t ever really know. Not like I haven’t seen that happen in a leadership meeting before, minus the actual death part anyway. But “bad thing” plus “hey we were going to do this anyway, hey Bob, move that to the top of your team’s pile next week, okay?” :)

People tend toward reactive than planning, speaking with a broad brush overview looking over things in “leadership” for a long time now. Making decisions gets a whole lot easier when something has blown up or someone was killed.

“We’re hearing from employees that they’re not enthused about being forced to fly in some pretty ratty old aircraft...”

“Someone died at a place that has a continuous monitoring program and is well above our median standards for maintenance...”

“Hey Bob, we were planning on doing this anyway... (and I know I told your team to work on something else but won’t say that out loud)... go ahead and bump that to the top of the list for next week...”

LOL. Been there, seen that, too many times. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top