CPL TAA 10 Hr. Requirement

TK211X

TK211X

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Aug 29, 2015
Messages
325
Location
Tampa
Display Name
Display name:
Him
If an applicant had about 35 hours of training for the Instrument rating in a TAA aircraft
(C172SP G1000 w/GFC700)

Would these hours also satisfy the Commercial TAA training requirement?
FAR 61.129(a)(3)(ii)
 
Because of the requirement (which somehow captured the G1000 172s), or because of the question that actually referenced the regulation that has the answer in it?
 
I just want to clarify those 10 hours have to be basic total dual time received in a TAA. To make sure there isn’t anything else written dictating how those 10 hours dual are spent in the air. The way it’s worded makes me think it’s cut and dry but I’m used to the FAA never making it easy so I thought I might as well ask in case I missed something.
 
ja_user said:
Because of the requirement (which somehow captured the G1000 172s), or because of the question that actually referenced the regulation that has the answer in it?
Click to expand...

Because it’s another step in dumbing down the training and experienced required to be a professional aviator
 
TK211X said:
If an applicant had about 35 hours of training for the Instrument rating in a TAA aircraft
(C172SP G1000 w/GFC700)

Would these hours also satisfy the Commercial TAA training requirement?
FAR 61.129(a)(3)(ii)
Click to expand...

Yes that counts.
 
The entire section referenced is under 61.129a3 which explains what all 20 hours of training must cover.

(3) 20 hours of training on the areas of operation listed in § 61.127(b)(1) of this part that includes at least -


§ 61.127 Flight proficiency outlines these areas.
(a)General. A person who applies for a commercial pilot certificate must receive and log ground and flight training from an authorized instructor on the areas of operation of this section that apply to the aircraft category and class rating sought.

(b)Areas of operation.

(1) For an airplane category rating with a single-engine class rating:

(i) Preflight preparation;

(ii) Preflight procedures;

(iii) Airport and seaplane base operations;

(iv) Takeoffs, landings, and go-arounds;

(v) Performance maneuvers;

(vi) Ground reference maneuvers;

(vii) Navigation;

(viii) Slow flight and stalls;

(ix) Emergency operations;

(x) High-altitude operations; and

(xi) Postflight procedures.
 
@James331 If it makes you feel any better, I do have my HP and Complex. I also favor TAA. I had to replace an older CFI-I gentleman because he honestly had a tough time with me in the G1000 during my IR training. There are people who don't even know how to use basic tools in foreflight!

Age 8-16 I grew up playing FSX with my friends online. I grew up with technology. I'm 20 now, having advanced tech and a panel in front of me with many options and configurations that gives me a boatload of information satisfies me. It lets me listen to Sirius XM.

I don't think the new requirements are dumbing down the training. If anything; it's a shift and adaptation into our future. With the way things are going I can expect to fly "TAA" more and more. Wouldn't you want training that focuses and prepares airmen on their weaknesses?

I learned in steam gauge with paper charts and hand written logs for my private. It's not lost on me. Just slightly less relevant with all these backups.
 
TK211X said:
@James331 If it makes you feel any better, I do have my HP and Complex. I also favor TAA. I had to replace an older CFI-I gentleman because he honestly had a tough time with me in the G1000 during my IR training. There are people who don't even know how to use basic tools in foreflight!

Age 8-16 I grew up playing FSX with my friends online. I grew up with technology. I'm 20 now, having advanced tech and a panel in front of me with many options and configurations that gives me a boatload of information satisfies me. It lets me listen to Sirius XM.

I don't think the new requirements are dumbing down the training. If anything; it's a shift and adaptation into our future. With the way things are going I can expect to fly "TAA" more and more. Wouldn't you want training that focuses and prepares airmen on their weaknesses?

I learned in steam gauge with paper charts and hand written logs for my private. It's not lost on me. Just slightly less relevant with all these backups.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be too worried about it man. Aviation is very opinionated. The answer to your question is YES, you have covered the TAA requirement. Now just print off Subpart F of Part 61 and highlight everything you have completed.
 
TK211X said:
@James331 If it makes you feel any better, I do have my HP and Complex. I also favor TAA. I had to replace an older CFI-I gentleman because he honestly had a tough time with me in the G1000 during my IR training. There are people who don't even know how to use basic tools in foreflight!

Age 8-16 I grew up playing FSX with my friends online. I grew up with technology. I'm 20 now, having advanced tech and a panel in front of me with many options and configurations that gives me a boatload of information satisfies me. It lets me listen to Sirius XM.

I don't think the new requirements are dumbing down the training. If anything; it's a shift and adaptation into our future. With the way things are going I can expect to fly "TAA" more and more. Wouldn't you want training that focuses and prepares airmen on their weaknesses?

I learned in steam gauge with paper charts and hand written logs for my private. It's not lost on me. Just slightly less relevant with all these backups.
Click to expand...

That’s a whole lot of nope.

Seems like some folks think having experience in a app or menus is some accomplishment, it’s not, it’s more of a rote level skill. Is it needed sure, is it impressive, no.

If you think being able to fly IMC without moving maps and all those aids is becoming less relevant you are a little misguided.

A CPL is more about mastery of the aircraft than panel work, it’s taking a faster plane with more systems and moving parts and making it sing.

And that’s coming from somone who uses foreflight a ton and flys a very electronic automated plane.
 
James331 said:
That’s a whole lot of nope.

Seems like some folks think having experience in a app or menus is some accomplishment, it’s not, it’s more of a rote level skill. Is it needed sure, is it impressive, no.

If you think being able to fly IMC without moving maps and all those aids is becoming less relevant you are a little misguided.

A CPL is more about mastery of the aircraft than panel work, it’s taking a faster plane with more systems and moving parts and making it sing.

And that’s coming from somone who uses foreflight a ton and flys a very electronic automated plane.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately most instructors don’t know how to make it sing, so they simply train “an extra switch”. The end result is often a waste of time in a complex airplane, too.
 
James331 said:
That’s a whole lot of nope.

Seems like some folks think having experience in a app or menus is some accomplishment, it’s not, it’s more of a rote level skill. Is it needed sure, is it impressive, no.

If you think being able to fly IMC without moving maps and all those aids is becoming less relevant you are a little misguided.

A CPL is more about mastery of the aircraft than panel work, it’s taking a faster plane with more systems and moving parts and making it sing.

And that’s coming from somone who uses foreflight a ton and flys a very electronic automated plane.
Click to expand...

I disagree, I think being able to learn and handle automation is much more germane to being a commercial pilot than simply being able to swing the landing gear. How many accidents have been due to automation failures and pilots not understanding default modes on these aircraft? The Lion Air crash is just the most recent. Being able to handle the 3 degrees of automation and where they are most appropriate is essential, and moreso when it's needed to reduce the amount of automation and to what degree. That said, is 10 hours behind a G1000 really going to teach you that? Probably not.

I realize this doesn't apply to every commercial pilot, particularly those pilots flying C185s on floats. But to lament this as lessening the standards rather the seeing that this is a forward-thinking move by the FAA I think is a mistake.
 
labbadabba said:
I disagree, I think being able to learn and handle automation is much more germane to being a commercial pilot than simply being able to swing the landing gear. How many accidents have been due to automation failures and pilots not understanding default modes on these aircraft? The Lion Air crash is just the most recent. Being able to handle the 3 degrees of automation and where they are most appropriate is essential, and moreso when it's needed to reduce the amount of automation and to what degree. That said, is 10 hours behind a G1000 really going to teach you that? Probably not.

I realize this doesn't apply to every commercial pilot, particularly those pilots flying C185s on floats. But to lament this as lessening the standards rather the seeing that this is a forward-thinking move by the FAA I think is a mistake.
Click to expand...

I definitely see your point in regards to automation and the possible need to gain experience in it on the way to becoming a commercial pilot however that does not appear to be the FAA motivation as they seemed to make a false equivalency between TAA and complex by indicating you can do one or the other. Maybe the commercial standards should have added TAA to the requirements but kept the complex requirements.
 
SkyDog58 said:
I definitely see your point in regards to automation and the possible need to gain experience in it on the way to becoming a commercial pilot however that does not appear to be the FAA motivation as they seemed to make a false equivalency between TAA and complex by indicating you can do one or the other. Maybe the commercial standards should have added TAA to the requirements but kept the complex requirements.
Click to expand...

I'd be in favor of this, but RG trainers are going to be harder and harder to come by. And really, other than learning the systems which you still have to do, what do you get? You're still most likely still just flying a Skyhawk or a Cherokee. I seem to recall there were some fixed gear aircraft that had gear handles for training purposes, Beech 23's maybe?

An Arrow or 172RG fly slightly different than their welded down counterparts but not by much. In fact, I would argue that doing a your commercial in a HP airplane would be more beneficial since as a commercial pilot you're going to be flying larger more powerful aircraft anyway.
 
Your question is essentially the same as one that has been answered by the FAA, Can training for an Instrument Rating be applied towards a commercial pilot certificate? The answer is It depends. The key is whether the CFI logged your time as also meeting the requirements of 61.129. I suspect not. AOPA has an article that goes into detail.

Whether it makes a difference in your particular case probably depends on the DPE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top