61.129 Commercial instrument time

what does it say about our system when CFIs have to parse legal interpretations?

I'm aware the interpretations exist, but I've never studied them in detail. Even here on this thread we have intelligent people who can't even agree what the interpretations mean. The only opinion that counts happens to be the DPE who is the gatekeeper.
 
Walboy said:
what does it say about our system when CFIs have to parse legal interpretations?

I'm aware the interpretations exist, but I've never studied them in detail. Even here on this thread we have intelligent people who can't even agree what the interpretations mean. The only opinion that counts happens to be the DPE who is the gatekeeper.
Click to expand...
It says zealots with reading comprehension problems are ruining it for everyone.
 
dmspilot said:
That's not what the letters say at all.

The Chief Counsel is not saying that training toward instrument can't count toward commercial. It is saying having an instrument rating doesn't count toward the instrument requirement in 61.129.

To illustrate this, imagine a hypothetical scenario in which you get your instrument rating, lose your logbook, and redo or relog all of the commercial pilot requirements except for the 10 hours of instrument training. It doesn't satisfy 61.129 because you don't have the 10 hours of instrument in your logbook, and having an instrument rating doesn't excuse you from the requirement because the regulation is not written that way. It has nothing to do with not being allowed to double-dip.
Click to expand...
I agree that's what the letters say. But the Chief Counsel COULD have, and IMO SHOULD have, made it so the instrument rating counts for those training hours. This would have still been an interpretation, not new rulemaking. Or, even if not that far, they could have said "10 hours of documented training towards the instrument rating meets this requirement."

And they would have eliminated all this discussion and confusion and interpretation and misinterpretation by doing so.
 
TCABM said:
This is part of why I feel the way I do about the 61.129 night XC. I’d also rather see the .129(3)(i) stipulate graphical and textual STARs, SIDs, divert to an alternate and ODPs along with actual IMC as a subset of the 10hrs.
Click to expand...
An instrument approach isn't even a subset.
 
kaiser said:
When I went for my commercial I was advised not to double dip. While it’s possible with the right documentation, interpretation can come into play and then you’re stuck arguing it with a DPE. Better to just grab a few extra hours than to call anything into question. As I like to say, if there’s doubt, there is no doubt.
Click to expand...

From a regulatory perspective, the Instrument rating only requires 15 hours of training from an authorized instructor, leaving up to 25 hours of fair game general or specific instrument training or working with a safety pilot. I see no legal or ethical prohibition to utilize any of that subset of time for the .129 requirement, even in light of Theirault and Hartzell, given instrument is a rating that is not required for a commercial certificate. If instrument was a certificate and not a rating, then none of the time used could be re-used.
 
Walboy said:
what does it say about our system when CFIs have to parse legal interpretations?
Click to expand...
To me it just says that laws and regulations have been subject to and even required interpretations as long as there have been laws and regulations, and that aviation is no different.
 
midlifeflyer said:
To me it just says that laws and regulations have been subject to and even required interpretations as long as there have been laws and regulations, and that aviation is no different.
Click to expand...

I suppose it needs to be dumbed down for people like me in AC 61-65 with exact verbiage just like all the endorsements.
 
This is sooo messed up...

Wording and chief counsel interpretation aside - what's the intent of requiring instrument training in § 61.129? To me it makes sense to require that a non-instrument rated commercial pilot has had at least some additional instrument training, beyond what little is required for the private pilot certificate. To think the intent of § 61.129 could be to say that the instrument rating alone isn't sufficient instrument training for a commercial pilot applicant is ludicrous, as the instrument ACS covers all the specific instrument training required by § 61.129 for commercial applicants.

Here's another thought: When signing the training flights for the instrument rating, the instructor typically lists what was covered during a flight. So if the flight training log entries for the instrument rating explicitly mention the things required for § 61.129 (i.e. attitude instrument flying, partial panel skills, recovery from unusual flight attitudes, and intercepting and tracking navigational systems), isn't that the even better evidence of compliance ("better" as in more specific, more detailed) than a note saying it covers § 61.129?

Regards,
Martin
 
MauleSkinner said:
The “certificate being sought” is not an instrument certificate or rating.
Click to expand...

Concur. It’s a certificate to exercise the privileges, and bound by the limitations, of a Commercial Pilot, whether operating Part 91, 119, 135, or 121.

The 61.129 XCs very specifically exceeds the commercial passenger and night limitations. While it’s ‘only’ an aero experience requirement governed by part 61, those requirement cannot be performed by a commercial pilot except in the Part 119 or 133 carveouts.

Regardless, if I’m king for a day, those are some of the changes I’d make to better reflect the spectrum of operations a Commercial Pilot could execute.
 
TCABM said:
Concur. It’s a certificate to exercise the privileges, and bound by the limitations, of a Commercial Pilot, whether operating Part 91, 119, 135, or 121.
Click to expand...
no, it’s not a certificate to exercise privileges under 119, 121, or 135. That requires additional training and checking.
TCABM said:
The 61.129 XCs very specifically exceeds the commercial passenger and night limitations. While it’s ‘only’ an aero experience requirement governed by part 61, those requirement cannot be performed by a commercial pilot except in the Part 119 or 133 carveouts.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand what you’re saying here…can you clarify?
TCABM said:
Regardless, if I’m king for a day, those are some of the changes I’d make to better reflect the spectrum of operations a Commercial Pilot could execute.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that an instrument rating is inadequate for exercising instrument privileges as a Commercial pilot?
 
It would be better for 61.129(a)(3)(i) and its friends to say that an instrument rating in the same category is sufficient to meet or waive the training requirement. Because it could say that and doesn't, interpretations will probably always fall back on the regulation being intended to require the training regardless of the applicant having an instrument rating. We presume that a regulation says what it means and means what it says. The meaning of this regulation is stupid, but clear.
 
iamtheari said:
The meaning of this regulation is stupid, but clear.
Click to expand...
No, the meaning of the regulation is good…a Commercial pilot should have some level of instrument training and proficiency beyond the 3 hours required for a Private Pilot. The interpretation that additional training beyond the instrument rating is stupid, and the inability of instructors to log training to reflect regulatory requirements is stupid.
 
RyanB said:
I’ve had this exact discussion with our DPE. Unless it’s noted in the remarks for those instrument training flights as 61.129 (a)(3)(i) then it doesn’t count toward the Commercial. :(
Click to expand...
I am sure this depends on the DPE and probably his POI.
If not specifically noted and your CFII doesn't know what the DPE expects then consult with the DPE prior to the practical test on what he needs to see.

Brian
CFIIIG/ASEL
 
Martin Pauly said:
...

Here's another thought: When signing the training flights for the instrument rating, the instructor typically lists what was covered during a flight. So if the flight training log entries for the instrument rating explicitly mention the things required for § 61.129 (i.e. attitude instrument flying, partial panel skills, recovery from unusual flight attitudes, and intercepting and tracking navigational systems), isn't that the even better evidence of compliance ("better" as in more specific, more detailed) than a note saying it covers § 61.129?

Regards,
Martin
Click to expand...
This is basically what I have in my logbook - very specific descriptions, including wording that matches the 61.129 requirements. But it doesn't explicitly say "61.129".

If I were to go on into commercial, I'd really have to hope for a DPE that's OK with that. Or, add some extra training hours and not even worry about it.
 
MauleSkinner said:
no, it’s not a certificate to exercise privileges under 119, 121, or 135. That requires additional training and checking.
Click to expand...
91K can be performed by Commercial Pilot certificate holders with Instrument Ratings, correct?

MauleSkinner said:
I don’t understand what you’re saying here…can you clarify?
Click to expand...
I'll try. Commercial certificates come in two 'flavors'. Those with the 61.133 limitation of no passenger carrying beyond 50NM and not at night, and those without. In Part 61.129, the XC training requirement for both day and night is beyond 100NM, so a commercial pilot with the limitation can only perform those operations without passengers, so why not just have the 61.129 aero experience requirements reflect that reality if there's going to be more than one person in the plane.

MauleSkinner said:
Are you saying that an instrument rating is inadequate for exercising instrument privileges as a Commercial pilot?
Click to expand...
Not exactly. I'm saying to fly passengers beyond 50NM or at night, a commercial pilot requires an Instrument rating. Because there is no experience requirement to fly a STAR, SID, or ODP in the Instrument rating, why not take the opportunity as a forcing mechanism for those Instrument rated pilots working on the commercial ticket to broaden their experience by possibly learning something new under the supervision of an instructor? Yes, the answer is much like the answer for why not require actual IMC for Instruments students, but again, I'm king for a day here.

Remember, at some point, it was decided complex aircraft training was required for for a Commercial pilot AND you had to bring a complex airplane to the exam. Did that mean Private Pilot training was inadequate for a VFR pilot to exercise VFR privileges as a Commercial pilot? If so, then why did the FAA later decide you could use a TAA 172 and bring it to the exam instead? Things change over time and different experiences in training can actually have value, when they reflect reality.
 
Last edited:
TCABM said:
91K can be performed by Commercial Pilot certificate holders with Instrument Ratings, correct?
Click to expand...
not without additional training and checking.
TCABM said:
I'll try. Commercial certificates come in two 'flavors'. Those with the 61.133 limitation of no passenger carrying beyond 50NM and not at night, and those without. In Part 61.129, the XC training requirement for both day and night is beyond 100NM, so a commercial pilot with the limitation can only perform those operations without passengers, so why not just have the 61.129 aero experience requirements reflect that reality if there's going to be more than one person in the plane.
Click to expand...
So a solo training requirement for a pilot without an instrument rating? Or a limitation on a Commercial certificate with an instrument rating that says you can’t fly without passengers?
 
TCABM said:
given instrument is a rating that is not required for a commercial certificate. If instrument was a certificate and not a rating, then none of the time used could be re-used.
Click to expand...
How do you figure that??

If you do a XC that meets Commercial rating standards while still a Student pilot it counts to both getting your Private Certificate and later for your Commercial Certificate.

It does not say that X must be accomplished AFTER you earned you Private.

Heck, your FIRST certificate could be a Commercial.
 
Pinecone said:
Heck, your FIRST certificate could be a Commercial.
Click to expand...

Not true, 61.123h requires a Commercial applicant to have a Private certificate.

Unless you mean the military conversion, but that's not really in line with what we're talking about here.
 
RyanB said:
I’ve had this exact discussion with our DPE. Unless it’s noted in the remarks for those instrument training flights as 61.129 (a)(3)(i) then it doesn’t count toward the Commercial. :(
Click to expand...
61.65(c) for the instrument rating and 61.129(a)(3)(i) for the commercial. The CFI can do one endorsement stating the instrument training given meets requirements for both sections.
 
Guess I'm missing something. Doesn't the Hartzell letter say that training for the instrument rating can also count towards the 61.129 requirements? As long as it is documented properly?


Interpretation.png
 
Last edited:
One of my students recently received his instrument rating. During the training, he elected to fly almost all of his required 40 hours with me. Why can't the dual hours beyond the required 15 be used towards the commercial rating?
 
Last edited:
Pinecone said:
If you do a XC that meets Commercial rating standards while still a Student pilot it counts to both getting your Private Certificate and later for your Commercial Certificate.
Click to expand...
1699705147583.png
2010 Theriault letter. Of course, I guess one could argue that it only applies to the night dual cross country requirement but no other cross country tequirement.
 
RockyMtnFlyer said:
Guess I'm missing something. Doesn't the Hartzell letter say that training for the instrument rating can also count towards the 61.129 requirements? As long as it is documented properly?
Click to expand...
Thats exactly what the Hartzell letter says. The only thing you are missing are all the posts already mentioning it. :D
 
RussR said:
Not true, 61.123h requires a Commercial applicant to have a Private certificate.

Unless you mean the military conversion, but that's not really in line with what we're talking about here.
Click to expand...
Sort of. Military pilots can get a Commercial without having a Private.

Also, it doesn't require a Private in the same Category and Class. So you could have a Private Glider and get a ASE Commercial.
 
Pinecone said:
Sort of. Military pilots can get a Commercial without having a Private.

Also, it doesn't require a Private in the same Category and Class. So you could have a Private Glider and get a ASE Commercial.
Click to expand...

Except the .mil competency is covered under 14 CFR 61.73, Military pilots or former military pilots: Special rules., and even applies to some exchange pilots, the instrument rating, potentially a type rating, instructor certificate, and CFII, given documented evidence prescribed by the FAA.
 
RockyMtnFlyer said:
Guess I'm missing something. Doesn't the Hartzell letter say that training for the instrument rating can also count towards the 61.129 requirements? As long as it is documented properly?


View attachment 122271
Click to expand...

“As long as it is documented properly?”

This gets back to my original question: if my logbook doesn’t specifically say “meets 61.129” in the comments, but the description of the items covered during that lesson do, then what? Would a DPE accept those hours or not?

Apparently some do, some don’t.
 
Matthew said:
“As long as it is documented properly?”

This gets back to my original question: if my logbook doesn’t specifically say “meets 61.129” in the comments, but the description of the items covered during that lesson do, then what? Would a DPE accept those hours or not?

Apparently some do, some don’t.
Click to expand...

Answer(s):

1) Ask the examiner what is acceptable to him/her prior to checkride

2) Find a new examiner

3) Do a quick training flight and log it in such a way to appease the DPE
 
Pinecone said:
Sort of. Military pilots can get a Commercial without having a Private.
Click to expand...

??? I literally mentioned the military conversion scenario in the post you responded to, and quoted.

Pinecone said:
Also, it doesn't require a Private in the same Category and Class. So you could have a Private Glider and get a ASE Commercial.
Click to expand...

That's moving the goalposts (I think, I always get those sayings wrong). Your statement was that it's possible to get a Commercial without first having a Private, which is explicitly not true, except in military conversion (or foreign conversion) cases, which is not relevant to any of the preceding discussion about 61.129 requirements.
 
Matthew said:
“As long as it is documented properly?”

This gets back to my original question: if my logbook doesn’t specifically say “meets 61.129” in the comments, but the description of the items covered during that lesson do, then what? Would a DPE accept those hours or not?

Apparently some do, some don’t.
Click to expand...

Walboy said:
Answer(s):

1) Ask the examiner what is acceptable to him/her prior to checkride

2) Find a new examiner

3) Do a quick training flight and log it in such a way to appease the DPE
Click to expand...
4) Have your instructor correct his log book entries
 
Matthew said:
“As long as it is documented properly?”

This gets back to my original question: if my logbook doesn’t specifically say “meets 61.129” in the comments, but the description of the items covered during that lesson do, then what? Would a DPE accept those hours or not?

Apparently some do, some don’t.
Click to expand...

I haven’t found a DPE that won’t accept the training that is missing the “meets 61.129” phrase, as long as the notations for the flight give the specifics on what was accomplished and they match what 61.129 calls for. The problem is the instrument training log entries with vague notations. Anybody with common sense should recognize that most instrument training would likely include the training that would meet 61.129 but I have heard of some examiners rejecting instrument training that doesn’t have detailed log entries.

I did the opposite of what is being discussed here for my helicopter training. I needed to have 5 hours of instrument training to meet 61.129 so I made absolutely sure that the training also met the requirements of 61.65 so I could go back and get an instrument rating later if I wanted to.
 
Walboy said:
Of course, if possible, but you can't correct someone else's entries.
Click to expand...
Editing someone else's entries does raise ethical questions, even if the change is made to make it correct.

Appending additional remarks for clarity or posterity, however, does not raise the same concerns for me.
 
The easiest answer is to have the original instructor correct their entries to include the 61.129 references, assuming that it will be true. And of course, Assuming they are still around. You only need 10hrs to reflect 61.129, so include the ifr xc and a few training flights and you’re done.

DPEs were ignoring or unaware of this letter for a decade, so the FSDO made a point of telling them all about it a couple years ago. Compliance has gone up, but I, sure it isn’t 100%
 
dmspilot said:
Why not?
Click to expand...

RussR said:
Editing someone else's entries does raise ethical questions, even if the change is made to make it correct.

Appending additional remarks for clarity or posterity, however, does not raise the same concerns for me.
Click to expand...

Electronic logbooks are a good example. AC120-78A (and actually, digital signature requirements in general) requires that a digitally-signed entry be secure. That basically means that changes to the entry result in the signature becoming void. In the paper world, the change would be considered forgery or tampering. There are exceptions. Corrections, not so much. Additional clarifying information, depends on the provider.
 
dmspilot said:
Why not?
Click to expand...

Is that a serious question? If you think it's a good idea, explain why.

I will rephrase. I think it's a terrible idea to correct or modify another instructor's logbook entry.
 
ja_user said:
The easiest answer is to have the original instructor correct their entries to include the 61.129 references, assuming that it will be true. And of course, Assuming they are still around. You only need 10hrs to reflect 61.129, so include the ifr xc and a few training flights and you’re done.

DPEs were ignoring or unaware of this letter for a decade, so the FSDO made a point of telling them all about it a couple years ago. Compliance has gone up, but I, sure it isn’t 100%
Click to expand...
I think I can make that happen. Might cost me a lunch, though.

I’ll check on that next week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top