A curious Chief Counsel ruling

[peter-h]

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...terpretations/data/interps/2010/Theriault.pdf

In my reading of it, it basically says that the night x/c flight required for the FAA CPL needs to be signed off by the instructor as having been done for that purpose.

In the USA, the instructor would naturally be an FAA CFI, and I can't see somebody just going for a 150nm night flight with an instructor in the RHS, for the fun of it

Outside the USA, the FARs explicitly provide for acceptance of training done by non-FAA instructors, so this ruling may have unintended consequences, although I still cannot see why a foreign instructor could not sign the logbook accordingly. And I certainly cannot see somebody doing a 150nm night flight with an instructor in the RHS for any other purpose - especially as in most of Europe the original departure airport will be closed by the time you get back so the instructor has to be put up in a hotel.

What the ruling appears to try to achieve is to stop the use of old logbook entries which just happen to meet the flying requirement of some FAR regulation. Doing a "qualifying" CPL flight during one's PPL training is just a special case of that. Yet this has been a common practice for many years, surely? You could do a flight during your PPL training which counts towards the IR (e.g. night time), etc.

 

[poadeleted20]

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...terpretations/data/interps/2010/Theriault.pdf

In my reading of it, it basically says that the night x/c flight required for the FAA CPL needs to be signed off by the instructor as having been done for that purpose.

That is consistent with the position taken previously by Flight Standards, so it shouldn't be a surprise. I've always made sure of this for my Commercial trainees by specifically including 61.129(a)(3)(iv) (or (b)(3)(iv) if they're doing their initial CP in a twin) in my endorsement for that night XC flight (and the equivalent subparagraphs for the day XC flight, which I try to do as a day/night "out and back" to cover both in one day -- out two hours late afternoon to an airport with a restaurant, eat dinner while the sun sets, and back two hours in the dark).

What the ruling appears to try to achieve is to stop the use of old logbook entries which just happen to meet the flying requirement of some FAR regulation. Doing a "qualifying" CPL flight during one's PPL training is just a special case of that. Yet this has been a common practice for many years, surely?

Not exactly. The training for the PP is covering the areas in 61.109, not 61.129, and is not necessarily to the standards for Commercial. Thus, the usual pre-Private logbook XC training entries do not "happen to meet the flying requirement" for dual XC's in 61.129. As John Lynch explained it several years ago, "However, the answer is no if your question is asking: “Can this be used to meet the § 61.129(a)(4) “long cross-country solo flight” commercial preparation?” § 61.129(a)(4) specifies that the reason for such flight (commercial preparation) must relate to § 61.127(b)(1). This was not the training (certificate preparation) requirement being met for the “pre-Private solo cross-country.”"​

You could do a flight during your PPL training which counts towards the IR (e.g. night time), etc.

There is no requirement for night experience in 61.65 for the IR. And while the total night time you pick up training for Private counts towards the total night experience requirement for Commercial, the night training time for Private in the areas of 61.107 does not meet the requirement for night training in the areas of 61.127 for Commecial.

IOW, this interpretation appears merely to provide Chief Counsel endorsement of the position AFS-800 espoused many years ago.

However, if one wants to start working on CP requirements after one completes one's PP requirements but hasn't yet taken the PP practical test, one can do the CP dual XC's in addition to the PP dual XC's already completed and have the instructor note 61.129(a/b)(3)(iii/iv) in the endorsement of that flight so it does count for CP. IOW, it's not the when the training occurs, it's what training is being given, and training for PP is by regulation not training for CP.

 

[SCCutler]

...

And I certainly cannot see somebody doing a 150nm night flight with an instructor in the RHS for any other purpose - especially as in most of Europe the original departure airport will be closed by the time you get back so the instructor has to be put up in a hotel...

A lot of airports in Europe close at night, I take it?

 

[TMetzinger]

Might want to start a separate thread on this, but apparently the Chief Counsel recently issued an interpretation that the instrument training done for an instrument rating doesn't count towards the instrument training requirements in the commercial pilot certificate using the same logic, which means that if you're a PP-ASEL-IA you have to do an addition ten hours of hoodwork as part of the training for the CP-ASEL-IA. I'd have to go check my Jepp Syllabus to find out which way they programmed it in the Inst/Comm program I used. I don't think I had to do any instrument training for the commercial phase but I think I did have to do some hoodwork on the checkride (unusual attitudes).

AOPA is asking for the FAA to rescind that interpretation.

 

[Bob Noel]

What problem are they trying to "solve"? Is the training different? An hour under the hood for the instrument rating is different than an hour under the hood for the commercial rating?

Or I have violated a rule by expecting the rules to make sense?

 

[RJM62]

I guess it could make sense if the standards are more stringent for CPL. But if the pilot performed those requirements to or better than the PTS for CPL while still a PP (or a student, for that matter), then I think they should apply.

I suppose that's why FAA wants the required flights endorsed as such: So they have the CFI's imprimatur that the flying was done to CPL standards. Whether this would allow IR training to count toward CPL, provided it was done to CPL standards, I have no idea.

But then again...

Who gets to decide when a PP starts "working on" his or her CPL? Wouldn't it be legal for the pilot to declare that he or she is working on both IR and CPL concurrently, and then endorse the hours toward both, provided they are performed to the higher of the PTS in question?

-Rich

 

[poadeleted20]

Might want to start a separate thread on this, but apparently the Chief Counsel recently issued an interpretation that the instrument training done for an instrument rating doesn't count towards the instrument training requirements in the commercial pilot

The letter only says that simple possession of the IR is not enough, and simply logging "training for the instrument rating" or "training per 61.65(e)" is insufficient to meet the 61.129 instrument training requirements. What the instrument instructor has to do to cover this base is record the details of each training flight in the trainee's logbook so that there is documentation that all the items required by 61.129 (attitude instrument flying, partial panel skills, recovery from unusual flight attitudes, and intercepting and tracking navigational systems) were covered on those training flights, and frankly, I don't see how anyone could be sent for the IR practical test without those having been covered. There is no need for ten more hours of instrument training after the IR for the CP unless your instrument instructor was lousy at documentation of training or skipped some really important things during your IR training. OTOH, if you don't have your IR, you will need those 10 hours, and the documentation for that training will have to include at least those specific tasks (of course, that will also get you well on the way to your IR).

 

[poadeleted20]

I guess it could make sense if the standards are more stringent for CPL.

They are.

But if the pilot performed those requirements to or better than the PTS for CPL while still a PP (or a student, for that matter), then I think they should apply.

Different issues, different requirements. It's been what Flight Standards has been saying for years, but not the Chief Counsel has provided explicit backing to AFS's position.

Who gets to decide when a PP starts "working on" his or her CPL? Wouldn't it be legal for the pilot to declare that he or she is working on both IR and CPL concurrently, and then endorse the hours toward both, provided they are performed to the higher of the PTS in question?

Read post #2, above.

 

[TMetzinger]

The letter only says that simple possession of the IR is not enough, and simply logging "training for the instrument rating" or "training per 61.65(e)" is insufficient to meet the 61.129 instrument training requirements. What the instrument instructor has to do to cover this base is record the details of each training flight in the trainee's logbook so that there is documentation that all the items required by 61.129 (attitude instrument flying, partial panel skills, recovery from unusual flight attitudes, and intercepting and tracking navigational systems) were covered on those training flights, and frankly, I don't see how anyone could be sent for the IR practical test without those having been covered. There is no need for ten more hours of instrument training after the IR for the CP unless your instrument instructor was lousy at documentation of training or skipped some really important things during your IR training. OTOH, if you don't have your IR, you will need those 10 hours, and the documentation for that training will have to include at least those specific tasks (of course, that will also get you well on the way to your IR).

Apparently some examiners feel differently, and are refusing to give commercial checkrides to folks who have the IR but no subsequent instrument training logged after getting the IR, regardless of what the entries in the log for the instrument training say.

I agree with your comment of "... frankly, I don't see how anyone could be sent for the IR practical test without those having been covered." I can't see why possession of the IR wouldn't be sufficient. You had to log more than 10 hours of instrument training, and you had to have had those things covered in the training before you could get a CFII signoff for the IR ride, let alone pass it.

 

[TMetzinger]

They are.

What standards for instrument work are more stringent for the CP then the IR?

 

[EdFred]

What standards for instrument work are more stringent for the CP then the IR?

I don't recall any instrument work on my checkride.

 

[poadeleted20]

Apparently some examiners feel differently, and are refusing to give commercial checkrides to folks who have the IR but no subsequent instrument training logged after getting the IR, regardless of what the entries in the log for the instrument training say.

I know that. AOPA knows that. Don't expect it to stay that way very long.

 

[poadeleted20]

What standards for instrument work are more stringent for the CP then the IR?

That was regarding XC's, not the instrument work, and they really are:

Private:

6. Verifies the airplane's position within three (3) nautical miles of the
flight-planned route.
7. Arrives at the en route checkpoints within five (5) minutes of the
initial or revised ETA and provides a destination estimate.​

8. Maintains the appropriate altitude, ±200 feet (60 meters) and
headings, ±15°.

Commercial:

6. Verifies the airplane's position within two (2) nautical miles of
flight planned route.
7. Arrives at the en route checkpoints within three (3) minutes of the
initial or revised ETA and provides a destination estimate.​

8. Maintains appropriate altitude,

​

​

±100 feet (30 meters), and
headings, ±10°.​

Two issues here, folks -- the XC training, and the instrument requirement. I expect the XC paragraph to hold, as it is consistent with what Flight Standards has been saying since the commercial XC training requirement was added in 1997, but the instrument paragraph to change or disappear, as it is inconsistent with other regulations, the PTS, and the stated intent for the instrument requirement for Commercial when it was first introduced back in the 50's or so.​

 

[peter-h]

It would be a problem if this policy was extended to other stuff, because it would make a mockery of the FAA's explicit acceptance of non-US training with non-US instructors.

Ultimately it would make it impossible to get a standalone US PPL on the basis of e.g. European PPL training done say 10 years previously (which is standard practice in the USA, otherwise you would have to log 40hrs out there). This kind of stuff would make US training deeply unattractive and would hit the US training industry because a large bit of that business (of training foreign pilots) involves making use of previously acquired logbook entries. With the cost differential between USA and Europe having narrowed considerably (mainly due to avgas price rises in the USA) being able to utilise existing logged time is vital.

I was once offered, by an FAA CFII, (but did not pursue due to unrelated reasons) combining the FAA PPL night flying time with the 250nm IFR x/c which is required for the IR, and doing it all in a single flight. In principle I can't see why that would not be legal - if one already holds another (European) PPL which makes the VFR portion legit in the relevant airspace, etc.

 

[poadeleted20]

It would be a problem if this policy was extended to other stuff, because it would make a mockery of the FAA's explicit acceptance of non-US training with non-US instructors.

How so? There's nothing there which says post-Private night XC training received from a foreign instructor wouldn't count (as long as it's done outside the USA -- see 61.41(a)(2)).

Ultimately it would make it impossible to get a standalone US PPL on the basis of e.g. European PPL training

The portions of the interpretation in question only address training for Commercial, and have nothing to do with Private.

I was once offered, by an FAA CFII, (but did not pursue due to unrelated reasons) combining the FAA PPL night flying time with the 250nm IFR x/c which is required for the IR, and doing it all in a single flight. In principle I can't see why that would not be legal - if one already holds another (European) PPL which makes the VFR portion legit in the relevant airspace, etc.

This has nothing to do with the issue at hand, to wit, what training counts for Commecial.

I'm just not following your concerns. Is there something I'm missing?

 

[TMetzinger]

That was regarding XC's, not the instrument work, and they really are:

Private:
Commercial:

Two issues here, folks -- the XC training, and the instrument requirement. I expect the XC paragraph to hold, as it is consistent with what Flight Standards has been saying since the commercial XC training requirement was added in 1997, but the instrument paragraph to change or disappear, as it is inconsistent with other regulations, the PTS, and the stated intent for the instrument requirement for Commercial when it was first introduced back in the 50's or so.​

That makes sense. I could have sworn there used to be language along the lines of "if the commercial applicant doesn't have an instrument rating he must have had 10 hours of instrument training" before the last 61 rewrite.

It's depressing that they can take so long to do rulemaking and still get it this bad.

 

[nosehair]

What standards for instrument work are more stringent for the CP then the IR?

Would I get laffed out of the hall here if I said something like, "A commercial pilot is gonna have to make go/no-go decisions on a daily basis with the pressure of time and 'get the job done, or you're outta here', whereas a private instrument flight is a private matter."

Commercial pilots are supposed to be held to a higher standard. Would that sound crazy?

 

[bbchien]

What's going on here is the reverse of the agency's "encourge the IR, it'll reduce acccidents". Now what's happening, is "raise the standards toward 1500 hours total time and every step along the way".

It's lunacy.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Would I get laffed out of the hall here if I said something like, "A commercial pilot is gonna have to make go/no-go decisions on a daily basis with the pressure of time and 'get the job done, or you're outta here', whereas a private instrument flight is a private matter."

Commercial pilots are supposed to be held to a higher standard. Would that sound crazy?

Not at all. And I think that's a good perspective that may explain the Chief Counsel's position.

I think a lot of us when looking at the instrument training piece see that the required 61.129 tasks are minimal compared with the IR tasks - they are really just an upgrade on the private certificate tasks. On top of that, you don't even have to have an instrument rating in order to obtain the commercial certificate.

But that cuts both ways. The fact that the reg is written so that in increases the skill level of the non-instrument rated pilot, doesn't mean that it's intent isn't to also increase the skill level of the instrument-rated pilot.

To some extent it does fit in a bit with what seems to be the Chief Counsel's view on instrument skills. The recent one limiting the ability of a CFI without a CFI-I to given even non-required and non-counted instrument training beyond PP requirements seems to be part of the same thought process.

 

[poadeleted20]

Not at all. And I think that's a good perspective that may explain the Chief Counsel's position.

However, that does not fit with the facts. The interpretation and reg as written would allow a pilot without an IR to get a CP by getting 10 hours of instrument training regardless of the level of proficiency achieved. I could give someone 10 hours of instrument training in the specified areas, and even if they can't keep the airplane upright for more than 10 seconds under the hood, or recover from an usual attitude without instructor intervention, they would meet the requirement as interpreted and be OK for Commercial. Because the CP PTS has no instrument flying, their lack of proficiency would be no barrier to signing the 61.39 endorsement, since that only says they can pass the practical test, not that they have proficiency in areas not listed in the PTS, and the examiner would never test them on it because it isn't in the Commercial PTS.

As I said above, I expect this paragraph of the letter to go away -- and soon.