Adding category/class

[RogerT]

Since it's been about 35 yrs since I'm a little fuzzy. I've read 61.63.

The situation is a friend working on converting military experience to his
commercial rotorcraft. He then wants to add airplane single engine land for
the airplane he's building.

The way I read 61.63 he needs training to proficiency, a CFI signoff that he's
provided training and finds him competent and a checkride. No written required since he'll already have a commercial license with rotorcraft/helicopter category/class.

I'm I reading this right?

RT

 

[Gucci Pilot]

Correct. No written required.

 

[SkyDog58]

Just an added thought. He will not be able to do his flight training in the aircraft he is building. Plus he might want to get some extra training in the type he is building before he begins his test flights or take advantage of the new second pilot rule. Being a low time pilot and putting a new homebuilt in the air is fraught with danger.

 

[frfly172]

No written,after he gets checked out in fixed wing ,he should have instruction in his type home built.

 

[poadeleted20]

The way I read 61.63 he needs training to proficiency, a CFI signoff that he's provided training and finds him competent and a checkride. No written required since he'll already have a commercial license with rotorcraft/helicopter category/class.

Right about the written, but not on "train to proficiency". Since this is an additional category (Airplane), not just an additional class (Single Engine Land), he must meet all the experience requirements in 61.109(a) to add an ASEL at the PP level to his CP-RH ticket -- see 61.63(b). So, assuming no prior ASEL time, he'll have to do the following:

(1) 3 hours of cross-country flight training in a single-engine airplane;
(2) 3 hours of night flight training in a single-engine airplane that includes--
(i) One cross-country flight of over 100 nautical miles total distance; and
(ii) 10 takeoffs and 10 landings to a full stop (with each landing involving a flight in the traffic pattern) at an airport.
(3) 3 hours of flight training in a single-engine airplane on the control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to instruments, including straight and level flight, constant airspeed climbs and descents, turns to a heading, recovery from unusual flight attitudes, radio communications, and the use of navigation systems/facilities and radar services appropriate to instrument flight;
(4) 3 hours of flight training with an authorized instructor in a single-engine airplane in preparation for the practical test, which must have been performed within the preceding 2 calendar months from the month of the test; and
(5) 10 hours of solo flight time in a single-engine airplane, consisting of at least--
(i) 5 hours of solo cross-country time;
(ii) One solo cross country flight of 150 nautical miles total distance, with full-stop landings at three points, and one segment of the flight consisting of a straight-line distance of more than 50 nautical miles between the takeoff and landing locations; and (iii) Three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop (with each landing involving a flight in the traffic pattern) at an airport with an operating control tower.

Based on some folks I know who've done this, it will probably take about 15-20 hours of flight training plus 10 hours of solo to be ready for the practical test.

 

[poadeleted20]

Just an added thought. He will not be able to do his flight training in the aircraft he is building.

Why not, unless it is a single-seater? The prohibition on giving training in an EXP aircraft only applies when the trainer is providing the aircraft, not the trainee. I've done several training courses with people who have their own E-AB aircraft. Yes, he's going to have to get someone else to fly off the initial requirements but once it gets through Phase I (in which he cannot participate until he gets his ASEL rating), but after that, he could certainly take his PP training in an E-AB aircraft. The only issue then, of course, is finding an examiner willing to give the practical test in it.

Plus he might want to get some extra training in the type he is building before he begins his test flights or take advantage of the new second pilot rule.

He will have to get that ASEL rating before taking advantage of that program -- see AC 90-116 for details.

Being a low time pilot and putting a new homebuilt in the air is fraught with danger.

Agreed.

 

[SkyDog58]

Why not, unless it is a single-seater? The prohibition on giving training in an EXP aircraft only applies when the trainer is providing the aircraft, not the trainee. I've done several training courses with people who have their own E-AB aircraft. Yes, he's going to have to get someone else to fly off the initial requirements but once it gets through Phase I (in which he cannot participate until he gets his ASEL rating), but after that, he could certainly take his PP training in an E-AB aircraft. The only issue then, of course, is finding an examiner willing to give the practical test in it.

Quite right but there is little chance of finding a CFI in most locales that has experience flying most homebuilt aircraft, let alone providing instruction in them. And as you mention, you have to find a willing examiner and most are not that willing as they usually will have little to no experience with a particular homebuilt. And most builders prefer to do their phase 1 themselves as a matter of pride. So realistically, it is very doubtful that he will be able to do his primary training in his homebuilt.

He will have to get that ASEL rating before taking advantage of that program -- see AC 90-116 for details.

Wow. No kidding. You must think you are the only one who knows anything. Read what I wrote again.
“Plus he might want to get some extra training in the type he is building before he begins his test flights or take advantage of the new second pilot rule.”
Note the use of the term “extra training”. Extra as in “in addition” to his primary flight training. In other words, after he gets his PPL and before he begins Phase 1, it would be a real swell idea to find someone to give him some dual in the same model or someone with experience in it to act as the second pilot.

Agreed.

Well, at least you got one right.

 

[RogerT]

Right about the written, but not on "train to proficiency". Since this is an additional category (Airplane), not just an additional class (Single Engine Land), he must meet all the experience requirements in 61.109(a) to add an ASEL at the PP level to his CP-RH ticket -- see 61.63(b). So, assuming no prior ASEL time, he'll have to do the following:

Thanks Ron for the reference and the comments from others. The last
time I added a category was Rotorcraft in 1979 so I'm a little fuzzy. This is
exactly what I was looking for.

He has no intention of training for the category/class in the Experimental and
will have someone experienced test fly it.

As an additional question .. what if he was only seeking Sport Pilot
privileges in the Exp for the additional Cat/Cls. Does this go back to the
2 CFI deal? One trains and recommends and one does the "checkride"?

RT

 

[flyingron]

I've always wondered about the interpretation the FAA gives on instruction in experimentals. The regulation does NOT specifically ban instruction, just "carrying persons or property for compensation or hire." Elsewhere in the regs when it wants to make the distinction it includes both ("no person may operate an aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire, and no person may give flight instruction for hire in an aircraft which that person provides, unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in service the aircraft has received an annual or 100-hour inspection ")

 

[poadeleted20]

As an additional question .. what if he was only seeking Sport Pilot privileges in the Exp for the additional Cat/Cls. Does this go back to the 2 CFI deal? One trains and recommends and one does the "checkride"?

Well, that question certainly sends me scurrying to the regulations...

As I read the various regs (61.63, 61.321, and 61.313), he would need:

• At least 15 hours of flight training in a single engine airplane LSA including
  • 2 hours of cross-country flight training,
  • 10 takeoffs and landings to a full stop (with each landing involving a flight in the traffic pattern) at an airport,
  • 2 hours of flight training with an authorized instructor on those areas of operation specified in § 61.311 in preparation for the practical test within the preceding 2 calendar months from the month of the test
• At least 5 hours of solo in a single engine airplane LSA including one solo cross-country flight of at least 75 nautical miles total distance, with a full-stop landing at a minimum of two points and one segment of the flight consisting of a straight-line distance of at least 25 nautical miles between the takeoff and landing locations.

If you add that all up, it's not much less than he'd need to add the ASEL to a PPL. However, if that was accomplished with one CFI, then yes, a second CFI would have to perform the proficiency check. And that assumes, of course, that his E-AB aircraft qualifies as an LSA, and that he's willing to accept the relevant Sport Pilot restrictions on his flying in that plane (no night flying, no IFR, not over 10,000 MSL, etc.).

 

[poadeleted20]

I've always wondered about the interpretation the FAA gives on instruction in experimentals. The regulation does NOT specifically ban instruction, just "carrying persons or property for compensation or hire." Elsewhere in the regs when it wants to make the distinction it includes both ("no person may operate an aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire, and no person may give flight instruction for hire in an aircraft which that person provides, unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in service the aircraft has received an annual or 100-hour inspection ")

The regulations do not ban instruction in EXP's. They ban only providing paid training in an EXP provided by the party providing the training. It's entirely legal for a CFI to provide training in an EXP provided by the trainee (and I've done that several times), and in that case, the 91.409 rule on 100-hour inspections does not apply.