Concurrent PPL/ IR training

[Banjo33]

I know I saw this the other day, but have been through Part 61 at least half a dozen times and now I can't find. Ultimately, I think it says up to 45 hours of IR training conducted (pre-PPL) can be applied toward the IR reqs.

Does anyone have an example of a syllabus on how this could be conducted? It seems very similar to how the military conducts flight training (minus extensive use of a simulator):
1. Basic Instrument - aircraft control by instrument ref alone, some basic local approaches
2. Radio Instrument - more focus on chart/plate usage and more advanced instrument training
3. Familiarization - takeoff, landing, emergency procedures, aerobatics, night fam
4. Air Navigation - enroute planning and navigation in the NAS, culminating with approaches at non-local airfields

Hypothetically, I'm trying to ballpark best-case and average-case completion of PPL w/ concurrent IR. My guess is 65-100 hours? All IR hours will be instructional (not just the 15 minimum). Aircraft/funds availability not an issue, training from October to March timeframe (maximize poor weather days with IR training), flying 3-5 days per week, written exams complete.

I'd appreciate any advice!

 

[poadeleted20]

61.65(g) doesn't say exactly what your post suggests you think it says. Start by reading that. Then, read the FAA's generic PP/IR syllabus at http://www.faa.gov/training_testing/training/fits/training/generic/media/pvt-inst.pdf. This may help you shape your questions.

You can also see MTSU's FITS approved PP/IR syllabus:
http://www.faa.gov/training_testing/training/fits/training/aircraft/media/MTSU.pdf

 

[Banjo33]

That's it, I knew it was right there somewhere, thanks! So in essence, they can obtain 45 of the required 50 x-country hours for the IR during PPL training (as long as those hours are flown with an instructor). I guess traditionally, those 50 hours are probably flown solo or with non-pilot passengers (post-PPL). Those syllabi will help a lot...it would be easy to incorporate IR training and make many flights mini-x country's early on. It would be interesting to see if i could get the student's training near that notional 65 hour mark. I'll have to review those syllabi a little more closely.

"(g) An applicant for a combined private pilot certificate with an instrument rating may
satisfy the cross-country flight time requirements of this section by crediting:
(1) For an instrument-airplane rating or an instrument-powered-lift rating, up to 45 hours
of cross-country flight time performing the duties of pilot in command with an authorized
instructor; "

 

[poadeleted20]

That's it, I knew it was right there somewhere, thanks! So in essence, they can obtain 45 of the required 50 x-country hours for the IR during PPL training (as long as those hours are flown with an instructor).

The instructor's presence is not required - the trainee can do them all solo if desired. The reason for the 45 hour limit is that the trainee still must get 5 hours of solo XC time (which is also XC PIC time) to meet the basic PPL requirement. This paragraph gives the trainee the option to get the rest of the 50 with an instructor or solo, rather than having to be all solo, since the trainee cannot be PIC unless solo (airships notwithstanding).

I guess traditionally, those 50 hours are probably flown solo or with non-pilot passengers (post-PPL).

Not necessarily. Some of them were usually flown with an instructor post-PPL (typically as part of IR training) under the "sole manipulator" clause in 61.51(e). However, that clause does not apply to Student Pilots. If it weren't for this new 45-hour clause, the combined PP/IR trainee would have to get all 50 hours of XC PIC time solo -- and that wasn't the idea of the program.

Those syllabi will help a lot...it would be easy to incorporate IR training and make many flights mini-x country's early on. It would be interesting to see if i could get the student's training near that notional 65 hour mark. I'll have to review those syllabi a little more closely.

FWIW, last I heard MTSU was running about 80-85 hours zero-to-PP/IR in DA40's, both steam gauge and G1000. I would not expect to do much better.

 

[Banjo33]

The instructor's presence is not required - the trainee can do them all solo if desired. The reason for the 45 hour limit is that the trainee still must get 5 hours of solo XC time (which is also XC PIC time) to meet the basic PPL requirement. This paragraph gives the trainee the option to get the rest of the 50 with an instructor or solo, rather than having to be all solo, since the trainee cannot be PIC unless solo (airships notwithstanding).

I just took g.(1) at face value. "up to 45 hours of cross-country flight time performing the duties of pilot in command with an authorized instructor; ". This, I assume, allows any cross-country training with an instructor, conducted prior to issuance of the PPL, to be logged toward meeting the 50 hour x-country requirement to meet the IR requirements. Am I not reading that right?

Not necessarily. Some of them were usually flown with an instructor post-PPL (typically as part of IR training) under the "sole manipulator" clause in 61.51(e). However, that clause does not apply to Student Pilots. If it weren't for this new 45-hour clause, the combined PP/IR trainee would have to get all 50 hours of XC PIC time solo -- and that wasn't the idea of the program.

OK, that's what I'm seeing too, it's just its mention of "with an instructor" part that's throwing me off. I'm seeing that combining IR/PPL training may get someone ready for PPL checkride and VERY nearly ready for the IR checkride simultaneously and potentially doing so at less hours (assuming funds, a/c, and daily life can support consistent and frequent training).

FWIW, last I heard MTSU was running about 80-85 hours zero-to-PP/IR in DA40's, both steam gauge and G1000. I would not expect to do much better.

I'm not starting with a completely blank slate and the aircraft is basic IFR (dual nav heads with VFR GPS).

I appreciate the discussion Ron!

 

[poadeleted20]

I just took g.(1) at face value. "up to 45 hours of cross-country flight time performing the duties of pilot in command with an authorized instructor; ". This, I assume, allows any cross-country training with an instructor, conducted prior to issuance of the PPL, to be logged toward meeting the 50 hour x-country requirement to meet the IR requirements. Am I not reading that right?

I'm not sure. The regular rule in 61.65 is that you need 50 hour of XC PIC time. That can be either solo XC (of which you need at least 5 hours for PPL), or PIC time with others (instructor or otherwise) in an aircraft for which you are rated. Since you are not "rated" until you get the PPL, that would be a barrier to logging XC PIC time during your combined PP/IR training other than making solo XC's. Without some regulatory relief, you'd have to do another 45 hours of solo XC to meet the 61.65 50 hour XC PIC requirement, and that seemed to the FAA to be overkill.

The FAA decided that for the 45 XC PIC hours required beyond the pre-PP 5 solo XC hours, flying XC's with an instructor during the combined PP/IR training would be just as good as flying XC's with an instructor after passing a PP practical test. So, they said you can count up to 45 hours (i.e., the required 50 XC PIC minus the PP-required 5 solo XC) during a combined PP/IR course in order to get the required 50 hours of XC time for the IR side of the combined program. Thus beyond the mandatory 5 hours of solo XC (which, of course, is PIC time as you are the sole occupant of the airplane), you can use any combination of solo XC time and XC time with an instructor to fill the other 45 hours.

OK, that's what I'm seeing too, it's just its mention of "with an instructor" part that's throwing me off. I'm seeing that combining IR/PPL training may get someone ready for PPL checkride and VERY nearly ready for the IR checkride simultaneously and potentially doing so at less hours (assuming funds, a/c, and daily life can support consistent and frequent training).

It's one combined practical test for both, not two separate tests. Possible outcomes include:

• Pass both.
• Pass PPL but fail IR
• Fail all
• Discontinue both
• Pass PPL but discontinue IR

Passing the IR while failing or not completing the PP is not an option.

I'm not starting with a completely blank slate and the aircraft is basic IFR (dual nav heads with VFR GPS).

Then as far as instrument training is concerned, the VFR GPS is a situational awareness aid only, and not to be used for IFR navigation.

I appreciate the discussion Ron!

Happy to help. This is a new area for many, and may not be well-understood by a lot of instructors and even many examiners.

 

[Banjo33]

I didn't realize it was one comprehensive test. That sounds awful! Lol

 

[NineThreeKilo]

I know I saw this the other day, but have been through Part 61 at least half a dozen times and now I can't find. Ultimately, I think it says up to 45 hours of IR training conducted (pre-PPL) can be applied toward the IR reqs.

Does anyone have an example of a syllabus on how this could be conducted? It seems very similar to how the military conducts flight training (minus extensive use of a simulator):
1. Basic Instrument - aircraft control by instrument ref alone, some basic local approaches
2. Radio Instrument - more focus on chart/plate usage and more advanced instrument training
3. Familiarization - takeoff, landing, emergency procedures, aerobatics, night fam
4. Air Navigation - enroute planning and navigation in the NAS, culminating with approaches at non-local airfields

Hypothetically, I'm trying to ballpark best-case and average-case completion of PPL w/ concurrent IR. My guess is 65-100 hours? All IR hours will be instructional (not just the 15 minimum). Aircraft/funds availability not an issue, training from October to March timeframe (maximize poor weather days with IR training), flying 3-5 days per week, written exams complete.

I'd appreciate any advice!

ATP does a combined PPL and instrument, personally I don't think it makes for a very good VFR or IFR pilot, but to each their own.

I'm sure you could ask for a itenary from ATP and copy that.

 

[Banjo33]

I'm not familiar with how ATP conducts their training, but I can see how the combined model (using SBT) could make a better pilot than the traditional method. Regardless, I'll give their website a scrubbing, they may have something posted there. Thanks for the suggestion!

 

[poadeleted20]

I didn't realize it was one comprehensive test. That sounds awful! Lol

Dunnno how "awful" it is, but it probably takes nearly all day. Good news is that it probably takes less time than the total of doing each test individually. Perhaps the bigger problem is for the examiner to develop the required written plan of action for the test so that it includes every Area/Task/element of both PTS's.

 

[Brad Z]

Out of curiosity, what's the benefit of doing it concurrently? Fewer total hours? Faster? Seems like you'll end up with fewer PIC hours, since all of the dual training after the PP checkride is PIC loggable.

 

[poadeleted20]

Out of curiosity, what's the benefit of doing it concurrently? Fewer total hours? Faster?

More like better preparing you for a professional flying career in high performance aircraft, particularly TAA's.

Seems like you'll end up with fewer PIC hours, since all of the dual training after the PP checkride is PIC loggable.

PIC hours in light singles isn't particularly significant to those in university aviation programs. Preparation for the glass cockpit of a transport aircraft operating IFR is.

Now, what is the application elsewhere? Well, I can see this as a good route for someone buying a Cirrus SR22 with the intention of flying themselves around on business. They'll end up with more practical experience doing what they want to do on the day they get their ticket, and won't be tempted to do something dumb when they're stuck out by themselves with only VFR privileges since they won't be going anywhere without supervision until they already have IFR privileges.

 

[Banjo33]

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. It's about practical experience when you know upfront what your primary mission will be and have the funds/time to knock it out in one fell swoop.

In the case of my situation, the "student" is a military UAV commander. We're looking at pursuing this route vice losing him for 6+ months to Air Force RPA training. Our (Marine Corps) rules are changing and to keep up, ALL UAS AC's are required to be either winged aviators or PPL holders at a minimum. IR cert gets him ready for future systems requirements.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

More like better preparing you for a professional flying career in high performance aircraft, particularly TAA's.

Not really, you're going to end up with a 60-70hr IFR PPL holder that's not all that great at IFR OR VFR.

And god forbid he ever has a equipment failure and needs to use basic pilotage (chart and eyeballs and rule of thumb) to navigate.

PIC hours in light singles isn't particularly significant to those in university aviation programs. Preparation for the glass cockpit of a transport aircraft operating IFR is.

Now, what is the application elsewhere? Well, I can see this as a good route for someone buying a Cirrus SR22 with the intention of flying themselves around on business. They'll end up with more practical experience doing what they want to do on the day they get their ticket, and won't be tempted to do something dumb when they're stuck out by themselves with only VFR privileges since they won't be going anywhere without supervision until they already have IFR privileges.

This guys gotta be kidding me!

Command hours mean very little!

You need to read up on some of the dumb ass mistakes this training helps create.

http://blog.aopa.org/opinionleaders/2013/09/11/stick-and-rudder/

 

[poadeleted20]

Not really, you're going to end up with a 60-70hr IFR PPL holder that's not all that great at IFR OR VFR.

I agree. But that's not what comes out of the programs to which I was referring.

And god forbid he ever has a equipment failure and needs to use basic pilotage (chart and eyeballs and rule of thumb) to navigate.

What makes you think that isn't part of the training? It's certainly part of the PTS for the test they have to pass.

As for "command hours", do you think you get more real command experience doing instrument training with a CFI after you have your PP rather than before you have your PP? Because that's the only real difference here, other than integrating the IFR and VFR operations training.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

As for "command hours", do you think you get more real command experience doing instrument training with a CFI after you have your PP rather than before you have your PP? Because that's the only real difference here, other than integrating the IFR and VFR operations training.

But you didn't say that, you said

PIC hours in light singles isn't particularly significant to those in university aviation programs. .

Also what makes a good pilot is a natural progression, get a VFR PPL, start flying x-countries and learn the system, fly a few states away with a chart and your eyeballs, get a feel for that type of flying THEN start on instruments.

More like better preparing you for a professional flying career in high performance aircraft, particularly TAA's..

Please tell me these aren't students who are going to be trying to get a job in the US or Canada, because if that's the case doing the wannabe airline training is kinda a scam, they ain't going to be flying anything resembling a airliner for their first two jobs.




Stick & rudder and eyeballs, then instrument, ya got to build on a good basic foundation!!

 

[poadeleted20]

But you didn't say that, you said !

I did And I stand by that. "Command hours" (i.e., acting as PIC without supervision) is not the same as PIC time, and for the folks coming out of those programs, PIC time is not the big issue. The airlines will be no more impressed by PIC time earned while flying under a CFI's direct supervision than they will be by non-PIC dual time earned the same way doing the same thing in a combined PP/IR program. However, the airlines are interested in operational instrument time, and they'll get more of that in that combined program than they will in a traditional PP first/IR later program.

Also what makes a good pilot is a natural progression, get a VFR PPL, start flying x-countries and learn the system, fly a few states away with a chart and your eyeballs, get a feel for that type of flying THEN start on instruments.

No doubt that's why the airlines prefer pilots who came up through the traditional civilian light plane ranks as you describe over military pilots trained in an integrated visual/instrument program.

Oh, wait -- they don't.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

.

No doubt that's why the airlines prefer pilots who came up through the traditional civilian light plane ranks as you describe over military pilots trained in an integrated visual/instrument program.

Oh, wait -- they don't.

Well that's why they have some of the spectacular accidents you read about.

Good thing I am not someone who has any desire to work as a cog in the airlines machine, biggest issue I that keeps me out of there is that I actually like to FLY and I don't like to be treated like chit

 

[poadeleted20]

Well that's why they have some of the spectacular accidents you read about.

You mean because out of desperation they hire people like the ones in the Colgan accident with extremely limited operational experience? Or the co-pilots in the Air France wreck with only a couple of hundred hours of flying before being dropped in a jet airliner? Yes, I agree -- lots more operational experience needed for the people going to fly airliners, and that does not include 300-500 hour pilots. That said, I'll stack any 200-250-hour graduate of USAF UPT or USN pilot training against anyone coming through the sort of training you seem to like with equal flight time, whether we're talking aerobatics, low-level navigation, formation, instruments, or whatever you like. I'll also stack the safety record of the military's large transport aircraft operations using those 250-hour pilots out of UPT as co-pilots against that of the regionals using 300-500 civilian=trained pilots, and those military folks are doing things the regionals don't even dream of doing, including low-level, formation, assault landings, LAPES, etc.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

You mean because out of desperation they hire people like the ones in the Colgan accident with extremely limited operational experience? Or the co-pilots in the Air France wreck with only a couple of hundred hours of flying before being dropped in a jet airliner? Yes, I agree -- lots more operational experience needed for the people going to fly airliners, and that does not include 300-500 hour pilots. That said, I'll stack any 200-250-hour graduate of USAF UPT or USN pilot training against anyone coming through the sort of training you seem to like with equal flight time, whether we're talking aerobatics, low-level navigation, formation, instruments, or whatever you like. I'll also stack the safety record of the military's large transport aircraft operations using those 250-hour pilots out of UPT as co-pilots against that of the regionals using 300-500 civilian=trained pilots, and those military folks are doing things the regionals don't even dream of doing, including low-level, formation, assault landings, LAPES, etc.

Oh Ron, don't make yourself sound simple, whats the budget for their training?? Give me a student with the same dedication and availability to commit to training --AND THE SAME BUDGET-- and I'll take your little Pepsi challenge.


Just because the military or the airlines do something one way, doesn't make it THE best way to do it, just works out so far for their equipment and style of flying


What I'm just sayin is being able to fly a few states away in something like a no electric 7AC isn't exactly a bad skill to have before you call your self a CPL!

 

[poadeleted20]

Ok, let's get some of my old AG students and put them up against your training.

Ag students?

Just how much professional experience do you have in multiengine turbine aircraft in a structured operating environment like a Part 121 carrier or the military on which to base your statements about what sort of training best prepares someone for the right seat of a regional jet?

 

[FlyingJ]

I didn't realize it was one comprehensive test. That sounds awful! Lol

I completed a combined course (141) but would not recommend it. You must maintain (or relearn in my case) all skills to pts standards, as well as all the required knowledge. As i progressed thru the IR portion, some of the PPL skills became stale which required a few more hours to refresh.

I can appreciate the importance of time spent vfr flying and cross country experience before starting IR training. It would be beneficial.

If you go this route, ensure there is a dpe willing to test the combined pts and what their fees are. I was delayed at least a month while the school negotiated with dpes to find one that would do it. It required a few more hours each week to maintain both ppl and ir skills. I finally gave up on them and requested an FAA examiner. FAA was very accomodating and I felt fortunate to have two very qualified and very fair inspectors during my test (one for the oral, another for the practical due to scheduling conflict).

The test was two days. Oral was 5 hours. Practical was 3.3 on the hobbs plus the logbook review, preflight briefing, and preflight. Two full days.

 

[poadeleted20]

I completed a combined course (141) but would not recommend it. You must maintain (or relearn in my case) all skills to pts standards, as well as all the required knowledge. As i progressed thru the IR portion, some of the PPL skills became stale which required a few more hours to refresh.

I'm curious what syllabus you school used. If you review the FITS PP/IR syllabus, you'll see the traditional PP and traditional IR tasks are taught in an integrated fashion throughout the course, not PP first ad then IR. So, if done properly, there should be no issue of PP skills becoming stale as you progress through the course.

 

[FlyingJ]

I'm curious what syllabus you school used. If you review the FITS PP/IR syllabus, you'll see the traditional PP and traditional IR tasks are taught in an integrated fashion throughout the course, not PP first ad then IR. So, if done properly, there should be no issue of PP skills becoming stale as you progress through the course.

Agree. It was an FAA approved combined course that was just the the PP course followed immediately by the IR course. I provided significant feedback during last few weeks of IR, while preparing for the checkride, but no idea if they were incorporated. School was not very receptive to change what is already approved.

As they say, hindsight is 20/20.

 

[poadeleted20]

Agree. It was an FAA approved combined course that was just the the PP course followed immediately by the IR course.

The FAA may have approved that course, but as to doing it as you describe, yuck. For anyone contemplating this route, make sure your training provider has a purpose-built integrated syllabus, not just cobbling together a PP syllabus and IR syllabus back-to-back.

 

[FlyingJ]

The FAA may have approved that course, but as to doing it as you describe, yuck. For anyone contemplating this route, make sure your training provider has a purpose-built integrated syllabus, not just cobbling together a PP syllabus and IR syllabus back-to-back.

Yes, I couldn't agree more. As stated, I also see a lot of benefit in obtaining PP first, flying VFR & XC for a period of time, and then starting IR training. I can now see wisdom in some FAA requirements.

BTW, my instructor was outstanding - requiring high standards of performance, constantly quizzing me on knowledge questions, what-ifs, emergencies, etc. He didn't cut any corners and made a huge difference regardless of the poor structure of the course. He has also tried to influence changes in the curriculum. I would recommend him but not the course.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yes, I couldn't agree more. As stated, I also see a lot of benefit in obtaining PP first, flying VFR & XC for a period of time, and then starting IR training. I can now see wisdom in some FAA requirements.

Amazing, isn't it, that sometimes the FAA really does have a good reason for their rules?

BTW, my instructor was outstanding - requiring high standards of performance, constantly quizzing me on knowledge questions, what-ifs, emergencies, etc. He didn't cut any corners and made a huge difference regardless of the poor structure of the course. He has also tried to influence changes in the curriculum. I would recommend him but not the course.

Good write-up.

 

[mcmanigle]

Sorry to necro-post, but the "need advice on concurrent" post got me glancing at the regs, and I have this question:

Does somebody doing the combined private/instrument application actually have stricter requirements than the traditional (private then instrument) route?

The reason I ask is this: a current private pilot can (and as I understand it, most do) get a fair portion of their 50 cross-country PIC hours during instructional flights, under the sole-manipulator provision.

To "make up for" the fact that student pilots don't have the sole-manipulator deal, PPL/IR applicants are allowed to substitute up to 45 hours "of cross-country flight time performing the duties of pilot in command with an authorized instructor" (14 CFR 61.65(g)). So far, so good.

But the "performing the duties of" is the same language used in, e.g. multi-engine (and now single-engine) "supervised solo" flights, which to the best of my understanding means the instructor must just sit on his/her hands and make sure the student doesn't crash. No teaching, no helping, no nothing.

So does that mean getting a PPL/IR requires (effectively) 50 hours of (supervised or not) solo cross-country, while PPL + IR requires only 5 hours (from the PPL) of solo, and 45 hours PIC cross-country, much easier to meet (for someone who is rated)?

Or am I misunderstanding something?

 

[poadeleted20]

Does somebody doing the combined private/instrument application actually have stricter requirements than the traditional (private then instrument) route?

No.

The reason I ask is this: a current private pilot can (and as I understand it, most do) get a fair portion of their 50 cross-country PIC hours during instructional flights, under the sole-manipulator provision.

You understand it correctly.

To "make up for" the fact that student pilots don't have the sole-manipulator deal, PPL/IR applicants are allowed to substitute up to 45 hours "of cross-country flight time performing the duties of pilot in command with an authorized instructor" (14 CFR 61.65(g)). So far, so good.

Agreed.

But the "performing the duties of" is the same language used in, e.g. multi-engine (and now single-engine) "supervised solo" flights, which to the best of my understanding means the instructor must just sit on his/her hands and make sure the student doesn't crash. No teaching, no helping, no nothing.

That's the general understanding but it's not explicitly stated that way in 61.129.

So does that mean getting a PPL/IR requires (effectively) 50 hours of (supervised or not) solo cross-country, while PPL + IR requires only 5 hours (from the PPL) of solo, and 45 hours PIC cross-country, much easier to meet (for someone who is rated)?

I've seen nothing from the FAA which suggests that is true. As I see it, those 45 hours could include all sorts of instrument training. Note also that 61.65(g) merely allows the substitution of time with an instructor for solo time, and does not require replacement of that time. So, the Student Pilot can certainly count towards the required 50 hours of XC PIC a whole bunch of solo XC time.

The key here is that for 61.129, the "supervised solo" time is replacing a solo flight time requirement, while 61.65(g) is allowing replacement of PIC(i.e., not solo) flight time, and the 50 hours XC PIC for 61.65(d)(1) can certainly include training received.