61.129 Commercial instrument time

Matthew

Matthew

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
19,105
Location
kojc, kixd, k34
Display Name
Display name:
Matthew
Got into a discussion today with a buddy that’s ready to start his commercial. Both of us are instrument rated. His CFII made notes in his logbook that some training hours met 61.129. I checked my logbook and I don’t see that note. There’s a very low chance I will go commercial, but if I do: looks like I can’t use any of my IR training to double dip?
 
This discussion is bound to go for many pages, but the whole "instrument rating training doesn't automatically count for the commercial rating instrument training requirement" is, IMO, about the worst, most nonsensical Chief Counsel interpretation there is.

With the possible exception of Mangiamele.

I literally just went through this with a client during a logbook review about 3 hours ago. Fortunately we were able to find enough post-instrument rating training (IPCs and such) that it didn't matter.

My recommendation? Write "61.129" in the remarks block of each of your instrument rating training flights.
 
Matthew said:
Got into a discussion today with a buddy that’s ready to start his commercial. Both of us are instrument rated. His CFII made notes in his logbook that some training hours met 61.129. I checked my logbook and I don’t see that note. There’s a very low chance I will go commercial, but if I do: looks like I can’t use any of my IR training to double dip?
Click to expand...
If you have "ten hours of instrument training using a view-limiting device including attitude instrument flying, partial panel skills, recovery from unusual flight attitudes, and intercepting and tracking navigational systems" then the time counts toward the commercial requirement. You probably have that.

RussR said:
This discussion is bound to go for many pages, but the whole "instrument rating training doesn't automatically count for the commercial rating instrument training requirement" is, IMO, about the worst, most nonsensical Chief Counsel interpretation there is.
Click to expand...
The Chief Counsel interpretation is logical. People misinterpreting the Chief Counsel interpretation is the problem.
 
dmspilot said:
If you have "ten hours of instrument training using a view-limiting device including attitude instrument flying, partial panel skills, recovery from unusual flight attitudes, and intercepting and tracking navigational systems" then the time counts toward the commercial requirement. You probably have that.


The Chief Counsel interpretation is logical. People misinterpreting the Chief Counsel interpretation is the problem.
Click to expand...

The Chief Counsel's suggestion that someone who is instrument rated may NOT have received enough training and demonstrated enough instrument skill to meet the requirements of a Commercial pilot, a rating which involves only VFR training and testing, is what's not logical.

Although I do agree that some DPE's and FSDO's understanding of that letter is also a problem.

But we've been round and round about this before on this board, and I don't see that this time is going to have any different of an outcome.
 
RussR said:
…meet the requirements of a Commercial pilot, a rating which involves only VFR training and testing, is what's not logical...
Click to expand...
Tangentially, I’ve been of the belief the 2hr/100NM night XC either conform to the Commercial limitation of either 50NM VFR or be flown on an IFR flight plan for 100NM.

I understand the value of the requirement, but the logic escapes me.
 
RussR said:
The Chief Counsel's suggestion that someone who is instrument rated may NOT have received enough training and demonstrated enough instrument skill to meet the requirements of a Commercial pilot, a rating which involves only VFR training and testing, is what's not logical.
Click to expand...
My understanding of the Chief Counsel’s “suggestion” is that it has nothing to do with “enough training and skill”, but rather the necessity of logging in accordance with regulatory requirements.

it seems to me to fall 100% in line with something along the lines of log entries like “basic air work“ and “pattern work” prior to “ok solo” being inadequate to establish a student pilot’s qualification to solo.
 
My CFIIs (3 of them) were pretty good about details and descriptions of each flight. But none of them specifically notated “61.129”. Can I find the ones that specifically meet the requirements and then note them as “61.129” (as commented earlier)? Otherwise I can only see two alternatives: do more training, or negotiate with a DPE on what and how much will be accepted.
 
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. :(
 
MauleSkinner said:
My understanding of the Chief Counsel’s “suggestion” is that it has nothing to do with “enough training and skill”, but rather the necessity of logging in accordance with regulatory requirements.

it seems to me to fall 100% in line with something along the lines of log entries like “basic air work“ and “pattern work” prior to “ok solo” being inadequate to establish a student pilot’s qualification to solo.
Click to expand...

Everywhere I have lived and flown, it was long-standing practice among DPEs that if you had an instrument rating, it "automatically" met the requirement for the 10 hours of instrument training for your Commercial. After all, it's not a stretch to assume that that requirement is in there specifically because you can get a Commercial without having an instrument rating, therefore some instrument training is important for a CP. If an instrument rating WAS a prerequisite for the Commercial, there would be no reason to have the instrument training requirement as part of the Commercial experience requirements.

The Chief Counsel COULD have just said "if you have an instrument rating in the same category, that meets the requirements of 61.129", and I would have been perfectly content, and I think that would have been perfectly reasonable, and in my opinion, in accordance with what I view as the spirit and intent of the regulations.

But they didn't word it that way, so now we're left with situations like this:

Matthew said:
My CFIIs (3 of them) were pretty good about details and descriptions of each flight. But none of them specifically notated “61.129”. Can I find the ones that specifically meet the requirements and then note them as “61.129” (as commented earlier)? Otherwise I can only see two alternatives: do more training, or negotiate with a DPE on what and how much will be accepted.
Click to expand...

Which is just ridiculous, to have applicants and CFIs re-accomplishing training and/or negotiating with DPEs on what's good enough. This is not the same as "Ok to solo". The instrument-rated pilot has been formally tested on instrument skills by a designated representative of the FAA and deemed to be competent. It should suffice.
 
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...
And probably the pilot going back and retro-noting is poor form?

Again, in my case there’s little likelihood I will go on to commercial, but I don’t want to miss out on anything.
 
RussR said:
This discussion is bound to go for many pages, but the whole "instrument rating training doesn't automatically count for the commercial rating instrument training requirement" is, IMO, about the worst, most nonsensical Chief Counsel interpretation there is.

With the possible exception of Mangiamele.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Mangiamele is the apex of regulatory interpretation compared to this one.
 
AC 61-65H suggests the following wording for an endorsement for commercial pilot applicants:
I certify that [First name, MI, Last name] has received the required training of §§ 61.127 and 61.129. I have determined that [he or she] is prepared for the [name of] practical test.
Click to expand...
Does that statement not meet the intent of documenting that the requirements of § 61.129 have been met? This has to be documented for every single IFR training flight?

I am also wondering what's so special about the § 61.129 requirements. What I see in the regs is:
Ten hours of instrument training using a view-limiting device including attitude instrument flying, partial panel skills, recovery from unusual flight attitudes, and intercepting and tracking navigational systems. Five hours of the 10 hours required on instrument training must be in a single engine airplane
Click to expand...
While § 61.65 does not require these things verbatim, the Instrument ACS sure tests applicants on all of the above. It is therefore implied that instrument students get trained on all those things.

Is this another bureaucratic glitch which requires all of us to jump through hoops while logging instruction to make things work?

- Martin
 
Martin Pauly said:
AC 61-65H suggests the following wording for an endorsement for commercial pilot applicants:

Does that statement not meet the intent of documenting that the requirements of § 61.129 have been met? This has to be documented for every single IFR training flight?

I am also wondering what's so special about the § 61.129 requirements. What I see in the regs is:

While § 61.65 does not require these things verbatim, the Instrument ACS sure tests applicants on all of the above. It is therefore implied that instrument students get trained on all those things.

Is this another bureaucratic glitch which requires all of us to jump through hoops while logging instruction to make things work?

- Martin
Click to expand...
The Chief Counsel has had this thing about double-dipping requirements. The analysis is pretty much the same here as the interpretation precluding a 61.109 student pilot cross country that meets 61.129 requirements as to length from using it to meet the commercial.

It comes down to the idea that even if the tasks look the same, they are different in kind - the level of expected skill, knowledge, and competence is different. Commercial vs private standards.

Whatever validity that might have, it's simply ridiculous in this context. According to the theory, a non-instrument rated commercial applicant is superior to an instrument rated pilot after a whole 10 hours doing nothing more than "attitude instrument flying, partial panel skills, recovery from unusual flight attitudes, and intercepting and tracking navigational systems." Not even the ability to fly an instrument approach is required.

The suggestion to include 61.129 language was actually a walk back from the earlier interpretation that simply said "no."
 
Last edited:
Got my commercial after my instrument rating and this never came up with the dpe.
 
RussR said:
The Chief Counsel's suggestion that someone who is instrument rated may NOT have received enough training and demonstrated enough instrument skill to meet the requirements of a Commercial pilot, a rating which involves only VFR training and testing, is what's not logical.
Click to expand...
The Chief Counsel's job is to issue legal interpretation of the regulations. Since you think the regulation is not logical, that is not something the Chief Counsel can solve.
 
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...
Your DPE is in error.
 
Funny that you could have an Instrument Rating and 200 hours of actual instrument time, and need to go do 10 hours with a view limiting device.

I can see no logical way that a flight that meets the requirements for two different lines of Part 61 cannot account for both.

I did my Commercial Rotorcraft Helicopter XC for both my Private and Commercial. DPE never even questioned it.
 
RussR said:
Everywhere I have lived and flown, it was long-standing practice among DPEs that if you had an instrument rating, it "automatically" met the requirement for the 10 hours of instrument training for your Commercial. After all, it's not a stretch to assume that that requirement is in there specifically because you can get a Commercial without having an instrument rating, therefore some instrument training is important for a CP. If an instrument rating WAS a prerequisite for the Commercial, there would be no reason to have the instrument training requirement as part of the Commercial experience requirements.

The Chief Counsel COULD have just said "if you have an instrument rating in the same category, that meets the requirements of 61.129", and I would have been perfectly content, and I think that would have been perfectly reasonable, and in my opinion, in accordance with what I view as the spirit and intent of the regulations.

But they didn't word it that way, so now we're left with situations like this:



Which is just ridiculous, to have applicants and CFIs re-accomplishing training and/or negotiating with DPEs on what's good enough. This is not the same as "Ok to solo". The instrument-rated pilot has been formally tested on instrument skills by a designated representative of the FAA and deemed to be competent. It should suffice.
Click to expand...
You keep coming back to competence. This has nothing to do with competence. It’s all about paperwork. The chief counsel Doesn’t care about competence only paperwork.
 
midlifeflyer said:
How does an hour easily cover 10?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t say “10 hours of…” the specific tasks, it says “10 hours …including” the specific tasks.

Go out and do a little of each, and you’ve covered the requirement, assuming his other instrument training wasn’t all in actual IMC.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
It doesn’t say “10 hours of…” it says “10 hours including.”

Go out and do a little of each, and you’ve covered the requirement.
Click to expand...
I guess we read

"Ten hours of instrument training using a view-limiting device including [these tasks]"

in the context of 61.129 and the Hartzell letter a little differently.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I guess we read

"Ten hours of instrument training using a view-limiting device including [these tasks]"

in the context of 61.129 and the Hartzell letter a little differently.
Click to expand...
So you’re interpreting it as the 10 hours can include nothing but the 61.129 tasks?
 
I was advised that during a student's instrument training to make sure logbook entries include the exact verbiage in 61.129: "attitude instrument flying" "partial panel" "recovery from unsual flight attitudes" "intercepting and tracking navigational systems" As long as those key phrases appear in the logbook, then 91.129 is complied with.

I have had one DPE specifically look for those phrases, and when they were found moved on.

Like @MauleSkinner said, it's about the paperwork.

I don't know any CFII who is not aware of this these days except instuctors who came up through the military and aren't familiar with the minutiae of the FAA.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
So you’re interpreting it as the 10 hours can include nothing but the 61.129 tasks?
Click to expand...
No. That the 10 hours must be instrument training for the commercial rather than simply covered during training for the instrument rating (which covers all of those), unless noted otherwise in some way.

No, that doesn't make sense. But it's consistent with what Theriault/Hartzell say, which doesn't make sense either.
 
Dave Theisen said:
I’ve never seen a DPE question this, but I’ve seen a lot of flight schools that want to sell you another 10 hours of flight training bring it up.
Click to expand...

I've seen it several times, and recently. My favorite example is about 3 years ago, I sent up an instrument-rated Private Pilot for his Commercial. He did not have any "61.129" instrument training logged or performed. The DPE reviewed his logbook and they proceeded with the checkride. A few months later, different applicant but exact same situation, same DPE rejected him and made him get 10 more instrument training hours. The words were "We need to see either 10 hours of instrument training post-instrument rating, OR instrument training prior to instrument rating denoted as meeting 61.129."

What happened? The FSDO held a DPE meeting within those few months and stressed the Chief Counsel letter (which was not new, that letter is dated 2010 and this was in 2020). I called another DPE and had a similar long discussion, he said the same thing. I will note that both DPEs thought the idea was dumb, but it's the orders they were given.
 
midlifeflyer said:
No. That the 10 hours must be instrument training for the commercial…
Click to expand...

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.

Those use cases with the stress of a “must do” flight, potentially needing to be done at max weight , seems a more realistic application relative to the certificate being sought.
 
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.

Those use cases with the stress of a “must do” flight, potentially needing to be done at max weight , seems a more realistic application relative to the certificate being sought.
Click to expand...
The “certificate being sought” is not an instrument certificate or rating.
 
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.

Those use cases with the stress of a “must do” flight, potentially needing to be done at max weight , seems a more realistic application relative to the certificate being sought.
Click to expand...

I agree that those are necessary skills for a professional pilot flying IFR, but then you're creating more of an "Instrument Rating Level 2" for the Commercial. You'd still have the non-IFR-rated Commercial applicants, for whom SIDS/STARS/etc would not be necessary. So to make such a change, I think you'd have to first require that Commercial applicants be instrument rated, which is a significant change to the FARs. But once that change is made, then I'd have no inherent problem with making the Commercial instrument training requirements more "real-world" applicable.
 
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.
 
Walboy said:
Did he mention how this should be denoted?
Click to expand...
He basically said "If I see the numbers "61.129" in there, that's good enough for me".

I did get the feeling that the DPEs just wanted SOMETHING to be able to show "compliance" with the letter. Kind of like "plausible deniability" for them.
 
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...

Which is why I log it this way for my students when we do things that fall under 61.129.
 
midlifeflyer said:
No. That the 10 hours must be instrument training for the commercial rather than simply covered during training for the instrument rating (which covers all of those), unless noted otherwise in some way.

No, that doesn't make sense. But it's consistent with what Theriault/Hartzell say, which doesn't make sense either.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top