Combined Private pilot/instrument

N

noahfong

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
298
Display Name
Display name:
Noah
61.65(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...

Anyone have any experience with this? Any pros and cons?

Thanks!
 
noahfong said:
61.65(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...

Anyone have any experience with this? Any pros and cons?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
I don’t. Never even heard of the concept before. But how many fewer total cross-country hours would it add up to? Could you get done it with one Checkride? I’d suppose so.
 
luvflyin said:
I don’t. Never even heard of the concept before. But how many fewer total cross-country hours would it add up to? Could you get done it with one Checkride? I’d suppose so.
Click to expand...
My understanding is it is one checkride but it’s all or nothing. If you fail an instrument task you fail the whole checkride, you don’t get your private even if you nailed all the tasks for that.
 
Thanks, everyone!

I asked because a perspective student asked me about this program. I, too, had not heard of it. Based on answers from folks like yourselves and others, I feel like I've achieved a higher level of expertise when it comes to reading and understanding the regs.

I concur with @MauleSkinner that it is a -141 approved program... a specific one at that. And it's not clear to me whether there's any advantage to it.
 
I've heard of it but never did one. Since it is in Part 61, I don't understand why some think it's Part 141. If I recall correctly, the concept originated with youngsters who took lessons beginning when they were 14 or 15, soloed at 16, have a lot of hours of dual received, but have to wait until their 17th birthday to take the checkride. One big checkride and done (on their birthday, no less). But I don't see why it could not apply to anyone. Whether there's a benefit outside that small niche is a separate issue.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I've heard of it but never did one. Since it is in Part 61, I don't understand why some think it's Part 141. If I recall correctly, the concept originated with youngsters who took lessons beginning when they were 14 or 15, soloed at 16, have a lot of hours of dual received, but have to wait until their 17th birthday to take the checkride. One big checkride and done (on their birthday, no less). But I don't see why it could not apply to anyone. Whether there's a benefit outside that small niche is a separate issue.
Click to expand...

I wish I had known about it then, I was in that boat. Ready for checkride before I was 16, just flying around staying current until 17. Wish my instructor had just said 'why don't we just start on instrument?"
Here we are 20 years later working on instrument lol
 
midlifeflyer said:
I've heard of it but never did one. Since it is in Part 61, I don't understand why some think it's Part 141. …
Click to expand...

Because of the better job (in my opinion) 141 Appendix M does laying it all out.
 
TCABM said:
Because of the better job (in my opinion) 141 Appendix M does laying it all out.
Click to expand...
Part 141 Appendix lays out the requirements for a Part 141 combined rating course. Why would the existence of a Part 141 course make Part 61 inapplicable?
 
Justin Brady said:
I wish I had known about it then, I was in that boat. Ready for checkride before I was 16, just flying around staying current until 17. Wish my instructor had just said 'why don't we just start on instrument?"
Here we are 20 years later working on instrument lol
Click to expand...
It's relatively new. The Final Rule adding it was in 2011.

You could have "started" on instrument. The problem was counting dual cross country time to meet the 50 hour cross country PIC requirement.

BTW, although you can do it earlier, you have to perform all the tasks in the private and instrument ACS and, as previously mentioned, it's all or nothing.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
It's relatively new. The Final Rule adding it was in 2011.

You could have "started" on instrument. The problem was counting dual cross country time to meet the 50 hour cross country PIC requirement.

BTW, although you can do it earlier, you have to perform all the tasks in the private and instrument ACS and, as previously mentioned, it's all or nothing.
Click to expand...

Ah well I couldn't have done it anyway.
I'll tell you what though I'm pretty sure my 17yr old fresh brain would have been better at absorbing all the info :D
 
midlifeflyer said:
It's relatively new. The Final Rule adding it was in 2011.

You could have "started" on instrument. The problem was counting dual cross country time to meet the 50 hour cross country PIC requirement.

BTW, although you can do it earlier, you have to perform all the tasks in the private and instrument ACS and, as previously mentioned, it's all or nothing.
Click to expand...

Why? If he soloed at 16 and got signed off for solo XC, all that would count for PIC XC time. I think there was a kid (Rudy, maybe?) on here that did the private ride on his 17th, and the instrument ride within the week of passing the private check ride.
 
EdFred said:
Why? If he soloed at 16 and got signed off for solo XC, all that would count for PIC XC time. I think there was a kid (Rudy, maybe?) on here that did the private ride on his 17th, and the instrument ride within the week of passing the private check ride.
Click to expand...

I would guess it has to do with dual cross-country time being used quite a bit to double-count as instrument instruction and XC PIC time on the normal (PPL first) pathway. If you couldn't get your PPL, you would need to accrue many more hours overall, because none of the instrument instruction could count as XC PIC.

Those of you who are DPE fee cynics would probably appreciate only paying the DPE fee once (and only paying the often-reduced retest fee once if missing e.g. one item from PPL and one item from IR).
 
midlifeflyer said:
Part 141 Appendix lays out the requirements for a Part 141 combined rating course. Why would the existence of a Part 141 course make Part 61 inapplicable?
Click to expand...

I never said the existence of a part 141 makes Pt 61 n/a.

I said App M does a better job of stating that one can do a combined initial ppl/IRA as one event. Other than the blurb in 61.65, there’s no place else I can recall in pt 61 where it’s mentioned.
 
mcmanigle said:
I would guess it has to do with dual cross-country time being used quite a bit to double-count as instrument instruction and XC PIC time on the normal (PPL first) pathway. If you couldn't get your PPL, you would need to accrue many more hours overall, because none of the instrument instruction could count as XC PIC.

Those of you who are DPE fee cynics would probably appreciate only paying the DPE fee once (and only paying the often-reduced retest fee once if missing e.g. one item from PPL and one item from IR).
Click to expand...

Correct, but if you solo on your 16th, and are going to fly for a year because you have a family plane or some situation where you aren't paying rental, I don't think you're worried about a few extra hours.
 
EdFred said:
Correct, but if you solo on your 16th, and are going to fly for a year because you have a family plane or some situation where you aren't paying rental, I don't think you're worried about a few extra hours.
Click to expand...

Sure; I think there's a limited number of people who would benefit, which is probably why it's very rarely used. Personally, I'm a big fan of people becoming comfortable flying themselves and others on cross-country flights as an "established" VFR pilot before diving into IFR training.

But I don't find it hard to believe there are a subset of people out there who are trying to minimize the cost and time of entry for one reason or another. Maybe they're ready for the PPL checkride at 16 1/2 years old and moving away for college shortly after they turn 17 and want one less checkride to plan. Maybe their instructor is going to disappear into an airline job. Maybe their DPE is super hard to schedule. Maybe they live somewhere with a frequent marine layer and it doesn't really make sense to plan on flying around without an IR anyway.

I think we all agree this is an option of limited utility. Just pointing out why that utility does exist for some people.
 
I'll admit to being unfamiliar...and to not actually reading the reg.....

could it also, or perhaps better apply to a military rated pilot converting to a civilian PPL?
 
Brad W said:
I'll admit to being unfamiliar...and to not actually reading the reg.....

could it also, or perhaps better apply to a military rated pilot converting to a civilian PPL?
Click to expand...

I doubt it. I believe (14 CFR 61.73) that qualified military pilots don't need to take any checkride. There is a brief multiple-choice test on civilian rules, and then the pilot get a commercial certificate and (if military instrument rated) an instrument rating. Plus a type rating for anything they've flown 10 hours in.
 
Brad W said:
I'll admit to being unfamiliar...and to not actually reading the reg.....

could it also, or perhaps better apply to a military rated pilot converting to a civilian PPL?
Click to expand...

Mil pilots take an equivalency written test that gets them their commercial w/instrument either SEL or MEL.
 
Brad W said:
I'll admit to being unfamiliar...and to not actually reading the reg.....
Click to expand...
Here it is. It's a very simple reg applicable only to the instrument rating.

61.65 (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; or
(2) For an instrument-helicopter rating, up to 47 hours of cross-country flight time performing the duties of pilot in command with an authorized instructor.​
 
Not sure I’ve seen a student who is just such a rockstar that they’d be able to combine those checkrides without it being a major risk of failure. But I don’t have the breadth of instructing experience others have.
 
Bonchie said:
Not sure I’ve seen a student who is just such a rockstar that they’d be able to combine those checkrides without it being a major risk of failure. But I don’t have the breadth of instructing experience others have.
Click to expand...
I had one who could probably do it. Hood work was a complete non-event. Not instrument but I still remember when he was pre-solo and when, on a whim, I pulled power abeam the numbers and told him to land on a specific spot, he landed exactly on the specific spot. And no, it wasn't a fluke. He was just that good.
 
My kid is doing both, but not as a combined checkride. He's 16 and can't test for the PP so he's doing Instrument training while he waits. The plan is to do 2 check rides a week or 3 apart after he ages up.
 
TCABM said:
Any willing pr 61 outfit. It could actually be a money make since you’re tying the student up for a ton of flight hours.
Click to expand...
Ok…where is a willing 61 outfit? Given the resistance to other “nontraditional” flight training routes (Sport Pilot, for example), and specifically the link @sarangan posted, I think you’d have to go in to a 61 outfit with your own syllabus and argue your case. Not likely for someone just starting in aviation.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
Ok…where is a willing 61 outfit? Given the resistance to other “nontraditional” flight training routes (Sport Pilot, for example), and specifically the link @sarangan posted, I think you’d have to go in to a 61 outfit with your own syllabus and argue your case. Not likely for someone just starting in aviation.
Click to expand...
...or a willing CFI. I think the issue is limited advantage except in the underage pilot niche.
 
midlifeflyer said:
...or a willing CFI. I think the issue is limited advantage except in the underage pilot niche.
Click to expand...

I agree that CFIs aren’t terribly open to training in a different manner than how they learned. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. It’s often better to stick with what you know best. However, the traditional civilian instructional route seems to emphasize a fear of mixing VFR flying instruction with instrument instruction. The mil route (USAF) mixed the two from a very early phase of training. This gave flexibility to go IFR through a layer out to a VFR training area and shoot an approach to get back in to the field, if necessary. There is value added, I think, to seeing both from an early date. I’m also an outlier, since I don’t think a pilot without an instrument ticket is a fully trained pilot.
 
YakDrvr said:
I agree that CFIs aren’t terribly open to training in a different manner than how they learned. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. It’s often better to stick with what you know best. However, the traditional civilian instructional route seems to emphasize a fear of mixing VFR flying instruction with instrument instruction. The mil route (USAF) mixed the two from a very early phase of training. This gave flexibility to go IFR through a layer out to a VFR training area and shoot an approach to get back in to the field, if necessary. There is value added, I think, to seeing both from an early date. I’m also an outlier, since I don’t think a pilot without an instrument ticket is a fully trained pilot.
Click to expand...
It’s been relatively recently (at least for us old guys) that the FAA eliminated the minimum time requirements for an instrument rating. I remember when they reduced it from 200 hours to 125 hours total time. So there’s a long tradition of not mixing them in the civilian world.
 
Totally, understand. I’m not trying to imply anything negative other than the effects of bureaucratic inertia. If I were King of the FAA, I’d change the rules to encourage more student pilots to combine their instrument and PPL training. They are clearly already drifting that direction.
 
so in your world would the sport pilot cert become more or less what a PPL is...er was?
 
I guess. It’s not exactly something I’ve given a lot of thought to.
 
I've thought a bit about how things change...some things get devalued, etc... over time...due to all sort of shifts in thinking. I think sometimes it's good ideas leading to unintended consequences.... not always, I suppose, sometimes it's just good and positive progress, but sometimes progress isn't all good.

In my parent's day a High School diploma meant a little something. It's what you needed to get a "good" job... and a bachelor degree was excelling
In my day, high school diploma was a yawn...everybody gets one. An undergraduate degree was about like a diploma was to my parents..it's not overly special but it's what we needed to get a "good" job.
Now days, it seems like an undergrad degree is a yawn...everyone gets one of those....
I know it's not that clean cut...and that there are still lots of folks that are happier and earn more money without a degree...but it seems like a valid generalization to me. It's like education is getting devalued
What will this idea about "free college for everyone" do?
Here in FL they have this Bright Futures program that pays tuition if a student gets good grades in high school. I recon this is playing a roll in it being nearly impossible to get accepted into many of our universities now....a 4.0 isn't good enough...kids have to have much better than a 4.0 average. What is that???.... it's like giving 120% effort....impossible, you can't give more than everything!...and even with a 4.1 or 4.2 or whatever...they still might not get in!
Something got devalued there.

Same thing with SCUBA certification.... way back before my time, you had to be pretty hard core and tough to earn an open water SCUBA certification.
When I went through my nitrox training it was a few weeks of classes + some in the water dive training....and later my technical and trimix diving training certifications were all pretty hard core.... what I imagine basic open water once was....
Now the general recreation diving organizations teach Nitrox in a day or so as I understand it. I think trimix is now very recreational too.

You see it in flying too...basic med, sport pilot certs, etc... things get easier over time.... either value is added or things are devalued....

but this idea of PPL with Instrument rating combined.... yes, interesting idea...
I know that nobody here is saying it should be required...but play this idea out as if it's encouraged to the point that it becomes the "norm"....it adds time to get ready for the checkride, drive costs UP, maybe makes the PPL more inaccessible for some, etc....
 
Brad W said:
I've thought a bit about how things change...some things get devalued, etc... over time...due to all sort of shifts in thinking. I think sometimes it's good ideas leading to unintended consequences.... not always, I suppose, sometimes it's just good and positive progress, but sometimes progress isn't all good.

In my parent's day a High School diploma meant a little something. It's what you needed to get a "good" job... and a bachelor degree was excelling
In my day, high school diploma was a yawn...everybody gets one. An undergraduate degree was about like a diploma was to my parents..it's not overly special but it's what we needed to get a "good" job.
Now days, it seems like an undergrad degree is a yawn...everyone gets one of those....
I know it's not that clean cut...and that there are still lots of folks that are happier and earn more money without a degree...but it seems like a valid generalization to me. It's like education is getting devalued
What will this idea about "free college for everyone" do?
Here in FL they have this Bright Futures program that pays tuition if a student gets good grades in high school. I recon this is playing a roll in it being nearly impossible to get accepted into many of our universities now....a 4.0 isn't good enough...kids have to have much better than a 4.0 average. What is that???.... it's like giving 120% effort....impossible, you can't give more than everything!...and even with a 4.1 or 4.2 or whatever...they still might not get in!
Something got devalued there.

Same thing with SCUBA certification.... way back before my time, you had to be pretty hard core and tough to earn an open water SCUBA certification.
When I went through my nitrox training it was a few weeks of classes + some in the water dive training....and later my technical and trimix diving training certifications were all pretty hard core.... what I imagine basic open water once was....
Now the general recreation diving organizations teach Nitrox in a day or so as I understand it. I think trimix is now very recreational too.

You see it in flying too...basic med, sport pilot certs, etc... things get easier over time.... either value is added or things are devalued....

but this idea of PPL with Instrument rating combined.... yes, interesting idea...
I know that nobody here is saying it should be required...but play this idea out as if it's encouraged to the point that it becomes the "norm"....it adds time to get ready for the checkride, drive costs UP, maybe makes the PPL more inaccessible for some, etc....
Click to expand...

I think the driving factor will be insurance requirements not the FAA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top