Commercial Requirement questions

[Cici]

1) Can a CFI (not CFII) provide the simulated instrument training required in 61.129 for the commercial certificate?

I found the Grayson LI which states an instructor "...must have an instrument-airplane rating on his or her flight instructor certificate." I assume that means they would be a CFII?
​

2) Can the commercial simulated instrument training hours be satisfied by using an AATD?

Long story short, I didn't plan to get my commercial and didn't notate hours during my instrument training properly. I'm all setup with just a CFI, but we are trying to figure out if they can provide the instrument training portion of the commercial. If not, I may do an IPC and then sit in the sim for the rest of the time (I only have 1.2 hours of AATD time, so I'm not worried about pushing up against the 50 hours max of sim time that can be substituted).

 

[dmspilot]

May do an IPC?
So you're instrument rated?
You don't have 10 hours of instrument training from when you got it?

 

[Cici]

yes, instrument rated. Yes I have instrument training, but not notated as satisfying the requirements in 61.129.

 

[EdFred]

yes, instrument rated. Yes I have instrument training, but notated as satisfying the requirements in 61.129.

Instrument rating covers that. There's nothing to notate. You've satisfied 61.65 because you have the instrument rating. Now tell me what in 61.129 isn't covered in getting your instrument rating?

61.129
(a)(3)(i) 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;

61.65
(c) Flight proficiency. A person who applies for an instrument rating must receive and log training from an authorized instructor in an aircraft, or in a full flight simulator or flight training device, in accordance with paragraph (g) of this section, that includes the following areas of operation:

(1) Preflight preparation;

(2) Preflight procedures;

(3) Air traffic control clearances and procedures;

(4) Flight by reference to instruments;

(5) Navigation systems;

(6) Instrument approach procedures;

(7) Emergency operations; and

(8) Postflight procedures.

(d) Aeronautical experience for the instrument-airplane rating. A person who applies for an instrument-airplane rating must have logged:

(2) Forty hours of actual or simulated instrument time in the areas of operation listed in paragraph (c) of this section, of which 15 hours must have been received from an authorized instructor who holds an instrument-airplane rating, and the instrument time includes:

 

[Cici]

I guess I was going off the 2010 Theriault Legal Interp.

...are the requirements of 14 CFR 61.129(c)(3)(i) met by the student getting an instrument rating or training for an instrument rating? The answer is no. The training given to satisfy the instrument training aeronautical experience of 61.129(c)(3)(i) may also be used to count toward the aeronautical experience of 61.65 (e), but the opposite is not true.

Am I missing something?

 

[EdFred]

Yeah, that's another MacPherson letter where she still doesn't know her ass from a hole in the ground. If she had any clue whatsoever she would know that when you do your IR, you did everything listed in 61.129. Hell, you had to demonstrate all of it on the check ride.

I got my IR, and had exactly ZERO hood time while getting my commercial, along with every other person I know, that got the IR first.

Let's compare:
61.129
(a)(3)(i)
attitude instrument flying (looks like #4 below)
partial panel skills (falls under #7)
recovery from unusual flight attitudes, (also under #7)
intercepting and tracking navigational systems. (sure sounds like #5 and #6 to me)

61.65
(4) Flight by reference to instruments;
(5) Navigation systems;
(6) Instrument approach procedures;
(7) Emergency operations; and

 

[Cici]

I'm not trying to debate the logic coming out of the FAA, just trying to color inside the lines and get my commercial. So....does the CFI need to be CFII for the commercial instrument training requirements?

AND can the instrument training be done in an AATD?

 

[EdFred]

I'm not trying to debate the logic coming out of the FAA, just trying to color inside the lines and get my commercial. So....does the CFI need to be CFII for the commercial instrument training requirements?

AND can the instrument training be done in an AATD?

How did you get signed off for the IR without the documentation in your logbook?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
61.129
(i) 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;
vs

61.109
(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;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
61.1
Instrument training means that time in which instrument training is received from an authorized instructor under actual or simulated instrument conditions.

Authorized instructor means—

(i) A person who holds a ground instructor certificate issued under part 61 of this chapter and is in compliance with §61.217, when conducting ground training in accordance with the privileges and limitations of his or her ground instructor certificate;

(ii) A person who holds a flight instructor certificate issued under part 61 of this chapter and is in compliance with §61.197, when conducting ground training or flight training in accordance with the privileges and limitations of his or her flight instructor certificate; or

(iii) A person authorized by the Administrator to provide ground training or flight training under part 61, 121, 135, or 142 of this chapter when conducting ground training or flight training in accordance with that authority.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
61.195
(c) Instrument rating. A flight instructor may conduct instrument training for the issuance of an instrument rating, a type rating not limited to VFR, or the instrument training required for commercial pilot and airline transport pilot certificates if the following requirements are met:

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the flight instructor must hold an instrument rating appropriate to the aircraft used for the instrument training on his or her flight instructor certificate, and—

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'm not trying to debate the logic coming out of the FAA, just trying to color inside the lines and get my commercial. So....does the CFI need to be CFII for the commercial instrument training requirements?

Yes. The key here is the use of the term "instrument training in 61.129." It always means,"with an CFII."

 

[dmspilot]

Complete error in logic in the chief counsel letter to say 61.129 time counts for 61.65 but not the other way around. If your time meets the requirements for both, it meets the requirement for both. It shouldn't matter what "order" you apply the time toward which regulation. A pizza with pepperoni and mushrooms is the same as a pizza with mushrooms and pepperoni. The letter is ridiculous.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Complete error in logic in the chief counsel letter to say 61.129 time counts for 61.65 but not the other way around.

It doesn't really say that. Its more about whether it automatically counts. All the FAA's letters about double-dipping requirements are about the "areas of operation" language. Instructional entries need to describe the "Flight and ground training received from an authorized instructor" in order to show that the areas of operation were covered. The Theriault letter is just saying those ts and is need to be crossed and dotted.

Yeah, arguably it doesn't make a lot of sense. Not easy to find a 61.129 instrument area of operation which was not covered by 61.65, but, then again, it's not easy to find any 61.129 AofO which was not covered in private training. But the concept has been pretty consistently applied.

 

[Cici]

Just following up on my situation. Which I am still confused on what I should do.

AOPA took the Theriault interp to be as ludicrous that most of find it to be. So, it seems that asked the question that it seems the Theriault Interp implies, "did you (the FAA) just say that the requirements in 61.129 are additive to the instrument training." Or something of the sorts. So, fred scmed's favorite lawyer "cleared up" the non sense. Hartzell 2010 LI.

The Theriault interpretation reinforces the existing requirement that instrument training used to satisfy the aeronautical experience requirements under 61.129 needs to be clearly documented by the applicant for the commercial pilot certificate. The interpretation dispels the notion that holding an instrument rating is, on it own, sufficient evidence that the applicant has fulfilled the aeronautical experience requirements for a commercial pilot certificate under 61.129. However, we an anticipate that for commercial pilot applicants who already hold an instrument rating,m the hours of instrument training used to obtain that rating will meet at least some, if not most, or quite often, meet all the requirements for instrument aeronautical experience as required under 61.129. The interpretation did not establish an additive requirement for the number of hours of instrument training required to meet the aeronautical experience requirements of 61.129.

...We are merely clarifying the requirement that the applicant for a commercial pilot certificate provide evidence that they have met the requirements of 61.129. There is not an exact equivalence between the training required for an instrument rating under 61.65 and the aeronautical experience requirements under 61.129.

While Theriault gets all the attention, this Hartzell LI has the meat in my opinion. It says somehow one is to document they have met the requirements. I have a senior CFI and the flight school manager telling me it is ok, even though my logbook has no very few remarks outside of the approaches/holds flown. To me, this Hartzell LI says that easiest way would just be use the verbiage in 61.129 in the remarks section. Not sure if it is a morally wrong to sit down with my CFII and add in some remarks after the fact or if I should just fly the 10 hours under the hood or if I should roll the dice & show up to a checkride with my log book as is??

 

[dmspilot]

Not sure if it is a morally wrong to sit down with my CFII and add in some remarks after the fact or if I should just fly the 10 hours under the hood or if I should roll the dice & show up to a checkride with my log book as is??

Is it morally wrong to correct mistakes in your logbook?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Not sure if it is a morally wrong to sit down with my CFII and add in some remarks after the fact or if I should just fly the 10 hours under the hood or if I should roll the dice & show up to a checkride with my log book as is??

Or, just spend 15 minutes of instruction covering the instrument specifics in 61.129, and log it as such. Easy peasy.

 

[genna]

I was in exact same situation recently. On DPE's insistence my instrument training(from a number of years earlier) had to be annotated with the language that it satisfied Com training requirements.

What I did is to compile the flights that covered all commercial training AofA and email this list to my former CFII(he was long gone to airlines, but the school had his contact). He signed the paper certifying that the training was done in according to commercial training requirements and emailed it back to me. I presented the printed version of this to my DPE and this was sufficient.

 

[Cici]

Thanks for the ideas. I think I can make something work here without flying another 10 hours with foggles on. It's not so much money, but the time. CFIIs are hard to find these days since all these kids get are just their CFI.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Thanks for the ideas. I think I can make something work here without flying another 10 hours with foggles on. It's not so much money, but the time. CFIIs are hard to find these days since all these kids get are just their CFI.

Note that the reg says the ten hours must “include” that stuff, not “consist solely” of that stuff. The most you’d need from a CFII is what I noted above, just enough time to say you did it, probably no more than 15 minutes once you’re in the air.

 

[Cici]

Note that the reg says the ten hours must “include” that stuff, not “consist solely” of that stuff. The most you’d need from a CFII is what I noted above, just enough time to say you did it, probably no more than 15 minutes once you’re in the air.

I can be a bit dense at times, so I need a little help understanding this logic. Trust me, I would love to understand it and have it work.

Here is what the reg says

(i) 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;

So you're saying since the word "including" is there, I can have 10 hours of instrument instruction, given by a CFII, and only 0.2 hrs of them needs to clearly state that I covered the topics in 61.129? That seems different than saying all 10 hours need to be documented as saying they meet the criteria of 61.129? Or am I making up the part that 10 hours need to state they covered 61.129? I just want to avoid a battle with the DPE on the morning of the checkride, so it seems the answer is with him/her....

 

[MauleSkinner]

I can be a bit dense at times, so I need a little help understanding this logic. Trust me, I would love to understand it and have it work.

Here is what the reg says



So you're saying since the word "including" is there, I can have 10 hours of instrument instruction, given by a CFII, and only 0.2 hrs of them needs to clearly state that I covered the topics in 61.129?

thats what I’m saying.

That seems different than saying all 10 hours need to be documented as saying they meet the criteria of 61.129?

It is.

Or am I making up the part that 10 hours need to state they covered 61.129?

You are.

I just want to avoid a battle with the DPE on the morning of the checkride, so it seems the answer is with him/her....

Always best to confirm with the DPE. But the way the reg reads, the 10 hours needs to include those specific things. It can also include other things, which is what the rest of your instrument training would be.

 

[apr911]

Not sure if it is a morally wrong to sit down with my CFII and add in some remarks after the fact or if I should just fly the 10 hours under the hood or if I should roll the dice & show up to a checkride with my log book as is??

Is it morally wrong to correct mistakes in your logbook?

My now retired log book has an entry before each of my checkrides for IRA, CPL SEL and CFI-ASE logged as "IACRA Corrections" in which I "adjust" my hours. Nothing that impacted my total hours but I made a number of errors in my logs. None of the DPE's seem to have cared that I had corrections, in fact they all seemed to like the fact that I was addressing my errors and that my log book matched my 8710 (which is all they really seem to care about anyway, that you have at least the number of hours attested to in the 8710 for the checkride you are on).

So go back through an annotate your logs as you see fit. They're your log books. I did the same for a pair of night flights I did into a controlled field solo for my commercial... I went back an annotated the 2 night flights as complying with the requirement for 61.129 solo night landings at a towered airport complete with time of flight (takeoff to landing, which I thankfully had in my notes), time of sunset, and time of tower shutdown.

I'd also advise to go in prepared with notes on your log book. Some DPE's are very particular about the logs, most arent they just want to see some form of documentation that you meet the hour requirements. Most also aren't going to spend the time tallying up the log books line for line, especially if you are over the minimum requirements by a fair margin. For my commercial, my DPE opened my log book to see the total hours and my endorsement for complex but didn't spend much time on it beyond that. I suspect this is because I presented to him at the outset with a printed out spreadsheet of most of the times required by 61.129. This included cross-countries including specifically highlighting the 3 required XCs for CPL, complex, instrument, solo night and instructional prep time; about the only thing I did not document was the total time (because it'd require every flight in my log) and my PIC time (because it'd require over half the flights in my log).

In reality none of my instrument time was specifically notated as "61.129" compliant but my instructor and I were both detailed in our descriptions so we logged more details such as "VOR partial panel approach to XYZ airport." That being said, your CFI/CFII isn't doing themselves any favors by using abbreviated flight memos as it opens them up to liability from a claim that they did not provide adequate instruction.

Yeah, that's another MacPherson letter where she still doesn't know her ass from a hole in the ground. If she had any clue whatsoever she would know that when you do your IR, you did everything listed in 61.129. Hell, you had to demonstrate all of it on the check ride.

Complete error in logic in the chief counsel letter to say 61.129 time counts for 61.65 but not the other way around. If your time meets the requirements for both, it meets the requirement for both. It shouldn't matter what "order" you apply the time toward which regulation. A pizza with pepperoni and mushrooms is the same as a pizza with mushrooms and pepperoni. The letter is ridiculous.

Its my understanding that it doesn't really matter if the attorney writing the opinion knows what they're talking about or not... Once a letter has been penned, the interpretation therein is the one that pilots are expected to comply with until the FAR has been changed or the letter has been superseded by another newer interpretation. The fact that the attorney is wildly off-base in and of itself doesnt change the interpretation or the validity of interpretation and we cant just ignore the interpretation because we disagree with it and think the person who wrote it is a quack, right??

 

[Cici]

Following up...DPE didnt ask a single question about instrument time and i didnt do any further notation about 61.129.

 

[EdFred]

we cant just ignore the interpretation because we disagree with it and think the person who wrote it is a quack, right??

I can, and I do.