CP-ASEL training requirements question

TangoWhiskey

TangoWhiskey

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
14,210
Location
Midlothian, TX
Display Name
Display name:
3Green
Let's say a pilot (me) already has well more than 250 hours, and holds PP-ASEL-IA ratings. Let's further say that for CFR 61.129(a), the pilot's logbook includes all of the required breakdowns of time... 100 hours in powered aircraft, at least 50 in airplanes; 100 hours of PIC in airplanes; 50 hours X/C flight (at least 10 of that in airplanes), etc...

61.129(a)(3) specifies:

20 hours of training on the areas of operation listed in 61.127(b)(1) of this part that includes at least--
<snip>
Click to expand...

The Areas of Operation in 61.127(b)(1) are comprised of the normal expected things--preflight prep and procedures, airport ops, takeoffs and go arounds, performance maneuvers, slow flight and stalls, emergency ops, etc.

Question: Do those 20 hours have to be with the CFII(s) that logged training "towards your commercial rating", or do past logged dual instruction flights count?

My understanding is that I need training on the maneuvers and such, but I've obviously spent a lot of time with CFII's on these topics before--review is always good, but do I need to spend 20 hours on them? If I learned the maneuvers in 12 hours and satisfied the "3 hours in 60 days before the practical test" rule, could the Commercial CFII sign me off? Or does that CFII (or pool of instructors) need to have spent 20 hours minimum with me beyond what was already in my logbook prior to training for the CP?
 
I think I found the answer (and confirmed my original understanding) by looking at what the accelerated courses require:

http://www.prairieairservice.com/Commercial_single_engine.htm

I think the CFII I'm talking to, who says I need 20 hours specifically on the commercial requirements, from the time I start training for the commercial, might need to re-evaluate his opinion.
 
Theoretically, since I've already satisfied the FAA's list of experience requirements, if I learned the commercial maneuvers proficiently in as little as an additional 3 hours (thus satisfying the 3 hours in 60 days before the practical), I could legally be signed off for the practical.

P.S.--I know it will take me more than 3 hours... I'm talking "letter of the law" here... am I correct with the above statement?
 
midlifeflyer said:
or he might not.
http://tinyurl.com/3oq4oas (skip the part about the anti-collision lights).
Click to expand...

Good link, Mark. Thanks! That does explain why he wants to do a X/C flight with me, even though I've met all the other requirements.

Doesn't answer the question of whether you must spend 20 hours specifically on Commercial training (for that express purpose). For example, the 10 hours instrument training... if you already have your Instrument Airplane rating, do you have to spend an additional 10 working on instrument skills with your CP CFII??
 
You must have 20 hours of flight training in the areas listed in 61.127 from a CFI with at least an ASE rating (assuming we're talking about a CP-ASEL program). That means those log entries must show that the training was in those areas, and every area must have been covered at least once. The 20 hours of flight training must all have occurred post-PP, but need not have been as part of a CP training course, e.g., your post-PP complex checkout will count.

The 10 hours of instrument training must have come from a CFI with both ASE and IA ratings, and the log entries for those 10 hours must include the specific items listed -- "attitude instrument flying, partial panel skills, recovery from unusual flight attitudes, and intercepting and tracking navigational systems." You can use training received during your IR training to meet that requirement, but only if the log entries show those specific items (or a reference to 61.129(a)(3)(i) as well as 61.65(c)).

In all cases, it's important that log entries for the training received include either regulatory references or list the specific maneuvers and tasks on which that training was received, and that the listed maneuevers and tasks fall within the eleven areas listed in 61.127 (or those mentioned above for the instrument training). In addition, your log must show you received some training in each of those eleven areas. I've seen examiners go through logs with a list of the required areas, checking off each area as some training was noted. If all the squares aren't filled by the time the log reaches the day of the practical test, the practical test doesn't start and the instructor gets smacked.
 
Remember, 10 hours of complex training is also required, so if you plan on using two airplanes for the checkride (fixed for maneuvers and complex to demonstrate complex prficiency), then you don't have to spend 21 hours on maneuvers only. Also, read further down and note that there is also a day/night dual X-C that must be done.
 
GCA319 said:
Remember, 10 hours of complex training is also required, so if you plan on using two airplanes for the checkride (fixed for maneuvers and complex to demonstrate complex prficiency), then you don't have to spend 21 hours on maneuvers only. Also, read further down and note that there is also a day/night dual X-C that must be done.
Click to expand...

I've never understood why people use two different airplanes for the check ride.
All of the commercial maneuvers can be completed in a complex aircraft. A Piper Arrow works just fine.
 
BillTIZ said:
I've never understood why people use two different airplanes for the check ride.
All of the commercial maneuvers can be completed in a complex aircraft. A Piper Arrow works just fine.
Click to expand...
Some people feel they can reduce the cost of the training required by learning the commercial maneuvers in a plane which is cheaper and more familiar. Unfortunately, DPE's are not required to let you choose which plane you'll do which manevuers in, and can in theory make you do the chandelles, etc., in the complex plane once you show up with it. Some will promise not to do that, and I've never heard of one reneging, but the book doesn't prevent them from doing it. Personally, I think it just makes training and the test harder, since you have to learn two planes, not to mention bringing two to the test site, but a lot of people seem to want to do it that way.:dunno:
 
BillTIZ said:
I've never understood why people use two different airplanes for the check ride.
All of the commercial maneuvers can be completed in a complex aircraft. A Piper Arrow works just fine.
Click to expand...

So did the C172RG :)

But yeah...I never understood that either.
 
Ron Levy said:
Some people feel they can reduce the cost of the training required by learning the commercial maneuvers in a plane which is cheaper and more familiar. Unfortunately, DPE's are not required to let you choose which plane you'll do which manevuers in, and can in theory make you do the chandelles, etc., in the complex plane once you show up with it. Some will promise not to do that, and I've never heard of one reneging, but the book doesn't prevent them from doing it. Personally, I think it just makes training and the test harder, since you have to learn two planes, not to mention bringing two to the test site, but a lot of people seem to want to do it that way.:dunno:
Click to expand...

Yeah, that doesn't make a lot of sense. Marginal savings, if any.

I already have my complex/high perf/high altitude endorsements and lots of complex time. Will be getting checked out in and doing the X/C's with instructor and maneuver in a 182RG; that's also what I'll use for the practical.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
I already have my complex/high perf/high altitude endorsements and lots of complex time. Will be getting checked out in and doing the X/C's with instructor and maneuver in a 182RG; that's also what I'll use for the practical.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with that, but why feed 235 horses when you can get by feeding only 180-200? Or is there no 172RG, Sierra, or Arrow available?
 
Ron Levy said:
Nothing wrong with that, but why feed 235 horses when you can get by feeding only 180-200? Or is there no 172RG, Sierra, or Arrow available?
Click to expand...

The two 182RGs are the only retracts at the FBO I rent from, and are what I'd rent anyway for Angel Flight or personal trips, so getting more time in them is perfect for my situation.
 
Ron Levy said:
Some people feel they can reduce the cost of the training required by learning the commercial maneuvers in a plane which is cheaper and more familiar. Unfortunately, DPE's are not required to let you choose which plane you'll do which manevuers in, and can in theory make you do the chandelles, etc., in the complex plane once you show up with it. Some will promise not to do that, and I've never heard of one reneging, but the book doesn't prevent them from doing it. Personally, I think it just makes training and the test harder, since you have to learn two planes, not to mention bringing two to the test site, but a lot of people seem to want to do it that way.:dunno:
Click to expand...

Call the DPE beforehand. Most only require one lap in the pattern in the RG if you bring two airplanes.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Yeah, that doesn't make a lot of sense. Marginal savings, if any.

I already have my complex/high perf/high altitude endorsements and lots of complex time. Will be getting checked out in and doing the X/C's with instructor and maneuver in a 182RG; that's also what I'll use for the practical.
Click to expand...


Unless I am incorrect (always possible), I don't believe this endorsement is required unless the plane you bring with you requires it...
 
ja_user said:
Unless I am incorrect (always possible), I don't believe this endorsement is required unless the plane you bring with you requires it...
Click to expand...
It used to be a combined endorsement before the likes of the SR22 and Columbia 400 coming along.
 
Yeah, but that's for pressurized airplanes. I don't know if there are any unpressurized ones certified above FL250, though I think at least one Mooney was certified to FL280 and it wasn't pressurized.
 
So the long and short of it, is you don't need it for the commercial ride? Unless you have a plane that can go up high?
 
ja_user said:
So the long and short of it, is you don't need it for the commercial ride? Unless you have a plane that can go up high?
Click to expand...
Yes. You definitely need the complex, since you must use a complex plane for at least part of the test. But you only need HP or high altitude if you bring such a plane to the test.
 
TMetzinger said:
Yeah, but that's for pressurized airplanes. I don't know if there are any unpressurized ones certified above FL250, though I think at least one Mooney was certified to FL280 and it wasn't pressurized.
Click to expand...
That may not be quite true. I'm in the middle of a discussion with AFS-810 about what 61.31(g) really says. As it reads, any plane with a service ceiling or maximum operating altitude above 25,000 MSL falls under 61.31(g) despite the title of that paragraph. I'll get back on this when I get a final reading.

(g) Additional training required for operating pressurized aircraft capable of operating at high altitudes.

  • (1) Except as provided in paragraph (g)(3) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a pressurized aircraft (an aircraft that has a service ceiling or maximum operating altitude, whichever is lower, above 25,000 feet MSL), unless that person has received and logged ground training from an authorized instructor and obtained an endorsement in the person's logbook or training record from an authorized instructor who certifies the person has satisfactorily accomplished the ground training. The ground training must include at least the following subjects:
Click to expand...
And the unpressurized Bonanza V35TC is unpressrized and certified to 29,500.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
You can use training received during your IR training to meet that requirement, but only if the log entries show those specific items (or a reference to 61.129(a)(3)(i) as well as 61.65(c)).
Click to expand...

Interesting. When I went for my Commercial Helicopter ride, the DPE would not allow me to use time accrued towards my Instrument Rating and had a letter from Washington backing his position.

I did see you wrote "but only..." - the Instrument training in question only stated maneuvers performed and made note of which lesson in the 141 syllabus in which it took place. No reference to any particular FAR.

Luckily I guess, I had some Instrument training I did an airplane that he accepted to fill that time. :confused:

The whole thing had my instructor wrapped around the axle and left me downright confused.

As someone working on my CFI I would like to spare others the same grief... and understand what is going on here.

And yes to OP, I had to have logged training towards the commercial requirements and could not use experience obtained while training for the private.
 
jaybee said:
Interesting. When I went for my Commercial Helicopter ride, the DPE would not allow me to use time accrued towards my Instrument Rating and had a letter from Washington backing his position.

I did see you wrote "but only..." - the Instrument training in question only stated maneuvers performed and made note of which lesson in the 141 syllabus in which it took place. No reference to any particular FAR.
Click to expand...
Doesn't have to reference a particular FAR, just the maneuvers/tasks trained. If you had ten hours of instrument training and the remarks blocks showed it included "attitude instrument flying, partial panel skills, recovery from unusual flight attitudes, and intercepting and tracking navigational systems," it met the requirements for 61.129(a)(3)(i) even if it did not reference that subparagraph specifically. This was more clearly explained in the Hartzell letter, because the original Theriault letter (which is probably what that examiner was looking at) was extremely misleading. And if it references a 141 syllabus, and you have a copy of that syllabus to show the examiner that syllabus flight includes "attitude instrument flying, partial panel skills, recovery from unusual flight attitudes, and intercepting and tracking navigational systems," that should do, too.
 
Thanks Ron, yes it looked like the Theriault letter is what he was referencing from best I can remember.
 
jaybee said:
Thanks Ron, yes it looked like the Theriault letter is what he was referencing from best I can remember.
Click to expand...
I guess the answer then is for anyone with an IR to bring copies of both Theriault and Hartzell to their CP practical test.:nonod:
 
Alright, I don't want to hijack an old thread, but the subject here is in relation to my question.

See, I'm trying to plan a bit of an outlook in my training so far. I've noticed that the CP-ASEL requires a good bit of flight time. Now, can the XC time during private and instrument training count towards my commercial training, or does it need to be a whole new flight? I realize that the commercial training requires some particularly long legs on some flights, which is expected; however, if I were to go on a long leg (150nm-250nm) during training for my PP-ASEL, could I log this and count it toward CP-ASEL?

I realize this has probably been beaten to death, so please forgive me. I just want to get some planning done so I can get a better grasp of when and how I'll reach my goals.

Edit: It would most likely be under 141.
 
Last edited:
The log entry must be clear that the flight was conducted to meet CP training requirements. IIRC this was discussed in the thread above.
 
HerrGruyere said:
See, I'm trying to plan a bit of an outlook in my training so far. I've noticed that the CP-ASEL requires a good bit of flight time. Now, can the XC time during private and instrument training count towards my commercial training, or does it need to be a whole new flight? I realize that the commercial training requires some particularly long legs on some flights, which is expected; however, if I were to go on a long leg (150nm-250nm) during training for my PP-ASEL, could I log this and count it toward CP-ASEL?
Click to expand...
You can use all that time to meet the total time requirements such as 250 TT and 50 XC PIC. You cannot use any PP-specific flights such as your 150 nm long solo XC to meet any CP-specific requirements such as the 300 nm long solo XC. Neither can you use any pre-PP dual XC flights to meet the two CP-required dual XC's. Flights done for IR training may be used depending on whether they were logged so they meet those requirements as well as the IR requirements. And remember that when it says "solo" in 61.129, it means you must have been the sole living human occupant and logged it accordingly.
 
Ron Levy said:
You can use all that time to meet the total time requirements such as 250 TT and 50 XC PIC. You cannot use any PP-specific flights such as your 150 nm long solo XC to meet any CP-specific requirements such as the 300 nm long solo XC. Neither can you use any pre-PP dual XC flights to meet the two CP-required dual XC's. Flights done for IR training may be used depending on whether they were logged so they meet those requirements as well as the IR requirements. And remember that when it says "solo" in 61.129, it means you must have been the sole living human occupant and logged it accordingly.
Click to expand...

Dangit! That means I can't use the 207.4nm straight line flight to NC where my wife was in the pax seat reading her magazine and her mother in back doing the same.:mad2:
 
TangoWhiskey said:
OK, thanks! This matches my understanding.
Click to expand...


Yeah, one thing to remember though if you have the required instruction spread out through your log book is to get some sticky tabs to mark the pages and possibly highlight those entries that you are using. If the DE has to search your logbook for them, he won't be thrilled with you.;)
 
Last edited:
Thanks for answering my question, you guys! I felt like a dummy because when I went home it sort of clicked, but I was too lazy to come back in here and edit my post to save my internet dignity. But, this information is good to know. It makes obtaining my commercial ticket that much easier.
 
LearDriver said:
I already had a ME Commercial then I added on the SE to my commercial. I took a CE-172 to the checkride.
Click to expand...
That's a situation peculiar to an additional airplane class rating. Any additional airplane category ride or initial CP with an airplane category rating requires a complex plane and the 61.31 complex endorsement (or grandfathering). Also, there's no issue on experience requirements for an additional class rating (see 61.63(c)), making the entire discussion moot in that case unless you took your initial CP-Airplane more than 37 years ago and have never flown a complex plane.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top