Intense 10-day IFR training - 5 hours on type for instructor?

stratobee

stratobee

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
1,112
Display Name
Display name:
stratobee
A very long story short: I need to finish my IR in my own plane. It's been dragging on and on with the FAA DPE I've been training with. He's simply too busy with his checkrides, contract flying etc. There are tons of instructors/places that offer either 10-day intensive IR training, or 7-day "get it finished"-packages on your own aircraft. However, speaking to my DPE, the CFII/MEI apparently needs to have had 5 hours in type before they can instruct on it? How is this compatible with the 10-day course in your own plane?

I have an Aerostar and I highly doubt the instructor will have 5 hours in that type. So, is this just a recommendation or a hard rule? And how do instructors go about getting 5 hrs of type specific training in the type? Do they have to do it with a CFI?

Confused in LA.
 
stratobee said:
A very long story short: I need to finish my IR in my own plane. It's been dragging on and on with the FAA DPE I've been training with. He's simply too busy with his checkrides, contract flying etc. There are tons of instructors/places that offer either 10-day intensive IR training, or 7-day "get it finished"-packages on your own aircraft. However, speaking to my DPE, the CFII/MEI apparently needs to have had 5 hours in type before they can instruct on it? How is this compatible with the 10-day course in your own plane?

I have an Aerostar and I highly doubt the instructor will have 5 hours in that type. So, is this just a recommendation or a hard rule? And how do instructors go about getting 5 hrs of type specific training in the type? Do they have to do it with a CFI?

Confused in LA.
Click to expand...

61.195 Flight instructor limitations and qualifications.

(f) Training received in a multiengine airplane, a helicopter, or a powered-lift. A flight instructor may not give training required for the issuance of a certificate or rating in a multiengine airplane, a helicopter, or a powered-lift unless that flight instructor has at least 5 flight hours of pilot-in-command time in the specific make and model of multiengine airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift, as appropriate.


As far as how the instructor gets the 5 hours, you could let him fly the airplane for 5 hours first before teaching you.
 
Last edited:
I'd call PIC and find out if they do not indeed have an instructor somewhere that is aerostat-experienced. Most of their guys are pretty high time with some varied experience.
 
An Aerostar, I want a CFI with a lot more than 5 hours make/model.
 
Tony and I had briefly discussed him doing my multi in the Aztec after I bought it. I was just going to let him fly it 5 hours if I did that.
 
The other idea is are you doing SIMCOM or some recurrent training now? Have you asked them if they have a instrument rating course?
 
Does the Aerostar group have a website? Gotta think there are a bunch of CFI's in Socal who meet the requirements.
 
RotorAndWing said:
61.195 Flight instructor limitations and qualifications.

(f) Training received in a multiengine airplane, a helicopter, or a powered-lift. A flight instructor may not give training required for the issuance of a certificate or rating in a multiengine airplane, a helicopter, or a powered-lift unless that flight instructor has at least 5 flight hours of pilot-in-command time in the specific make and model of multiengine airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift, as appropriate.


As far as how the instructor gets the 5 hours, you could let him fly the airplane for 5 hours first before teaching you.
Click to expand...
I don't have time to research this, but is there an opinion letter on it? I read it as saying for the issuance of a pilot certificate, i.e., private, commercial, etc., or multengine rating on a pilot certificate, five hours of time in the make and model are required. I don't read anything about other ratings like an instrument. But I don't put anything past the Chief Counsel and they've probably got a letter to the contrary. :rolleyes: The CFI does need a multengine rating on his CFI license though.

dtuuri
 
Regarding 61.195, the instructor must have 5 hours PIC time in make/model before starting to give the training required for the IR. However, the instructor can be logging PIC time while giving other non-required training for five hours before starting the required training for IR (i.e., the 15 hours of instrument flight instruction). Since PIC clients typically need about 23 hours of flight training to be ready for the ride, doing five hours of training which doesn't count towards the required 15 hours of training before starting the 15 hours of required training is not a problem.

Whether this is a good idea or not depends on the trainee's experience in type and the CFI's overall experience. For example, I've got about 25 hours in 58 Barons, but no 55 Baron time (the BE55 being considered by the FAA a different make/model from the BE55). I wouldn't worry much about jumping in with someone in a 55 Baron using the above-described plan. OTOH, I've never even sat in an Aerostar, so I'd be hesitant to do that in an Aerostar, which I know has some unique quirks and characteristics, especially if the trainee didn't have much Aerostar experience.

In any event, give PIC a call -- I'll bet we've got at least one instructor with Aerostar experience.
 
RotorAndWing said:
As far as how the instructor gets the 5 hours, you could let him fly the airplane for 5 hours first before teaching you.
Click to expand...
The instructor could still give non-required training for 5 hours while logging PIC time under 61.51(e)(3) and then start the required 15 hours of training for IR.
 
The Aerostar Owners Association has only one known CFII/MEI's on the west coast with lots of experience in Aerostars, but she's in Africa flying until Dec. They have loads of people that can train you in type and are approved by the insurance companies here, but for that you don't need to be a CFI (and few of them are). Nor do I need that - I've already done a 10 day type conversion in June and have flown the aircraft for over 50hrs now. I can fly Aerostars, now I need to know how to fly instruments. There are a couple of instructors back east, but then I need to either fly there or fly them here and put them up in hotels etc which becomes expensive and inflexible with my job. I'll just have to slog it out with the DPE, I suppose. Be done with the rating in 2016 at this pace... But thanks for info, I will call PIC and some of the others offering the finish up services.
 
Last edited:
stratobee said:
The Aerostar Owners Association has only one known CFII/MEI's on the west coast with lots of experience in Aerostars, but she's in Africa flying until Dec.
Click to expand...
PIC instructors are sent as far as needed to meet clients' needs. I've been from Maryland as far as Casper WY and San Diego CA, and even Peru (South America, not Indiana) when needed.
 
Interesting how these situations can cause some introspection. I'm qualified under the regs but we sold our last Aerostar in 1990, ~23 years ago. Um, maybe not the best guy for the job.
 
wabower said:
Interesting how these situations can cause some introspection. I'm qualified under the regs but we sold our last Aerostar in 1990, ~23 years ago. Um, maybe not the best guy for the job.
Click to expand...

You are until another hand goes up. :wink2:
 
wabower said:
Interesting how these situations can cause some introspection. I'm qualified under the regs but we sold our last Aerostar in 1990, ~23 years ago. Um, maybe not the best guy for the job.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but no doubt it would be a fun training experience and I suspect quite educational for him.
 
Thanks for the vote of confidence but the BTDT song is playing softly in the background and should probably continue without interruption.

I don't mind teaching in King Airs and jets where the outcome of engine failure almost anywhere is pretty much ho-hum, but Aerostars aren't quite in that league.

No offense intended, but my initial training was in the airplane (rather than sim) with Rev. Bob Scott, Piper's first road-warrior IP who traveled the country teaching courses in everything Piper built including the Malibu. He instilled a deep-rooted respect for the airplane's abilities as well as its shortcomings that I won't soon forget.

Ted DuPuis said:
Yeah, but no doubt it would be a fun training experience and I suspect quite educational for him.
Click to expand...
 
"I wish it wasn't I wish it wasn't I wish it wasn't"
But it is.

And 5 hours in an Aerostar is just enough to be a danger.
Have Instructed in a 600!.
 
The question has broader aim: How can these 10-day courses, or any IR course in your own plane, actually work out unless every student comes in a 172 or PA-28? Slightest off center type and you're in trouble. I'm not talking Aerostars here, I'm talking Mooney, Bonanza, Bellanca Viking or god forbid, a Sundowner or a Maule? You're out of luck.
 
stratobee said:
The question has broader aim: How can these 10-day courses, or any IR course in your own plane, actually work out unless every student comes in a 172 or PA-28? Slightest off center type and you're in trouble. I'm not talking Aerostars here, I'm talking Mooney, Bonanza, Bellanca Viking or god forbid, a Sundowner or a Maule? You're out of luck.
Click to expand...

Huh? I did the PIC course in my Navion, an aircraft with a number of things you have to learn special (hydraulic gear and flaps, very low gear/flap extension speed, etc...). I did the PIC course just fine. The bigger thing is getting an instructor who knows the avionics (GPS, autopilot) which PIC did provide. The first day of the PIC course is learning command-performance parameters for the six regimes of IFR flight, first on the simulator, then in the students aircraft to include: power setting, gear/flap configuration, expected speed and descent rate, ...

They've worked it out pretty well.

The presumption is that by the time you start your instrument training you already know how to fly the aircraft you're training in.
 
stratobee said:
The question has broader aim: How can these 10-day courses, or any IR course in your own plane, actually work out unless every student comes in a 172 or PA-28? Slightest off center type and you're in trouble. I'm not talking Aerostars here, I'm talking Mooney, Bonanza, Bellanca Viking or god forbid, a Sundowner or a Maule? You're out of luck.
Click to expand...

They pretty much all have either a lycoming or continental IO or O something, 6 packs, king or garmin avionics and fly approaches at 90-100 knots
 
The presumption is that by the time you start your instrument training you already know how to fly the aircraft you're training in.
Click to expand...

I seem to be confusing the issue. You guys are saying that you need 5hrs in type for a multi engine aircraft, but no such requirement exists for single engine? This is utterly confusing. So a PC12 we can just jump right in and get instructed in, but an old Aztec we can't?
 
Last edited:
stratobee said:
I seem to be confusing the issue.
Click to expand...
I'm confused too, about the interpretations here. How did this rule from my 1987 archive...
"(f) Instruction in multiengine airplane or helicopter. He may not give flight instruction required for the issuance of a certificate or a category, or class rating, in a multiengine airplane or a helicopter, unless he has at least five hours of experience as pilot in command in the make and model of that airplane or helicopter, as the case may be."
​
...simply add "powered-lift" in 1997, yet get extended to include a restriction against instrument ratings...
RotorAndWing said:
61.195 Flight instructor limitations and qualifications.

(f) Training received in a multiengine airplane, a helicopter, or a powered-lift. A flight instructor may not give training required for the issuance of a certificate or rating in a multiengine airplane, a helicopter, or a powered-lift unless that flight instructor has at least 5 flight hours of pilot-in-command time in the specific make and model of multiengine airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift, as appropriate.
Click to expand...
...as implied by this conclusion?

Ron Levy said:
The instructor could still give non-required training for 5 hours while logging PIC time under 61.51(e)(3) and then start the required 15 hours of training for IR.
Click to expand...

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
Are you looking for a hypothetical answer or a real answer?

stratobee said:
I seem to be confusing the issue. You guys are saying that you need 5hrs in type for a multi engine aircraft, but no such requirement exists for single engine? This is utterly confusing. So a PC12 we can just jump right in and get instructed in, but an old Aztec we can't?
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Thanks for the vote of confidence but the BTDT song is playing softly in the background and should probably continue without interruption.

I don't mind teaching in King Airs and jets where the outcome of engine failure almost anywhere is pretty much ho-hum, but Aerostars aren't quite in that league.

No offense intended, but my initial training was in the airplane (rather than sim) with Rev. Bob Scott, Piper's first road-warrior IP who traveled the country teaching courses in everything Piper built including the Malibu. He instilled a deep-rooted respect for the airplane's abilities as well as its shortcomings that I won't soon forget.
Click to expand...

My point was he would benefit, not that you would want to do it. I'd be not thrilled with it myself.

NineThreeKilo said:
So you're doing your initial IFR training in a aerostar??
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. Hey, we agreed on something!
 
I own the plane and I'm an experienced twin flyer, so why not? This is my second twin. I have way more twin time than I have single engine. Or should I rather go to a flight school, waste money and do it in a rented beat up Duchess just to conform?

BTW, the Aerostars have almost an insane amounts of myths attached to them that are simply not true. One of them is single engine handling. "That small rudder can't keep it straight" etc. Look at it from the front - the engines sit closer together than on any other twin. It doesn't need a big rudder.
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
My thoughts exactly. Hey, we agreed on something!
Click to expand...

Right! :yes:



stratobee said:
.... Or should I rather go to a flight school, waste money and do it in a rented beat up Duchess just to conform?
Click to expand...

To conform, no. To get things done, yes

This is what happens when you decide to be the oddball, nothing wrong with being the oddball, but you're going to be swimming upstream.

If I were you I'd just do it in a sim and a standard issue trainer twin (PA44 etc), then go transition that to your faster aerostar.

There is a reason most people don't do their IR in aerostars or shrikes ya know :wink2:
 
It's much better to do the IFR training in the airplane you're going to fly, in my opinion. I'll stick with it, but perhaps have to go the long way around as I'm doing now, getting the scraps from the DPE's table when he has time to grace me with his presence;)
 
RotorAndWing said:
Splitting hairs.
Click to expand...
If you're talking regulations, it's all about the splitting of the legal hairs.

Using your certificate would you do that?
Click to expand...
Depends on the specific situation.

Based on my 58 Baron experience, I'd hop in the right seat of a 55 Baron with no worries and do the 5 hours of non-required training then jump into the 61.65-requied work. Heck, there are more differences between a 150 Apache and an Aztec E, which are considered same make/model (PA23), than there are between 55 and 58 Barons (BE55 and BE58).

However, I would not jump into an Aerostar like that, as I have no experience in anything like it, and I know enough about Aerostars to realize they have a lot of quirks and surprises that make a proper checkout in make/model mandatory for safe operation. With an owner with plenty of time in type and recent recurrent training, I might be happy to go up with an Aerostar instructor for 5 hours or so of serious workout and then jump in with the owner. OTOH, I flew with one ME pilot with his own twin who hadn't done an engine-out since he got his ME rating 18 months before, and the first time I pulled one, I had to take control to keep us from ending up on our backs. So, I'm not going up in something in which I do not have confidence in my own ability to handle, and right now, I'd put an Aerostar in that category for me.

IOW, when you're looking at something that is legal, you also have to decide if it's smart/safe, and that's about judgment, not regulations.
 
Last edited:
flyingron said:
Huh? I did the PIC course in my Navion, an aircraft with a number of things you have to learn special (hydraulic gear and flaps, very low gear/flap extension speed, etc...). I did the PIC course just fine. The bigger thing is getting an instructor who knows the avionics (GPS, autopilot) which PIC did provide. The first day of the PIC course is learning command-performance parameters for the six regimes of IFR flight, first on the simulator, then in the students aircraft to include: power setting, gear/flap configuration, expected speed and descent rate, ...

They've worked it out pretty well.

The presumption is that by the time you start your instrument training you already know how to fly the aircraft you're training in.
Click to expand...
In addition, PIC's instructors have 5000 hours or more flight experience (I think the average is around 8000), typically including a broad range of light aircraft, and you don't get that much without gaining some understanding of your own capabilities and limitations.
 
dtuuri said:
I'm confused too, about the interpretations here. How did this rule from my 1987 archive...
"(f) Instruction in multiengine airplane or helicopter. He may not give flight instruction required for the issuance of a certificate or a category, or class rating, in a multiengine airplane or a helicopter, unless he has at least five hours of experience as pilot in command in the make and model of that airplane or helicopter, as the case may be."
​
...simply add "powered-lift" in 1997, yet get extended to include a restriction against instrument ratings......as implied by this conclusion?

dtuuri
Click to expand...
It didn't. You just didn't read the change carefully enough. "...the issuance of a certificate or a category, or class rating, in a multiengine airplane or a helicopter..." became "...the issuance of a certificate or rating in a multiengine airplane, a helicopter, or a powered-lift...", and an instrument rating is a rating, but not a category or class rating. Thus, in 1997, they brought instrument rating training inside that tent along with category/class rating training, as well as adding powered-lift to the party.
 
stratobee said:
I own the plane and I'm an experienced twin flyer, so why not? This is my second twin. I have way more twin time than I have single engine. Or should I rather go to a flight school, waste money and do it in a rented beat up Duchess just to conform?

BTW, the Aerostars have almost an insane amounts of myths attached to them that are simply not true. One of them is single engine handling. "That small rudder can't keep it straight" etc. Look at it from the front - the engines sit closer together than on any other twin. It doesn't need a big rudder.
Click to expand...

I think my surprise is that you own an Aerostar and it is your second twin, but you have no instrument rating.

As to the myths, Wayne owned the things when they were new. Somehow I doubt they've gotten better.

Ron Levy said:
I've given people initial IR training in a 58 Baron and Cessna 303/310. Unusual, but not unheard of.
Click to expand...

Sure, but people frequently also buy Barons or 310s for first twins and get their multis in them. Aerostars less so.
 
Ron Levy said:
It didn't. You just didn't read the change carefully enough. "...the issuance of a certificate or a category, or class rating, in a multiengine airplane or a helicopter..." became "...the issuance of a certificate or rating in a multiengine airplane, a helicopter, or a powered-lift...", and an instrument rating is a rating, but not a category or class rating. Thus, in 1997, they brought instrument rating training inside that tent along with category/class rating training, as well as adding powered-lift to the party.
Click to expand...
I'd say that's entirely your own speculation, I interpret the two as meaning exactly the same except powered-lift has been added. I've even read the preamble for this change which says nothing about extending the scope to cover an instrument rating, it only mentions powered-lift.

This is a classic example of how rules have an insidious way of taking away our freedoms. Pilots were concerned back then that the sweeping 1997 changes would do this kind of thing and AOPA registered their fears, among others. "Not to worry," says the feds, "We can't take away privileges without public comment." I haven't heard any public comments about this paragraph until this thread, have you? I've even searched Chief Counsel opinions and found nothing there either. Lacking something in writing asking for comment, the intent should be as it was before the addition of powered-lift.

dtuuri
 
I think my surprise is that you own an Aerostar and it is your second twin, but you have no instrument rating.
Click to expand...

That is a surprise to me too. It wasn't by design and I wish I'd done it back when I was converting my Euro stuff to FAA. But my old twin was VFR only, pretty much (yes, they do exist), so no real training possibilities in it. Although we tried with one beat up old VOR/GS. I had to flick between the freq to check the radial at waypoints. Old school, to say the least. And very tiring.
 
stratobee said:
That is a surprise to me too. It wasn't by design and I wish I'd done it back when I was converting my Euro stuff to FAA. But my old twin was VFR only, pretty much (yes, they do exist), so no real training possibilities in it. Although we tried with one beat up old VOR/GS. I had to flick between the freq to check the radial at waypoints. Old school, to say the least. And very tiring.
Click to expand...

It's mostly that it's a route that most people don't go anymore. Since your old plane was a Shrike as I recall (and one you said you bought cheap), I'm not surprised it was VFR only. With low prices usually come bad avionics and high time engines.

It is surprising that the insurance company would write you a policy as a VFR-only pilot in a twin, especially an Aerostar. Although I suppose if you had enough twin hours that might influence it some.
 
$1750/year, no hull. That's $350 lower than I had on the old Commander. Pretty cheap, if you ask me. I was as surprised as anyone. However, getting the first underwriter to insure the Commander was almost impossible. I didn't have much twin time then. Thankfully AOPA's Insurance Service managed to place it for me against all odds.
 
Last edited:
By "no hull" do you mean liability and medical only?

stratobee said:
$1750/year, no hull. That's $350 lower than I had on the old Commander. Pretty cheap, if you ask me. I was as surprised as anyone. However, getting the first underwriter to insure the Commander was almost impossible. I didn't have much twin time then. Thankfully AOPA's Insurance Service managed to place it for me against all odds.
Click to expand...
 
Actually that's pretty high for liability only to my mind. We don't spend much more on the 310 for $120k hull. But an Aerostar with no instrument rating, I think it makes sense.

Interestingly I'd probably be more likely to go "stealth mode" VFR on a pressurized/turbo plane. Way fewer idiots in the mid/high teens than in the sub-10k range where I normally fly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top