IR Training Towards Commercial Debate

[BravoCharlieFoxtrot]

Hello,

I've recently decided to go for my commercial certificate - I'm at roughly 270 total time, plenty of cross-country time, and have a complex endorsement + IR. My new instructor insists that I must do 10 additional hours of instrument training specifically for my commercial, and do 10 hours of complex training (with him). While he seems to be a very competent and knowledgeable CFI, I'm finding it hard to agree. Thus, this post has two parts;

My logbook remarks for some of my instrument training explicitly state "partial panel", "unusual attitude", and "intercept and tracking" (nowhere is "attitude instrument flying" explicitly stated in my logbook). I've read through several LOIs, and my interpretation was that because these areas mentioned in 61.129(3)(i) are covered, I should only need to go back for the bit of training to cover "attitude instrument flying" specifically (if I need to go back for more instrument training at all). Is my instructor correct here?

Second, I got checked out and endorsed in a complex aircraft, for which insurance required 10 hours of dual received complex time. Given that my logbook contains 10 hours of dual received complex training (not specifically marked as for 61.129, but completed after earning my PPL with some commercial maneuvers noted in the comments), shouldn't this requirement already be fulfilled? Again, the new instructor believes I need to do 10 more hours of complex training with him.

Having spent a lot of time with the applicable regs and LOIs, I'm fairly confident I'm correct that those 20 hours of training are already covered (except for possibly the "attitude instrument flying"), but I certainly see my instructor's interpretation of the regs. Any thoughts/debate would be much appreciated, thanks!

 

[RyanB]

The Instrument training you received in the past has to indicate that it covers 61.129(a)(3)(i), otherwise yes, your instructor is correct that you’d need to do it as part of the Commercial training.

 

[BravoCharlieFoxtrot]

The Instrument training you received in the past has to indicate that it covers 61.129(a)(3)(i), otherwise yes, your instructor is correct that you’d need to do it as part of the Commercial training.

To clarify, does this mean that instrument training flights must specifically note "61.129(a)(3)(i)" in the remarks section to count, or can the remarks just indicate each topic listed under 61.129(a)(3)(i)?

 

[midlifeflyer]

I think you make a decent argument that so long as the specific tasks mentioned 61.129 are covered, it should count. The problem (aside from convincing a DPE of that) is that the LOIs you've read aren't just talking about whether the tasks were covered during instrument training. They were. The LOIs - all of them which say no to double-dipping - differentiate the same task based on level of pilot certification. Hence, if you flew a 300 NM cross country with landings at three airports, one of which is at least 250 NM from the departure airport as a student pilot solo cross country. it will not count for the commercial requirement because a commercial applicant is expected to perform those tasks at a higher level of skill than a student pilot. That's a consistent theme throughout the "no double dip" LOIs.

The concept that an instrument rated private pilot receiving at least 15 hours of instruction covering all the tasks in 61.65 and passing a instrument checkride has less instrument knowledge and skill than a VFR-only commercial applicant after a whole 10 hours without even once flying an instrument approach or procedure, is ridiculous. But that's what we got. So even though every single instrument task - and far more - in 61.129 were covered in training for the rating, they simply don't count without that reference effectively saying they were done to commercial, rather than private standards.

So the reference really has to be to 61.129(a) rather than simply a reciliation of tasks if the tasks are accomplished before receiving the instrument rating - and that's what DPEs are generally looking for. No need for the reference for training after receiving the instrument rating.

 

[dmspilot]

To clarify, does this mean that instrument training flights must specifically note "61.129(a)(3)(i)" in the remarks section to count, or can the remarks just indicate each topic listed under 61.129(a)(3)(i)?

The remarks can just list each topic. A DPE who says it needs to cite the reg in the remarks is a bonehead.

 

[dmspilot]

I think you make a decent argument that so long as the specific tasks mentioned 61.129 are covered, it should count. The problem (aside from convincing a DPE of that) is that the LOIs you've read aren't just talking about whether the tasks were covered during instrument training. They were. The LOIs - all of them which say no to double-dipping - differentiate the same task based on level of pilot certification. Hence, if you flew a 300 NM cross country with landings at three airports, one of which is at least 250 NM from the departure airport as a student pilot solo cross country. it will not count for the commercial requirement because a commercial applicant is expected to perform those tasks at a higher level of skill than a student pilot. That's a consistent theme throughout the "no double dip" LOIs.

The concept that an instrument rated private pilot receiving at least 15 hours of instruction covering all the tasks in 61.65 and passing a instrument checkride has less instrument knowledge and skill than a VFR-only commercial applicant after a whole 10 hours without even once flying an instrument approach or procedure, is ridiculous. But that's what we got. So even though every single instrument task - and far more - in 61.129 were covered in training for the rating, they simply don't count without that reference effectively saying they were done to commercial, rather than private standards.

So the reference really has to be to 61.129(a) rather than simply a reciliation of tasks - and that's what DPEs are generally looking for.

No, the LOI in regard to 61.129 had nothing to do with double dipping. It simply said that an instrument rating does not waive the commercial pilot instrument training task/hour requirement. People with bad reading comprehension have taken that CC letter and made it look like it's saying something it's not.

 

[midlifeflyer]

No, the LOI in regard to 61.129 had nothing to do with double dipping. It simply said that an instrument rating does not waive the commercial pilot instrument training task/hour requirement. People with bad reading comprehension have taken that CC letter and made it look like it's saying something it's not.

I guess we'll have to disagree on how the entire series of FAA LOIs on using the completion of tasks for one certificate or rating to show completion of requirements for another should be read and whether

attitude instrument flying;
partial panel skills;
recovery from unusual flight attitudes; and
intercepting and tracking navigational systems

are or are not covered ("exact equivalence" in the words of the Hatzell letter) by the completion of the tasks in 61.65. There's a reason the Chief Counsel walked the original letter back.

 

[dmspilot]

I guess we'll have to disagree on how the entire series of FAA LOIs on using the completion of tasks for one certificate or rating to show completion of requirements for another should be read

Not sure what "entire series" you're referring to, but it is 100% clear the FAA has no problem with double-dipping and allowing experience that was used to satisfy an instrument rating requirement to also satisfy the commercial pilot certificate requirement.

From the 2010 letter to Theriault:
"The same training may satisfy both §61.129(c)(3)(i) and §61.65(e)..."

From the 2010 letter to Hartzell:
"We anticipate that for commercial pilot applicants who already hold an instrument rating, 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."

Double dipping is not the problem. What the FAA is saying you can't do, is you can't waive the instrument experience requirement of the commercial pilot just because you have an instrument rating. I mean, think about if you got an IR and then lost your logbook. You can't say, "well, I have an IR, I don't need the 5/10 hours of instrument time." You still need to document completion of the required experience.

The FAA also says that the instrument rating task requirements are not necessarily 1-to-1 with the instrument training requirement of a commercial pilot certificate, which is the main point of distinction between the two. An applicant has to ensure they have completed training on all of the required elements.

From the 2018 letter to Oord:
"An individual could log time performing activities that meet the requirements of§ 61.65( e) and those same activities might fail to satisfy all or some of the requirements of§ 61.129(c)(3)(i). For example, the instrument training for§ 61.65(e) may not have included specific instrument training on recovery from unusual attitudes as required by § 61.129."

Notice they say the IR training "may not" satisfy the commercial instrument training. Not that it "does not."

Nowhere does the FAA indicate there could be a problem with double-dipping. It's 100% allowed.

attitude instrument flying;
partial panel skills;
recovery from unusual flight attitudes; and
intercepting and tracking navigational systems

are or are not covered ("exact equivalence" in the words of the Hatzell letter) by the completion of the tasks in 61.65.

You are wrong if you think we disagree on that point. This is a straw man. Those tasks need to be logged, like I already wrote above in post 5.

 

[Jim K]

The remarks can just list each topic. A DPE who says it needs to cite the reg in the remarks is a bonehead.

While I agree with you, I've heard multiply "celebrity" dpe's (the ones who go on podcasts) say that the logbook must explicitly state "61.129". Many (most?) websites have picked it up as well. I'd like to know what real world dpe's think. @Ryan F. Can you comment?

I have the same issue. When I did my instrument several years ago, I didn't have any intention of moving on to commercial, but I'm working on it now. My instructor does mostly pt141 and was unaware of the hartzell loi, but says he not had an issue with counting instrument training towards the commercial for the pt61 guys he's sent. That makes me think it's just a few dpe's looking for "gotchas".

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

Can you ask your eventual DPE, since he/she will be the key?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Not sure what "entire series" you're referring to,

You see a LOI. I see multiple LOI having threads with commonality. That’s all it is and at my end, it’s just the way my thought process has worked since law school (maybe even before). Doesn’t automatically mean I’m right, so we simply disagree.

Meanwhile, practically, the DPEs I’ve spoken with are looking for that 61.129 reference for tasks done during instrument training. When I work with an instrument trainee, it’s no skin off my nose to add “& per 61.129(a)” to an entry if that’s what they want to see.

 

[midlifeflyer]

For example, the instrument training for§ 61.65(e) may not have included specific instrument training on recovery from unusual attitudes as required by § 61.129."

That’s why I say the series of LOIs on this are ridiculous.

 

[BravoCharlieFoxtrot]

Can you ask your eventual DPE, since he/she will be the key?

Ultimately I will confirm with the specific DPE before committing to a checkride, but I want to be sure I'm not going crazy before asking. As I've only done one flight with this instructor (and not through a structured flight school), I'm not sure who the DPE will be. Maybe I'll reach out to some local DPEs and see what they say.

 

[BravoCharlieFoxtrot]

You see a LOI. I see multiple LOI having threads with commonality. That’s all it is and at my end, it’s just the way my thought process has worked since law school (maybe even before). Doesn’t automatically mean I’m right, so we simply disagree.

Meanwhile, practically, the DPEs I’ve spoken with are looking for that 61.129 reference for tasks done during instrument training. When I work with an instrument trainee, it’s no skin off my nose to add “& per 61.129(a)” to an entry if that’s what they want to see.

While I do disagree with your interpretation of the LOIs, I appreciate the practical answer! Because “& per 61.129(a)" references the list of required training areas (attitude instrument flying, partial panel skills, recovery from unusual flight attitudes, and intercepting and tracking navigational systems), do you think that simply having those items listed in the remarks, as is the case in my logbook, would suffice in practice? In my interpretation, listing those individual items demonstrates adherence to 61.129(a) better than just writing "& per 61.129(a)".

In this thought, would it be by the books to contact my old flight instructor and have him verify that those tasks were completed per 61.129(a) retroactively to update my logbook remarks to include the "per 61.129(a)"? My assumption is no, despite it being a truthful correction. This seems like such an unnecessary nuance.

Any thoughts about the complex time?

 

[RyanB]

The remarks can just list each topic. A DPE who says it needs to cite the reg in the remarks is a bonehead.

Our DPE requires the reg to be in the remarks section for it to count toward the Commercial requirements. He isn’t a bonehead at all, it’s a FSDO thing. I had this exact conversation before my checkride.

 

[RyanB]

While I agree with you, I've heard multiply "celebrity" dpe's (the ones who go on podcasts) say that the logbook must explicitly state "61.129". Many (most?) websites have picked it up as well.

When I did my Commercial single, I had this exact conversation with our DPE. “61.129(a)(3)(i)” is required to be in the remarks. It’s a FSDO thing.

 

[MauleSkinner]

When I did my Commercial single, I had this exact conversation with our DPE. “61.129(a)(3)(i)” is required to be in the remarks. It’s a FSDO thing.

“It’s a FSDO thing” is a cop-out.

At one examiner training session, the FAA presenter stated that if an applicant prints out his electronic logbook, we need to make sure every page is signed. I asked where that requirement was, and he said there is no requirement, but it’s what he would do.

I suspect a similar statement was made regarding 61.129 logging, and was either not questioned or the DPE is just going along to get along.

 

[midlifeflyer]

While I do disagree with your interpretation of the LOIs, I appreciate the practical answer! Because “& per 61.129(a)" references the list of required training areas (attitude instrument flying, partial panel skills, recovery from unusual flight attitudes, and intercepting and tracking navigational systems), do you think that simply having those items listed in the remarks, as is the case in my logbook, would suffice in practice? In my interpretation, listing those individual items demonstrates adherence to 61.129(a) better than just writing "& per 61.129(a)".

My experience is the same as @RyanB. Examiners are looking for that regulatory reference shorthand. This is not unusual nor a big surprise. AC 61-65H is the (current) guide to certification requirements. No, this is not there, but browse through the recommended endorsements in Appendix A. How many contain a list of tasks rather than simply referencing the regulation?

Basically, it’s simple and something they are used to.

The problem with asking me if I think a list of tasks suffice is that my answer is based on my interpretation, which you disagree with.

 

[Mikey52]

If those specific objectives are already in your logbook, just annotate by the side the particular reg that it applies to.

 

[BravoCharlieFoxtrot]

My experience is the same as @RyanB. Examiners are looking for that regulatory reference shorthand. This is not unusual nor a big surprise. AC 61-65H is the (current) guide to certification requirements. No, this is not there, but browse through the recommended endorsements in Appendix A. How many contain a list of tasks rather than simply referencing the regulation?

Basically, it’s simple and something they are used to.

The problem with asking me if I think a list of tasks suffice is that my answer is based on my interpretation, which you disagree with.

I certainly won't argue with your experience, but I don't quite follow your logic regarding AC 61-65H. I'm not sure about you, but nowhere in any of my PPL training flight remarks is 61.103, 61.107, or 61.109 specifically listed. For example, while I certainly did "3 hours of flight training with an authorized instructor in a single-engine airplane in preparation for the practical test" (as is visible and noted in my logbook remarks column as "practical prep"), nowhere in my flight remarks is "61.109(4)" written. Why would commercial be any different? I have yet to meet any instructor who lists a reg number in flight remarks.

 

[dmspilot]

This is not unusual nor a big surprise. AC 61-65H is the (current) guide to certification requirements. No, this is not there, but browse through the recommended endorsements in Appendix A. How many contain a list of tasks rather than simply referencing the regulation?

Yes it is unusual as no one is out there logging which regulations every individual lesson conforms with. And it is a big surprise that people entrusted for certification of pilots do not have adequate reading comprehension to understand the LOI.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I certainly won't argue with your experience, but I don't quite follow your logic regarding AC 61-65H. I'm not sure about you, but nowhere in any of my PPL training flight remarks is 61.103, 61.107, or 61.109 specifically listed. For example, while I certainly did "3 hours of flight training with an authorized instructor in a single-engine airplane in preparation for the practical test" (as is visible and noted in my logbook remarks column as "practical prep"), nowhere in my flight remarks is "61.109(4)" written. Why would commercial be any different? I have yet to meet any instructor who lists a reg number in flight remarks.

First, I'm not agreeing with it. I'm just explaining it and ultimately accepting the reality that, as repeated a few times, it's what examiners are looking for despite the fact that, if the tasks were logged properly for the instrument rating, there is no way that they are not specifically listed in the logbook.

Point is commercial is not any different. Do a lesson in Lazy 8s and you will not see "per 61.129..." The problem here arises solely because there is a duplication of tasks - tasks necessarily performed for the instrument rating which are partially duplicated in the instrument tasks for the commercial certificate. Combine that with the FAA's historical dislike of using the satisfaction of tasks identified with the words "on the areas of operation" for one certificate or rating to apply to a later one, and we have a ridiculous Chief Counsel LOI. Expecting a logical solution to something ridiculous is, well....

The use of the regulatory reference itself, right or wrong, is probably an outgrowth of this language in the final LOI of the IR to Commercial series, the 2018 Oort Letter:

---

To allow for training time to count towards both§ 61.65(e) and§ 61.129(c)(3)(i) in cases where it meets the requirements of both, as stated in the letter to Ms. Kristine Hartzell dated December 17, 2010, that time must be logged consistent with§ 61.51 and documented in a manner that demonstrates the time counts towards the commercial pilot certificate and ratings.

---

That may not sound like the task performed during training for the instrument doesn't count without saying it also applies to the commercial to everyone, but it apparently does to enough of the people who check for meeting the requirements.

 

[Pinecone]

1) Go back to your Instrument Instructor and have them annotate the remarks where, or in the back, that each of the 61.129 task was completed.
2) Go through your logbook and highlight each instance where your instructor stated in the remarks that you did one of the tasks.
3) Find an instructor that will do the minimum time/flights to hit the tasks. You already have the time.

For the complex time, you need 10 hours of instruction, not just 10 hours, so you might need a few, but those you have should count.

 

[Mikey52]

Or make sure the airplane is a taa.

 

[Lindberg]

Hello,

I've recently decided to go for my commercial certificate - I'm at roughly 270 total time, plenty of cross-country time, and have a complex endorsement + IR. My new instructor insists that I must do 10 additional hours of instrument training specifically for my commercial, and do 10 hours of complex training (with him). While he seems to be a very competent and knowledgeable CFI, I'm finding it hard to agree. Thus, this post has two parts;

My logbook remarks for some of my instrument training explicitly state "partial panel", "unusual attitude", and "intercept and tracking" (nowhere is "attitude instrument flying" explicitly stated in my logbook). I've read through several LOIs, and my interpretation was that because these areas mentioned in 61.129(3)(i) are covered, I should only need to go back for the bit of training to cover "attitude instrument flying" specifically (if I need to go back for more instrument training at all). Is my instructor correct here?

Second, I got checked out and endorsed in a complex aircraft, for which insurance required 10 hours of dual received complex time. Given that my logbook contains 10 hours of dual received complex training (not specifically marked as for 61.129, but completed after earning my PPL with some commercial maneuvers noted in the comments), shouldn't this requirement already be fulfilled? Again, the new instructor believes I need to do 10 more hours of complex training with him.

Having spent a lot of time with the applicable regs and LOIs, I'm fairly confident I'm correct that those 20 hours of training are already covered (except for possibly the "attitude instrument flying"), but I certainly see my instructor's interpretation of the regs. Any thoughts/debate would be much appreciated, thanks!

I believe that you're correct and your CFI is wrong. But it doesn't matter what any of us think. Ask the DPE you're going to take the ride with. If he agrees with you and me, you're golden. If he agrees with your CFI, then you can 1) find a different DPE who agrees with you; 2) get a chief counsel opinion that's even more clear than the existing ones; or 3) get 10 hours training under the hood in a TAA.