New 91.109

J

jesse

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
16,015
Location
...
Display Name
Display name:
Jesse
I was contacted recently by a pilot that just purchased a Bonanza with a single throw-over yoke and is looking for me to spend a week or so with him to provide transition training. I am perfectly comfortable instructing in a Bonanza and the throw over yoke does not bother me -- but I'm trying to make sense of the recent changes to 91.109:

Sec. 91.109

Flight instruction; Simulated instrument flight and certain flight tests.

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft (except a manned free balloon) that is being used for flight instruction unless that aircraft has fully functioning dual controls. However, instrument flight instruction may be given in an airplane that is equipped with a single, functioning throwover control wheel that controls the elevator and ailerons, in place of fixed, dual controls, when--

(1) The instructor has determined that the flight can be conducted safely; and
(2) The person manipulating the controls has at least a private pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings.


(b) An airplane equipped with a single, functioning throwover control wheel that controls the elevator and ailerons, in place of fixed, dual controls may be used for flight instruction to conduct a flight review required by Sec. 61.56 of this chapter, or to obtain recent flight experience or an instrument proficiency check required by Sec. 61.57 when--

(1) The airplane is equipped with operable rudder pedals at both pilot stations;
(2) The pilot manipulating the controls is qualified to serve and serves as pilot in command during the entire flight;

(3) The instructor is current and qualified to serve as pilot in command of the airplane, meets the requirements of Sec. 61.195(b), and has logged at least 25 hours of pilot-in-command flight time in the make and model of airplane; and


(4) The pilot in command and the instructor have determined the flight can be conducted safely.
(c) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless--


(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.
(2) The safety pilot has adequate vision forward and to each side of the aircraft, or a competent observer in the aircraft adequately supplements the vision of the safety pilot; and

(3) Except in the case of lighter-than-air aircraft, that aircraft is equipped with fully functioning dual controls. However, simulated instrument flight may be conducted in a single-engine airplane, equipped with a single, functioning, throwover control wheel, in place of fixed, dual controls of the elevator and ailerons, when--


(i) The safety pilot has determined that the flight can be conducted safely; and
(ii) The person manipulating the controls has at least a private pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings.

(d) No person may operate a civil aircraft that is being used for a flight test for an airline transport pilot certificate or a class or type rating on that certificate, or for a part 121 proficiency flight test, unless the pilot seated at the controls, other than the pilot being checked, is fully qualified to act as pilot in command of the aircraft.
Click to expand...
Assuming the pilot can legally be PIC, and assuming that I have 25 hours in make and model, can I legally provide transition training? It wouldn't be a "flight review" and it wouldn't be towards recency requirements.

I've seen a lot of people interpreting this as being able to give any type of instruction provided the control manipulator can legally be PIC. But I'm just not seeing that in the wording of the regulation.

I suppose I could make it into an extended flight review with a FR endorsement at the end...but that doesn't seem like that'd pass the duck test.

Thoughts?
 
Jess it would appear from the wording you can do it but not do any IR, IPC or simulated IFR work such as approaches.
 
jesse said:
Assuming the pilot can legally be PIC, and assuming that I have 25 hours in make and model, can I legally provide transition training? It wouldn't be a "flight review" and it wouldn't be towards recency requirements.
Click to expand...
Since the FAA doesn't require "transition training," you can sit there in the right seat and teach the pilot how to fly a Bonanza without meeting that regulation, but you can't log and sign it as "flight training" in either your logbook or the pilot's. Also, the owner's insurance may not allow it.

I suppose I could make it into an extended flight review with a FR endorsement at the end...but that doesn't seem like that'd pass the duck test.
Click to expand...
I suppose you could do that, but regardless of the FAA's "duck test," it wouldn't pass my "safe/smart" test, and as noted above, it might not pass the insurer's "contract test." I'm just not giving that sort of training to someone with no time in type without controls in front of me -- I would take paragraph (a)(1) as applying to that situation.
 
jesse said:
I suppose I could make it into an extended flight review with a FR endorsement at the end...but that doesn't seem like that'd pass the duck test.
Click to expand...

Unless his last flight review was, like, last week, why wouldn't you sign off on a flight review after spending all that time with him? How much extra stuff would have to be covered? If the airplane is new to him, I would expect that a flight review would take at least as long as it takes to get him proficient in the new airplane.
 
Ron Levy said:
Since the FAA doesn't require "transition training," you can sit there in the right seat and teach the pilot how to fly a Bonanza without meeting that regulation, but you can't log and sign it as "flight training" in either your logbook or the pilot's. Also, the owner's insurance may not allow it.
Click to expand...
The problem is the insurance. He needs to receive X hours from an instructor.

Ron Levy said:
I suppose you could do that, but regardless of the FAA's "duck test," it wouldn't pass my "safe/smart" test, and as noted above, it might not pass the insurer's "contract test." I'm just not giving that sort of training to someone with no time in type without controls in front of me -- I would take paragraph (a)(1) as applying to that situation.
Click to expand...
My plan is to bring another Bonanza with a dual yoke to do the first couple hours with and to give him the complex and high performance with. After we've done that and I'm comfortable I'd like to switch to his Bonanza and do the rest of the training his insurance company requires. I'm just trying to determine if I can legally provide that training.

The throwover yoke doesn't bother me. I still have very easy access to rudder and pitch control. In almost every instance that I've ever needed to save someone's landing all I've needed is rudder and pitch. I wouldn't do it unless he has time in type which is why I will provide a Bonanza for us to get some time in type before we switch to his.
 
In order for the pilot to receive instruction in a single throw over yoke, they must act as PIC and the instructor must be qualified to act as PIC and have the 25 hours in make and model.

For the pilot to be able to act as PIC for a Bonanza, they must have a current medical, and be current with respect to not needing a flight review. They must also have a complex endorsement and if the Bonanza has an engine with over 200 HP installed (early Bonanza's had under 200 HP), they must have a high performance endorsement.

(b) An airplane equipped with a single, functioning throwover control wheel that controls the elevator and ailerons, in place of fixed, dual controls may be used for flight instruction to conduct a flight review required by Sec. 61.56 of this chapter, or to obtain recent flight experience or an instrument proficiency check required by Sec. 61.57 when--

(1) The airplane is equipped with operable rudder pedals at both pilot stations;
(2) The pilot manipulating the controls is qualified to serve and serves as pilot in command during the entire flight;

(3) The instructor is current and qualified to serve as pilot in command of the airplane, meets the requirements of Sec. 61.195(b), and has logged at least 25 hours of pilot-in-command flight time in the make and model of airplane; and
Click to expand...

The highlighted area is general and surely it doesn't mean that if an instructor was conducting flight instruction where the pilot already had two takeoffs and landings that the flight would have to be stopped after the third one was completed. Each and every takeoff and landing if logged count towards meeting the currency requirements. The point is each flight counts towards meeting the currency requirements of 61.57 if it is logged, so I would contend that there is no restriction on such a flight being cross country or practicing other tasks on the same flight. I would log the entire 15 hours of transition training as the instructor. However, the wording would not permit the pilot from obtaining the complex and high performance endorsements as they are a requirement for the pilot to act as PIC in the airplane. The only other issue might be the requirement for the instructor to have logged 25 hours in make and model, as if what defines a model is the TCDS, then then a V35A is a different from a V35B and so on. In the past, the insurance companyies that I have worked with for initial checkouts differed on what they required, some considered that all Bonanza's were OK, others required time in the 35, or 33, or 36 models, while others were very specific.
 
Last edited:
John Collins said:
The only other issue might be the requirement for the instructor to have logged 25 hours in make and model, as if what defines a model is the TCDS, then then a V35A is a different from a V35B and so on
Click to expand...
That is another interesting element. It seems many people are not interpreting model to that specific of a level.

There is no definition of 'model' in FAR 1.1. There is a definition of 'type' that has varying degrees of specifics depending on what its used in reference to.
 
Last edited:
kkoran said:
Rent a dual yoke.
Click to expand...
We've looked into that -- the owner is in the military and we're limited to a specific week when he'll be back in the region. We haven't been able to find anyone with a dual yoke available for rent that week but I think the only people he has checked with is New Kent Aviation.

Does anyone know of another company other then New Kent Aviation that rents dual yokes?
 
jesse said:
We've looked into that -- the owner is in the military and we're limited to a specific week when he'll be back in the region. We haven't been able to find anyone with a dual yoke available for rent that week but I think the only people he has checked with is New Kent Aviation.

Does anyone know of another company other then New Kent Aviation that rents dual yokes?
Click to expand...

Steve weaver (in WV), Cygnet come to mind, check the Bonanza swap page there's a few others on there.
 
And also

Air-Mech 888-282-9010
CruiseAir 760-789-8020
Cygnet 805-528-2376
Dave Monte 775-792-5282
Garhawk 800-686-9887
 
What I did with my last student who bought v35b throwover after getting his private in my 150.
Gave him HP and complex in dual yoke debonair. ..when he way ready ..
Then gave him 25 hours of bonanza training in his v tail with instrument rating. DPE had no issues with yoke.
The insurance will really respect the instrument rating if owner doesn't have it.
When did this reg get revised? I had no clue about yoke issue outside of fr or ipc
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
The problem is the insurance. He needs to receive X hours from an instructor.
Click to expand...
That means logging it as training, and you can't do that.

My plan is to bring another Bonanza with a dual yoke to do the first couple hours with and to give him the complex and high performance with.
Click to expand...
That's one option. The other is to rent a dual yoke and mount it on the client's plane for the duration of the training. BTDT.
 
So I still can't see why you can't call it a Flight Review (or IPC for that matter). A flight review is a MINIMUM of an hour of instruction. Nothing restricts it to an hour or mandates you can only do it every 24 months.
 
flyingron said:
So I still can't see why you can't call it a Flight Review (or IPC for that matter). A flight review is a MINIMUM of an hour of instruction. Nothing restricts it to an hour or mandates you can only do it every 24 months.
Click to expand...

Why write the regulation like that then? Why not just use the term "flight instruction".
 
jesse said:
We've looked into that -- the owner is in the military and we're limited to a specific week when he'll be back in the region. We haven't been able to find anyone with a dual yoke available for rent that week but I think the only people he has checked with is New Kent Aviation.

Does anyone know of another company other then New Kent Aviation that rents dual yokes?
Click to expand...
Doug is a real good guy and if there is a way I'm sure that you should be able to work out getting the yoke from W96 to you. However it is quite a long way.
 
jesse said:
I was contacted recently by a pilot that just purchased a Bonanza with a single throw-over yoke and is looking for me to spend a week or so with him to provide transition training. I am perfectly comfortable instructing in a Bonanza and the throw over yoke does not bother me -- but I'm trying to make sense of the recent changes to 91.109:


Assuming the pilot can legally be PIC, and assuming that I have 25 hours in make and model, can I legally provide transition training? It wouldn't be a "flight review" and it wouldn't be towards recency requirements.

I've seen a lot of people interpreting this as being able to give any type of instruction provided the control manipulator can legally be PIC. But I'm just not seeing that in the wording of the regulation.

I suppose I could make it into an extended flight review with a FR endorsement at the end...but that doesn't seem like that'd pass the duck test.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

If this is the plane I'm thinking of I believe it has the knob so no biggie as long as the peddles are up. There is only one opinion that matters, that of the insurer. If the insurer is good with your plan, it's all good as you aren't giving any required instruction right?
 
This is not the plane you're thinking of Henning - different deal. The insurance company requires X hours of dual with an instructor. Unless I sign it as dual in the guys logbook he won't be able to prove that ever happened.
 
jesse said:
This is not the plane you're thinking of Henning - different deal. The insurance company requires X hours of dual with an instructor. Unless I sign it as dual in the guys logbook he won't be able to prove that ever happened.
Click to expand...
Then you pretty much have to find a dual yoke to rent for the training. And personally, I wouldn't do it any other way even if it was legal, but that's just me.
 
jesse said:
This is not the plane you're thinking of Henning - different deal. The insurance company requires X hours of dual with an instructor. Unless I sign it as dual in the guys logbook he won't be able to prove that ever happened.
Click to expand...

Boy, it sounds like he needs flight instruction to obtain recent flight experience to me. If he is otherwise legal by FAA standards to be PIC then it would seem like you should be able to log the dual. How many other situations are there that would require instruction to obtain recent flight instruction for some able to be PIC? A flight review and IPC are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head and they are already specifically mentioned in the FAR.
 
jesse said:
This is not the plane you're thinking of Henning - different deal. The insurance company requires X hours of dual with an instructor. Unless I sign it as dual in the guys logbook he won't be able to prove that ever happened.
Click to expand...

Insurance required dual is not FAA required dual. If he is SEL with Complex an HP endorsements he's good to go, ie; without being insured, there would be no training requirement, they are legal PIC and this isn't training for a rating.
 
Henning said:
Insurance required dual is not FAA required dual. If he is SEL with Complex an HP endorsements he's good to go, ie; without being insured, there would be no training requirement, they are legal PIC and this isn't training for a rating.
Click to expand...

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that. If someone's insurance company states they need flight training from an instructor it's going to be difficult to state you received such without an endorsement from the instructor proving the training took place.

If the training did take place then 14 CFR 61.189 (a) comes into play:
A flight instructor must sign the logbook of each person to whom that instructor has given flight training or ground training.
Click to expand...
 
jesse said:
We're going to have to agree to disagree on that. If someone's insurance company states they need flight training from an instructor it's going to be difficult to state you received such without an endorsement from the instructor proving the training took place.

If the training did take place then 14 CFR 61.189 (a) comes into play:
Click to expand...

This is why I said in my first post to call the insurance company because they are the only ones that matter, we are not in disagreement with anything except from whom you are seeking the answer to your question. You don't need the CFRs and FAA to back you on this, just the blessing of the insurance company.

What's it cost to rent a double?
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
We're going to have to agree to disagree on that. If someone's insurance company states they need flight training from an instructor it's going to be difficult to state you received such without an endorsement from the instructor proving the training took place.

If the training did take place then 14 CFR 61.189 (a) comes into play:
Click to expand...

Just thinking creatively here...

Would the insurance company accept a letter stating training was given instead of an FAA/legal endorsement in the pilots logbook? Worth a phone call to explain the legal SNAFU and asking...
 
denverpilot said:
Just thinking creatively here...

Would the insurance company accept a letter stating training was given instead of an FAA/legal endorsement in the pilots logbook? Worth a phone call to explain the legal SNAFU and asking...
Click to expand...
There is no way that'd pass the duck test.
 
jesse said:
There is no way that'd pass the duck test.
Click to expand...

I was thinking in this case if there were no FAA requirements, the only folks that care are the insurance company. They can make their own rules.

But if there's an FAA need, yeah... It's dead in the water.
 
denverpilot said:
Just thinking creatively here...

Would the insurance company accept a letter stating training was given instead of an FAA/legal endorsement in the pilots logbook? Worth a phone call to explain the legal SNAFU and asking...
Click to expand...
You won't get me to sign a letter to an insurer saying I gave someone flight training when I didn't sign their logbook IAW 61.189. That would just be creating documentary evidence of a violation of the FAR's.
 
One Short said:
Boy, it sounds like he needs flight instruction to obtain recent flight experience to me. If he is otherwise legal by FAA standards to be PIC then it would seem like you should be able to log the dual. How many other situations are there that would require instruction to obtain recent flight instruction for some able to be PIC? A flight review and IPC are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head and they are already specifically mentioned in the FAR.
Click to expand...

Hey that sounds good to me. I mean, the guy is in the military right? Will only be around for a week.. guessing he has not flown in awhile!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top