Night flying and weather

[flyingcheesehead]

The 310R is $280/hour Hobbes, wet for dues-paying members.

Thanks Grant... Now the Seneca looks cheap!

Per 61.129(b)(4), the time spent performing the duties of PIC with an instructor may be credited towards the PIC requirements of the multi-engine commercial in 61.129(b)(2). Note that as I indicated, this appears to be only for this specific purpose; it's not generally considered PIC time.

I don't see the connection. The PIC requirement counts in any plane, so I have it done anyway. Supervised solo still can't be logged as PIC, and I'm not sure if would count toward the 50 hours or not (kinda doubt it). b4 is simply allowing for the sad reality that almost nobody will allow you to solo a multi-engine aircraft that you're not rated in. The portion of b4 that you highlighted is simply to allow for that 10 hours of solo to not be solo, it does not say that you get 10 hours of PIC. You just have to be performing the duties thereof, and the CFI would be acting as PIC. While you're meeting the solo requirement and not solo, you are NOT able to act as PIC or log PIC. It doesn't count as PIC even though you're not PIC, it counts as solo even though you're not solo. Small but important distinction.

 

[gprellwitz]

I don't see the connection. The PIC requirement counts in any plane, so I have it done anyway. Supervised solo still can't be logged as PIC, and I'm not sure if would count toward the 50 hours or not (kinda doubt it).

The FAR appears to disagree, since it explicitly says you can use it for the PIC requirement: "10 hours of flight time performing the duties of pilot in command in a multiengine airplane with an authorized instructor [...] may be credited towards the flight time requirement in paragraph (b)(2) [, which calls for] 100 hours of pilot-in-command flight time."

b4 is simply allowing for the sad reality that almost nobody will allow you to solo a multi-engine aircraft that you're not rated in.

That's certainly what I consider the most important part of it!

The portion of b4 that you highlighted is simply to allow for that 10 hours of solo to not be solo, it does not say that you get 10 hours of PIC. You just have to be performing the duties thereof, and the CFI would be acting as PIC. While you're meeting the solo requirement and not solo, you are NOT able to act as PIC or log PIC. It doesn't count as PIC even though you're not PIC, it counts as solo even though you're not solo. Small but important distinction.

I (and the FARs) disagree, since it explicitly says it can be credited toward the (pIC) flight time requirements, which is all that (b)(2) talks about. But, as you said, it doesn't matter materially to either of us, since we already have plenty of PIC time.

 

[HPNFlyGirl]

I recieved my flight training in the mail yesterday. They had a great article on night flying in there.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

[...] may be credited towards the flight time requirement in paragraph (b)(2) [, which calls for] 100 hours of pilot-in-command flight time."

OK, you're right on that one. I should actually read the whole freakin' thing next time. *smacks self in head*

Where we were "disagreeing" was actually in what we were looking at as the point of the PIC (or in this case pseudo-PIC). I wasn't thinking about the 100-hour requirement at all, since I have it done already and it's in the past. I was looking toward the future, toward *loggable* PIC time that might be used to find a flying job somewhere. And, I'm sure you'll agree that the supervised solo is not loggable as PIC. Right?

 

[gprellwitz]

OK, you're right on that one. I should actually read the whole freakin' thing next time. *smacks self in head*

[...]. I was looking toward the future, toward *loggable* PIC time that might be used to find a flying job somewhere. And, I'm sure you'll agree that the supervised solo is not loggable as PIC. Right?

Right!

 

[spiderweb]

I would get the private multi first because at this point I care more about utility than ratings for ratings sake. IOW, I would get the multi in order to fly multies. Then in the future if I decided to get the comm, I could just do it in the multi.

Ben,

It's not entirely clear from your post: Do you mean you'd get your commercial multi first, or that you'd get your private multi and fly the cross-country for the multi, then do your commercial in the single (which is what I thought when I first read the post)?

If the latter, no can do:



I'm still tossing up whether to do the single or multi first.

 

[gprellwitz]

That's not what it says. 61.129(b)(4) says that the "supervised solo" time may be credited towards the requirements in 61.129(b)(4), and does not say it may be used for any other purpose. You must meet the requirements of 61.129(b)(2) without counting any of the "supervised solo" time, which is not, repeat not, loggable as PIC time under 61.51(e).

Ron, I don't want to beat a dead horse (insert funny graphic here), but I think that you are literally misreading 61.129(b)(4). I just went back to look and it specifically references 61.129(b)(2) in that part, as I copied & pasted above, not 61.129(b)(4). As both Kent and I noted, it doesn't matter to us because (a) we already have enough PIC time for this requirement and (b) as you note, this "special" PIC time may not be used for any other purpose under 61.51(e).

61.129(b)(4) basically states that you can use not only 61.51(e) PIC time, but also 61.129(b)(4) "supervised solo" time to meet the PIC requirements of 61.129(b)(2), which is where we appear to have a disagreement. Since I don't think that this is an interpretation issue, I just want to make sure this thread ends with a concensus.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron, I don't want to beat a dead horse (insert funny graphic here), but I think that you are literally misreading 61.129(b)(4).

You are correct -- it can be used to meet the requirements of 61.129(b)(2), but cannnot be logged as PIC time in your logbook unless it is truly solo, rather than "supervised solo" with an instructor aboard.