Night Time qualification for commercial pilot

[flyingcheesehead]

I highlighted the bold bits - where does the reg state this? There is no expression in the reg of any kind of limitation on passengers outside of the requirement to be Solo in the first instance. I read this as permitting passengers if a CFI is in the plane.

Whoo boy. I decided to take a crack at this one, and the answer is clear as mud.

I expected the FAA would interpret this as @TCABM said. The intent has always been for this to be solo time, but as first multiengine and then complex training aircraft became harder and harder to rent and/or insure, they have added the PDPIC exceptions, first just for multi, but now for singles as well.

So, I went looking for an FAA Chief Counsel written interpretation, and found only one relevant one, the 2007 Olshock/Pan Am interpretation.

It initially says: (And note, in 2007 only the multiengine PDPIC exception existed)

While the latter option requires the pilot to perform the duties of pilot in command, which are similar to the responsibilities for solo piloting, it is not solo flight time. The instructor may determine how many persons are allowed on the aircraft during a flight where the pilot in command holds a multi engine class rating and is logging flight time to meet the requirements for a commercial pilot certificate under section 61.129 (b)( 4).

Which sounds like you can take a passenger... But then it finishes off with:

If two crewmembers are required for proper operation the aircraft, the persons aboard the aircraft could include the pilot in command, the second in command and the instructor. The instructor also may permit others on board for instructional purposes.

So, it sounds like you can have additional people on board, but only for instructional purposes.

 

[TCABM]

I highlighted the bold bits - where does the reg state this? There is no expression in the reg of any kind of limitation on passengers outside of the requirement to be Solo in the first instance. I read this as permitting passengers if a CFI is in the plane.

It doesn't. But AOPA lobbied to include pax in the proposed rule change for commercial pilots and the FAA chose not to incorporate that comment, despite having the opportunity to do so. That, to me, implies the FAA's intent does not include the option of passengers when electing PDPCI w/CFI.

 

[midlifeflyer]

"While the latter option requires the pilot to perform the duties of pilot in command, which are similar to the responsibilities for solo piloting, it is not solo flight time."

That's about logging. It's not "solo flight time" in your logbook because 61.51(d) says

Logging of solo flight time. Except for a student pilot performing the duties of pilot in command of an airship requiring more than one pilot flight crewmember, a pilot may log as solo flight time only that flight time when the pilot is the sole occupant of the aircraft.​

PDPIC is a narrow exception to the solo requirement. It counts for the specific solo requirement, but it is not solo. There are other regs which work this way. The other big example is permissive use of time in a device to meet certain flight time requirements. It does not make the time in the device "flight time."

 

[Lndwarrior]

wow what a idiot response!

And this person is part of the Management Council of the board which seems to encourage demeaning behavior disguised as superior intelligence.

 

[MauleSkinner]

And this person is part of the Management Council of the board which seems to encourage demeaning behavior disguised as superior intelligence.

Considering the OP has demonstrated a lack of English proficiency in both of his posts, I don’t see that it’s demeaning.

 

[bentmettle]

It doesn't. But AOPA lobbied to include pax in the proposed rule change for commercial pilots and the FAA chose not to incorporate that comment, despite having the opportunity to do so. That, to me, implies the FAA's intent does not include the option of passengers when electing PDPCI w/CFI.

Thanks for the link to the comment, and @flyingcheesehead for digging up the other background - I read the AOPA comments and they appear to be widely aimed at commercial qualifying flights with passengers, not additional people in the plane when a CFI is onboard.

The AOPA request would effectively completely eliminate the solo requirement entirely and the FAA would have to fashion some framework that says regardless of who is onboard, the pilot wouldn't be able to use anyone as an external resource.

The FAA also had the opportunity to specifically disallow additional passengers, and not only did they not do that, they have stated elsewhere they interpret the rules to allow it for instructional purposes, so I don't read their lack of changing the rule in response to AOPA as implying anything other than they don't want pilots training for ratings dragging along passengers until there is some qualified, rated pilot in that plane.

 

[TCABM]

Thanks for the link to the comment….
The AOPA request would effectively completely eliminate the solo requirement entirely and the FAA would have to fashion some framework that says regardless of who is onboard, the pilot wouldn't be able to use anyone as an external resource...

If you search the Federal Register for the August 1997 change to 14 CFR 61.129, you’ll see the FAA acknowledge this in response to AOPA’s comment on the addition of PDPIC for commercial multiengine.

In application, outside of more than a one-person crew required for the operation or type certificate, I think you’d be hard pressed to find a CFI who would agree to having passengers along for the ride, if for no other reason than the pax is now a witness that could inform the FAA of what happened.

I’m not a CFI and I could be wrong in that assumption.

 

[bentmettle]

I would not be in my best interests to speculate on what CFIs would or wouldn't do. I'm hoping to bang this out myself this spring, but I have a smattering of quals I don't meet, including the long XC (even though I've flown much longer, and have the required time in a Multi with an MEI, but waaaaaa)

 

[Pinecone]

I highlighted the bold bits - where does the reg state this? There is no expression in the reg of any kind of limitation on passengers outside of the requirement to be Solo in the first instance. I read this as permitting passengers if a CFI is in the plane.

My initial thought was NO WAY.

But reading it, as a Fed Reg, you are correct. They use OR, which means one OR the other and they do not modify each other.

May not be what the FAA intended, but that is what the reg states.

And looking at the overall intent, it is that if you were to carry a passenger without an instructor oversight, they could help. The instructor prevents that (if they are doing their job right).

 

[iamtheari]

And this person is part of the Management Council of the board which seems to encourage demeaning behavior disguised as superior intelligence.

Neither I nor any other member of the Management Council encourages demeaning behavior, regardless of the disguise. All users should be aware of the Rules of Conduct, follow them, and call out suspected violations or other issues with the "Report" button. If you think anyone, including a moderator, has crossed a line in a post, that is the correct way to call it to our attention.

As far as the post to which you're referring to goes, I encouraged the OP, who was struggling to understand a regulation, to slow down and parse the words in the regulation. In general, I encourage people to consider what lens they are viewing the world through if they feel personally attacked when someone sincerely asks whether English is their first language and, for both possible answers, gives specific advice to understand the written material they're struggling with. The same applies if you post an algebra question and people want to know what level of math education you've completed or if you post a question about adverse yaw and people ask where you are in your flight training.

I would not be in my best interests to speculate on what CFIs would or wouldn't do. I'm hoping to bang this out myself this spring, but I have a smattering of quals I don't meet, including the long XC (even though I've flown much longer, and have the required time in a Multi with an MEI, but waaaaaa)

I've posted in numerous other threads about commercial qualifications that I fell short of two specific requirements despite lots of hours traveling by air. One was the long solo cross-country. Whenever I went on long trips, I only stopped for fuel or passenger comfort, and I never went far enough alone to need two fuel stops. So I did not have a long solo cross-country with enough stops. My advice is to have some fun with that one. I ended up counting the trip where I landed at almost every public grass strip in the state over two days in a Cub without any equipment more modern than the plane itself (except for the highlighter I used on the sectionals--oops). The funny part was that the longest leg of the trip was probably 70 miles.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

In application, outside of more than a one-person crew required for the operation or type certificate, I think you’d be hard pressed to find a CFI who would agree to having passengers along for the ride, if for no other reason than the pax is now a witness that could inform the FAA of what happened.

Couldn't that happen on any instructional flight, though? I haven't heard of CFIs refusing to take pax along, especially friends and family of the student, on a regular instructional flight.

That said, the interpretation seems to say that only people who are present specifically for instructional purposes are allowed.

 

[TCABM]

Couldn't that happen on any instructional flight, though? I haven't heard of CFIs refusing to take pax along, especially friends and family of the student, on a regular instructional flight.

So every flight for a student pilot certificate holder except a solo flight and the check ride is effectively done PDPIC. From an instructional point of view, bringing along a pax or two can, logically, support W&B, pre-flight planning, aircraft performance, performance, the pax briefing (to include egress), and a whole host of other practical events that one could logically defend to the FAA.

For a commercial applicant, I think the accepted intent of 61.129(a)(4) is solo OR PDPIC with only the specifically authorized CFI and potentially a required second crew member. I think if a DPE asked the right question(s) some DPEs would likely find the applicant not qualified to take the check ride if the PDPIC option was exercised AND additional pax were brought along.

Additionally, by the time one gets to the commercial certificate level, the FAA expects you to be able to interpret a wide variety of technical regulations. In the rare instance of a pax informing the FAA they were a part of a PDPIC right used to count for a certificate’s experience qualification criteria, the pax would have enough detailed info to support their assertion. I could see the FAA asking the CFI what happened and something resulting from that.

Again though, I’m not a CFI and my thought are around hypotheticals.

 

[MauleSkinner]

So every flight for a student pilot certificate holder except a solo flight and the check ride is effectively done PDPIC.

No, the instructor often instructs and/or oversees at least some of those duties.

 

[bentmettle]

<<>>

Again though, I’m not a CFI and my thought are around hypotheticals.

Well, being a CFI doesn't magically grant a person comprehensive regulatory understanding, nor are DPE's omnipotent. The system is just set up in a way that defers to their positions and makes their errors much harder to push back on...

 

[TCABM]

No, the instructor often instructs and/or oversees at least some of those duties.

That’s the problem with the word effectively in the manner I used it.

 

[MauleSkinner]

That’s the problem with the word effectively in the manner I used it.

I’m not sure what you mean here, but the FAA has very specific requirements for logging of PDPIC in 61.51(e)(iv), and the majority of student training can’t be logged as such.