post instrument/pre commercial

[fusspot3000]

I just got my instrument rating and am wanting to get my commercial SEL with the intention of getting my CFI in the futre. My question is, in your opinion how many hours would it take to get a commercial (besides the fact that I need a total of 250 hours) and about how much is the average cost to get the licsense? What or how should I study for this? I would be very appreciative for any advice or words of sidom on this subject, thanks!:smile:

 

[ScottM]

I did my commercial to keep my sanity. The night before my mother had her first operation to remove a cancerous lung I took and passed my instrument rating. I started my commercial when I was taking care of her to get out of the house for a couple of hours each month and to take my mind off of some of the stress of her recovering, chemo, and so on. It took me about a year of part time flying as I was not in any rush. The best part was learning how to fly VFR again, something that my instrument rating had pretty much beaten out of me. With no immediate goal to finish the rating I just took my time and enjoyed the training.

 

[Ted]

If you take a look at the requirements, that spells out the required dual you're supposed to have and the required solo time. Everything on top of that is how long it takes you to perfect the maneuvers. Allow probably about 5 hours to get the maneuvers down well after you've been taught them by your instructor. The CFI is a lot of ground work that you can do very cheaply, and then enough flying to cover your spin endorsement and learning how to fly from the right seat. That took me about 30 minutes to do.

I'm guessing that you're trying to get your Comm/CFI as close to 250 hours as possible. The Comm is pretty easy to do that in. I think both is doable, but more difficult. If you focus on the Comm flying/book work and the CFI book work at the same time, then do your Comm ride as close to 250 as possible and your CFI right after. FWIW, I didn't start on my CFI until closer to 400 hours (despite having an initial goal of doing it right at 250) just because there were other things going on. If you're looking at doing it for fun rather than work, what's the rush?

 

[poadeleted20]

Before we get started, keep in mind that the FAA has proposed replacing the existing 10-hour complex training requirement with 10 hours of "advanced instrument training," and that change is expected to go final later this year. That means the requirements and costs are likely to drop dramatically, especially for those who already have an instrument rating. The answers below assume you have the night and solo requirements (see 61.129(a) for those) covered already along with the 250 total time, but no complex experience.

how many hours would it take to get a commercial (besides the fact that I need a total of 250 hours)

At this point, under the current rules, it will probably take 10-20 hours of training in a complex airplane. If/when the rules change, it is likely you'd need only about 10 hours of additional training in a cheap, simple single

and about how much is the average cost to get the licsense?

At today's prices for rental and instruction, training under the current rules would probably be $2000-3000, Under the proposed rules, it could be as low as $1000, depending on availability and local prices for something like a C-152. Either way, add to that the cost of the practical test (probably $500-600 including rental and examiner's fee).

What or how should I study for this?

At this point, regardless of the rules change status, study weather and higher-end aircraft systems (c/s props, fuel injection, retractable gear, hydraulic systems, pressurization, etc). Good texts include the FAA's AC's on Aviation Weather (AC 00-6A) and Aviation Weather Services (AC 00-45F), and either the FAA Airplane Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-3A) or a commercial text such as Bob Gardner's "The Complete Advanced Pilot" or the late Bill Kershner's "Advanced Pilot's Flight Manual." The other thing you can do now is to begin demanding of yourself greater precision in your flying, e.g., holding altitudes within 50 feet, headings within 5 degrees, and landings with 100 feet of the chosen touchdown spot.

 

[fusspot3000]

Thanks for all of your advice. I feel like i have a good idea of what to expect and how to prepare for it. Weather is something that has never been my strong point. SOoooo many different wx products to memorize. I just want to at least get my commercial done before december (student loan repayment starts)

Anyway, thanks to everyone for answering my questions:smile:

 

[wabower]

Before we get started, keep in mind that the FAA has proposed replacing the existing 10-hour complex training requirement with 10 hours of "advanced instrument training," and that change is expected to go final later this year. That means the requirements and costs are likely to drop dramatically, especially for those who already have an instrument rating. The answers below assume you have the night and solo requirements (see 61.129(a) for those) covered already along with the 250 total time, but no complex experience.

At this point, under the current rules, it will probably take 10-20 hours of training in a complex airplane. If/when the rules change, it is likely you'd need only about 10 hours of additional training in a cheap, simple single

At today's prices for rental and instruction, training under the current rules would probably be $2000-3000, Under the proposed rules, it could be as low as $1000, depending on availability and local prices for something like a C-152. Either way, add to that the cost of the practical test (probably $500-600 including rental and examiner's fee).

At this point, regardless of the rules change status, study weather and higher-end aircraft systems (c/s props, fuel injection, retractable gear, hydraulic systems, pressurization, etc). Good texts include the FAA's AC's on Aviation Weather (AC 00-6A) and Aviation Weather Services (AC 00-45F), and either the FAA Airplane Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-3A) or a commercial text such as Bob Gardner's "The Complete Advanced Pilot" or the late Bill Kershner's "Advanced Pilot's Flight Manual." The other thing you can do now is to begin demanding of yourself greater precision in your flying, e.g., holding altitudes within 50 feet, headings within 5 degrees, and landings with 100 feet of the chosen touchdown spot.

and the mains straddling the center-line.

 

[poadeleted20]

and the mains straddling the center-line.

Oh, yeah -- that, too.:smile:

 

[weilke]

You don't have to do the dual cross-countries with the same CFI that does the maneuvers training and test-prep with you. You may be able to get those out of the way with some starving CFI beforehand.

 

[poadeleted20]

You don't have to do the dual cross-countries with the same CFI that does the maneuvers training and test-prep with you. You may be able to get those out of the way with some starving CFI beforehand.

Note that per the Oct 2009 rule change, your long IFR XC for the IR may cover you for at least one of the two dual XC's for Commercial (as long as you landed somewhere more than 100 nm from the OPD).

 

[weilke]

Note that per the Oct 2009 rule change, your long IFR XC for the IR may cover you for at least one of the two dual XC's for Commercial (as long as you landed somewhere more than 100 nm from the OPD).

Just to clarify, this is a rule change already in place or is this something in the nprm ?

 

[poadeleted20]

Just to clarify, this is a rule change already in place or is this something in the nprm ?

This one's been in place since Oct 20, 2009.

 

[weilke]

This one's been in place since Oct 20, 2009.

Was there an explicit rule before that didn't allow you to count a CC done for the IR towards the commercial (assuming that it fulfills the other formal requirements for distance and time of day) ?

 

[poadeleted20]

Was there an explicit rule before that didn't allow you to count a CC done for the IR towards the commercial (assuming that it fulfills the other formal requirements for distance and time of day) ?

Not explicitly (as in "thou shalt not count the same flight for both"), but the 61.65 long XC must be under IFR (then and now), and the old wording of 61.129 said the dual XC's must be VFR. The new wording dropped the VFR requirement, allowing one to count the 61.65(d)(2)(ii) long IFR XC if it otherwise met the 61.129 requirements (mainly a landing more than 100nm from the point of departure, which is not part of the 61.65 requirement).

 

[weilke]

Not explicitly (as in "thou shalt not count the same flight for both"), but the 61.65 long XC must be under IFR (then and now), and the old wording of 61.129 said the dual XC's must be VFR. The new wording dropped the VFR requirement, allowing one to count the 61.65(d)(2)(ii) long IFR XC if it otherwise met the 61.129 requirements (mainly a landing more than 100nm from the point of departure, which is not part of the 61.65 requirement).

Cool. Once in a blue moon sanity prevails.

 

[Ted]

Cool. Once in a blue moon sanity prevails.

Actually, I disagree in this case. The commercial rating is a VFR rating, not an IFR rating. There are times when you would want to make a trip VFR that you would not want to make IFR. Around here, the biggest reason for that would be ice. On a commercial dual XC I did with a student a few months back, the weather was OVC020-025 along the route of flight, visibility generally ~6 sm. It was perfect weather for a commercial XC. The clouds had ice (as confirmed by the people in them) and the plane didn't have de-ice, so you wouldn't have wanted to make the trip IFR.

The dual VFR XCs should not be on perfect days when anyone could make the trip. It should be on a day when the go/no-go decision is not obvious, and be a learning experience, and representative of a commercial pilot.

Then again, I take the commercial rating pretty seriously, and it seems that many people don't. Fair warning for any potential student who wants to get their commercial rating from me.

 

[weilke]

Actually, I disagree in this case. The commercial rating is a VFR rating, not an IFR rating.

Mh, why do they insist on you having an IR rating first ?

The dual VFR XCs should not be on perfect days when anyone could make the trip. It should be on a day when the go/no-go decision is not obvious, and be a learning experience, and representative of a commercial pilot.

If the powers that be thought about it that way they could have specified 'challenging VFR' as a requirement for that XC. For most folks those dual XC trips ended up being a costly relatively idle exercise.

 

[dmccormack]

Mh, why do they insist on you having an IR rating first ?

There isn't -- the IR helps knock out some of the instrument time, but it isn't required for the commercial -- nor should it be.

If the powers that be thought about it that way they could have specified 'challenging VFR' as a requirement for that XC. For most folks those dual XC trips ended up being a costly relatively idle exercise.

I thnik they allowed sufficient leeway to cover the regional differences -- the same way a CFII can be minted without spending 1 minute in actual.

 

[weilke]

I thnik they allowed sufficient leeway to cover the regional differences -- the same way a CFII can be minted without spending 1 minute in actual.

Now THAT is a truly bizarre regulatory situation that you can technically go out and teach others who to fly safe on instruments with 251hrs TT and 0 actual.

 

[dmccormack]

Now THAT is a truly bizarre regulatory situation that you can technically go out and teach others who to fly safe on instruments with 251hrs TT and 0 actual.

Yes you can.

But -- they can't regulate weather, so...what to do for the person based in Phoenix?

 

[weilke]

But -- they can't regulate weather, so...what to do for the person based in Phoenix?

Then maybe an instrument rating or CFII ticket obtained in Phoenix schould be limited to flying in that FSDO district ?

While not causative, the cockpit transcripts from the Colgan crash revealed that right-seater hadn't seen a icy cloud from the inside until she was hired for a part 121 job.

I don't think actual experience should be required for a private instrument ticket. I DO believe a fair amount of it should be required before you are cut loose to teach others.

 

[dmccormack]

Then maybe an instrument rating or CFII ticket obtained in Phoenix schould be limited to flying in that FSDO district ?

While not causative, the cockpit transcripts from the Colgan crash revealed that right-seater hadn't seen a icy cloud from the inside until she was hired for a part 121 job.

I don't think actual experience should be required for a private instrument ticket. I DO believe a fair amount of it should be required before you are cut loose to teach others.

Well....that's a tough one.

I'm planning on taking the CFII Practical next month. I also have a significant amount of actual time, flying to real destinations with changed routings, missed approaches, pop up NOTAMS -- the stuff you get when you fly IFR. :smile:

I'm ready to provide IR instruction now -- I wasn't when I got the CFI.

Now that I've flown tailwheel, I think the TW endorsement should be required for the CFI.

But then you start piling on regulatory requirements and aspiring instructors don't have access to a retract or a tailwheel or clouds -- then what?

 

[poadeleted20]

Actually, I disagree in this case. The commercial rating is a VFR rating, not an IFR rating.

I agree with Ted completely. The FAA, however, chose to do other than what I said in my comment on that particular change to the rules.

 

[poadeleted20]

Now that I've flown tailwheel, I think the TW endorsement should be required for the CFI.

The FAA has, I believe, seen the light on this one, by proposing, concurrent with adoption of the no-complex-for-CP rule, to drop the complex requirement from the CFI-Airplane test just as it never required TW or HP or High Altitude. I think they were right to say that you need those endorsements to teach those endorsements, but not otherwise. What I think might be more appropriate would be something saying you need some number of hours of PIC time in HP/complex/TW/etc aircraft before you give training in them (just as they require 5 hours PIC in type before giving training for a rating in an ME airplane), but the FAA doesn't seem to feel that way.

 

[dmccormack]

The FAA has, I believe, seen the light on this one, by proposing to drop the complex requirement from the CFI-Airplane test just as it never required TW or HP or High Altitude. I think they were right to say that you need those endorsements to teach those endorsements, but not otherwise. What I think might be more appropriate would be something saying you need some number of hours of PIC time in HP/complex/TW/etc aircraft before you give training in them (just as they require 5 hours PIC in type before giving training for a rating in an ME airplane), but the FAA doesn't seem to feel that way.

Right -- so we have the possiblity that a CFI can get the TW endorsement, then immediately provide TW dual.

 

[poadeleted20]

Right -- so we have the possiblity that a CFI can get the TW endorsement, then immediately provide TW dual.

Yup. It's been that way for a long time. And before the invention of those 61.31 ATE's, a CFI could give someone TW dual without any prior TW experience. And that's not unique to TW -- the same is true for complex, HP, ME, seaplane, etc., in which you can start teaching the endorsement/rating an hour after you get it. Fortunately, insurance rules usually take care of this problem, and the FAA has said repeatedly that they won't regulate what the industry is successfully self-regulating. If they see a rash of TW training accidents involving CFI's with little/no TW experience, you'll see the rules change, but so far, that hasn't happened.

 

[nosehair]

If the powers that be thought about it that way they could have specified 'challenging VFR' as a requirement for that XC.

The 'powers that be' are not experienced flight instructors, nor concerned experienced old pilots, or even government officials tasked with aviation safety, as we most probably think when considering FAR's. The powers that be are the lobbyists (just like all other forms of government) that block all proposals for increased training because of the cost of training.

Do you or anyone actually believe that a Private Pilot should have that amount of legal flying authority after only 40 hours in the air? These days? It might have been ok in the '40's, or whenever it was conceived, but not today. ...and it isn't "the FAA, in their wisdom", making these determinations, it is the lobbyists whose job is to block flight training costs.

...and as long as an 'acceptable number' of accidents occur, and as long as the public is ignorant - no change will occur.

For most folks those dual XC trips ended up being a costly relatively idle exercise.

Unfortunately, this is totally the instructor's fault.

Actually, the regulations were conceived and written very loosely, for the distinct purpose of allowing the pilot or instructor to further define the meaning and intent depending on local environment and type of aircraft.

But that was before flight training was openly available to 'the masses'.

The masses wanted specifics. How much will it cost? What is the minimum that I can qualify in? Why do I have to do that? I'm only gonna fly a 172 on sunny days...and so on.

Lawyers took over. Flight instructors became a dime-a-dozen and lost all power to influence training and became flight school monkeys.

Anyway, it is impossible to micro-manage every student by regulation.

That is, and has been, the intent of the instructional regulations, that the instructor should determine the specifics of the requirements, such as, if the commercial applicant is weak or inexperienced in primary pilotage/DR type navigating to and finding a grass strip,...or navigating to and thru a Class B, or...whatever the applicant needs more training in to become a pilot who is capable of flying his/her first charter to a grass strip resort in a hidden valley, or to a major class b airport to catch a commercial flight...

But you are right. Because the students (customers) have taken control of the school, via the lobbyists who protect their commercial interests, no one wants to fly more than the minimum 2 hours and then if you can substitute a portion of your instrument training,..why, you've just saved yourself hundreds of bucks, right?

Now, that being said, the regulations also allow a pilot to get certificated with minimum experience, and then use his/her certificate to progress at continuing training in those areas where he/she did not really get the experience needed for the job or location or equipment. If everyone did this, the regs, as they were once written, were sufficient.

 

[dmccormack]

Lawyers took over. Flight instructors became a dime-a-dozen and lost all power to influence training and became flight school monkeys.

-------snip-----

Now, that being said, the regulations also allow a pilot to get certificated with minimum experience, and then use his/her certificate to progress at continuing training in those areas where he/she did not really get the experience needed for the job or location or equipment. If everyone did this, the regs, as they were once written, were sufficient.

Are you an instructor?

I'm an independent, part-time CFI and know many other CFIs and can assure you -- you're dead wrong.

 

[nosehair]

Are you an instructor?

I'm an independent, part-time CFI and know many other CFIs and can assure you -- you're dead wrong.

Yes, I am.
I am also interested in knowing what it is that you think I am wrong about. Seriously. I don't mean that the FAA doesn't have it's influence, of course, but the thread seemed to lean towards the idea that "the FAA'" decides these issues within it's own internal machine, like the military.

Well, the military does that. But the FAA, a political organization, does not. Do you have more info?

 

[RotorAndWing]

Yes, I am.
I am also interested in knowing what it is that you think I am wrong about. Seriously. I don't mean that the FAA doesn't have it's influence, of course, but the thread seemed to lean towards the idea that "the FAA'" decides these issues within it's own internal machine, like the military.

Well, the military does that. But the FAA, a political organization, does not. Do you have more info?

Really? Care to cite some references?

 

[dmccormack]

Yes, I am.
I am also interested in knowing what it is that you think I am wrong about. Seriously. I don't mean that the FAA doesn't have it's influence, of course, but the thread seemed to lean towards the idea that "the FAA'" decides these issues within it's own internal machine, like the military.

Well, the military does that. But the FAA, a political organization, does not. Do you have more info?

"The military" does what?

I have plenty of info gathered over a 21 year career.

 

[weilke]

The 'powers that be' are not experienced flight instructors, nor concerned experienced old pilots, or even government officials tasked with aviation safety, as we most probably think when considering FAR's. The powers that be are the lobbyists (just like all other forms of government) that block all proposals for increased training because of the cost of training.

Outside of occasional congressional intervention (e.g. the current push to require two ATPs in part121 ops), the FAA pretty much marches to their own drum. The folks who make those decisions are not elected officials but for the most part career buerocrats. Sure, during the rulemaking process the different interests will put in their briefs and comments, for better or worse it is the buerocrats who write the policies.

Now, if the instructor indeed had that much discretion to design the necessary training, how about leaving it up to him or her to waive the XC requirement for a candidate who by virtue of his prior flying experience has shown that he can find his way out and back ? (people come for the comm with all kinds of backgrounds, some after years and decades of ownership with 100es of completed XC flights).

 

[Ted]

If the powers that be thought about it that way they could have specified 'challenging VFR' as a requirement for that XC. For most folks those dual XC trips ended up being a costly relatively idle exercise.

That's bad instruction, since you should be getting something out of every time in a plane with an instructor. If not, you need a different instructor.

I agree with you that people should have a fair amount of experience before getting cut loose to be instructors. I also, however, believe that you should have a fair amount of experience before being put in a position where you can be paid to fly. You're supposed to be better than a private pilot, and the commercial instruction should offer an introduction to that.

Commercial pilots ought to be worthy of being paid to fly. That means more than being able to fly a 172 three times around the patch without breaking it.

 

[dmccormack]

Commercial pilots ought to be worthy of being paid to fly. That means more than being able to fly a 172 three times around the patch without breaking it.

I *hope* the DPE's expect more than that -- I know mine did.

But I've also heard about "Staff DPEs" with 100% pass rates -- may be inflated rumor... then again?

 

[Ted]

I *hope* the DPE's expect more than that -- I know mine did.

But I've also heard about "Staff DPEs" with 100% pass rates -- may be inflated rumor... then again?

Well, obviously I was exaggerating. However the more you take out for requirements, the more you "dumb down" the rating. If it's for the sake of safety then that's one thing (such as removal of spin training from the private pilot syllabus), but when it removes useful education, I view that as a problem.

 

[dmccormack]

Well, obviously I was exaggerating. However the more you take out for requirements, the more you "dumb down" the rating. If it's for the sake of safety then that's one thing (such as removal of spin training from the private pilot syllabus), but when it removes useful education, I view that as a problem.

I think Ron made the point that self-regualtion was happening through insurance, and the FAA seems to be fine with that.

I don't know if that's the best course, but I'm not sure how to change it.



After all, if I show up to a commercial outfit with my Comm ticket, they'll say, "That's fine" and then start quizzing me about PIC time, night flight, SPIFR -- the rest, and likely still subject me to additional training.

If I wanna tow banners for a summer in a wheezy Champ along the beach, the questions will be different, and they'll still require mission-specific training.

I agree the Commercial cert is pretty easy, and not requiring IR prior to the Comm makes no sense to me.

But I'm not in favor of regualtion for every little eventuality, so I really would prefer there be latitude.

 

[nosehair]

Outside of occasional congressional intervention (e.g. the current push to require two ATPs in part121 ops), the FAA pretty much marches to their own drum. The folks who make those decisions are not elected officials but for the most part career buerocrats. Sure, during the rulemaking process the different interests will put in their briefs and comments, for better or worse it is the buerocrats who write the policies.

Well, that's what I'm saying - about the bureaucrats. Yeah, they are not elected by me and you, but by the good ol boys in the FSDO. You do know that all applicants are given final screening and selection at the local FSDO level, don't you? And, they are not heavily experienced in training operations. Most FAA inspectors are from a military or airline background - and rightly so, for the purpose of airline operations inspections.
But that leaves training oversight and regulation down at the bottom of the totem pole in FAA experience and political priority.

And I hope you are not turning a blind eye to the current level of government officials being exposed as "corrupt". All over, in all departments. The FAA is one of these government agencies, and the industry money is tempting, and again, the higher-ups above line inspectors are not necessarily even pilots. Their rise to their own level of incompetence by garnering power by creating a more complex regulatory environment with more confusion. That creates more need for more federal money and power. That is the objective of too many bureaucrats.

Now, if the instructor indeed had that much discretion to design the necessary training, how about leaving it up to him or her to waive the XC requirement for a candidate who by virtue of his prior flying experience has shown that he can find his way out and back ? (people come for the comm with all kinds of backgrounds, some after years and decades of ownership with 100es of completed XC flights).

Just egzakly my point.
A commercial candidate should know more than to be able to go "out and back'. He/She should be able to traverse a variety of terrains and airspace environments with a variety of nav systems, including the old compass, watch, & map technique as well as good diversion techniques and lost procedures. The old 100es of completed XC flights will take at least the minimum mandatory 2 hour drill just to review these points.

The problem is that it has become an expensive "hamburger" flight, and students, rightly so, have come to resent it.

 

[Ted]

But I'm not in favor of regualtion for every little eventuality, so I really would prefer there be latitude.

Same here. But I know that you as an instructor put forth personal requirements for your students beyond the PTS and we have the latitude to do so. My gut feeling is there are a number of people who use the PTS as the end goal, not as a minimum.

 

[dmccormack]

Same here. But I know that you as an instructor put forth personal requirements for your students beyond the PTS and we have the latitude to do so. My gut feeling is there are a number of people who use the PTS as the end goal, not as a minimum.

Well... yeah.

I was a minimum time to practical kinda guy -- it helped keep costs reasonable, me motivated, and instructors focused (I really didn't want to just "fly around").

This meant I was on my own rather early, and survived my naiveté (looking back...wow... )

I've been around the three week wonder types. Some were actually quite conscientious. But they were typically young (really young) and I'd probably double check directions to the parking lots from those kids.[/FONT]

I think the best we can do is continue to promote the "ticket to learn" mentality, provide advice and mentoring when asked, an exmaple when not, and hope the few bad apples don't wreck the whole cart -- to mix a metaphor.[/FONT]

 

[poadeleted20]

Well, that's what I'm saying - about the bureaucrats. Yeah, they are not elected by me and you, but by the good ol boys in the FSDO.

The folks at the FSDO's have nothing at all to do with the selection of who works at AFS-800 where the regs are written or AFS-600 where the PTS's are written.

And, they are not heavily experienced in training operations. Most FAA inspectors are from a military or airline background - and rightly so, for the purpose of airline operations inspections.

It's about an even split at the Baltimore FSDO -- pretty much all the GA inspectors come from GA backgrounds, and the AC inspectors from airline/military. It's pretty much been that way since the ACDO's and GADO's were merged a few decades ago.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Most FAA inspectors are from a military or airline background - and rightly so, for the purpose of airline operations inspections.
But that leaves training oversight and regulation down at the bottom of the totem pole in FAA experience and political priority.

My background was originally in GA and I've remained active in GA my whole life even while I was in the airline. I've also been a flight school owner and an active flight instructor as well as an active A&P/IA and aircraft owner.

In my String training at the Academy in OKC all the GA inspectors came from GA backgrounds with experience as CFI's. Half the class was GA and the other half were Air Carrier (23 Inspectors).

But that leaves training oversight and regulation down at the bottom of the totem pole in FAA experience and political priority.

Speaking from the other side of the fence I just can't agree with that remark.