Previous IFR Training Used for Commercial Interpretation

Skid

Skid

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
195
Display Name
Display name:
Skid
I start my commercial training soon and have been getting my logbook in order to see what I specifically need to knock out per the regs.

The one regulation that has me hung up is the:

"Ten hours of instrument training using a view-limiting device including attitude instrument flying, partial panel skills, recovery from unusual flight attitudes, and intercepting and tracking navigational systems. Five hours of the 10 hours required on instrument training must be in a single engine airplane"​

I've been doing some research on forums to get a general consensus and recently read the Hartzell letter to get an idea of what counts, but I'm still a bit unsure...It seems like most DPEs don't really care, but the letter seems to imply the logbook entry needs to state it's for 61.129.

All the stuff I could find was from 2010 so I'm wondering if there is any other updated information out there or if the common culture says my former time is acceptable. I have 64 hours of simulated IFR training between helicopters and airplanes, so it seems a bit silly to tack on 10 more. But if it's what I have to do I'll do it.

Thanks
 
If you have previous time under the hood I'm sure that would work. Your CFI will probably do some hood work with you to ensure you're still good to go before your appointment with the DPE.

Just curious, why not get your instrument while working on your commercial? Kill two birds with one stone

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
AmazonChitlin said:
If you have previous time under the hood I'm sure that would work. Your CFI will probably do some hood work with you to ensure you're still good to go before your appointment with the DPE.

Just curious, why not get your instrument while working on your commercial? Kill two birds with one stone

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yea that's my fault for not really reading into the commercial regs ahead of time to plan accordingly. I could have ensured some of the stuff we did was notated appropriately for both.
 
Well...my time from the IR worked. Just took my CSEL in November.
 
I think that requirement is only listed because some people decide to get their commercial before their instrument rating and need the hood time.
 
Personal opinion only.

The Hartzell interpretation only requires that the training covers the 61.129 tasks and be logged. No different than the requirement that the tasks required for the instrument rating under 61.65 be performed and logged. Unless the CFII screwed up, a pilot's training of record for the IR is going to have the same task descriptions as required for the commercial.
 
Skid said:
I start my commercial training soon and have been getting my logbook in order to see what I specifically need to knock out per the regs.

The one regulation that has me hung up is the:

"Ten hours of instrument training using a view-limiting device including attitude instrument flying, partial panel skills, recovery from unusual flight attitudes, and intercepting and tracking navigational systems. Five hours of the 10 hours required on instrument training must be in a single engine airplane"​

I've been doing some research on forums to get a general consensus and recently read the Hartzell letter to get an idea of what counts, but I'm still a bit unsure...It seems like most DPEs don't really care, but the letter seems to imply the logbook entry needs to state it's for 61.129.

All the stuff I could find was from 2010 so I'm wondering if there is any other updated information out there or if the common culture says my former time is acceptable. I have 64 hours of simulated IFR training between helicopters and airplanes, so it seems a bit silly to tack on 10 more. But if it's what I have to do I'll do it.

Thanks
Click to expand...

I'm about to do a Comm ride and my DPE wanted 10 hours of my instrument training(i have IR) annotated with 61.129 by original CFII. Since the CFII has moved long ago, an email to him with list of flights(and specific maneuvers required) and his reply with signature "certifying" that all those flights were for 61.129 training is sufficient(according to my flight school).

EDIT: This seems completely silly to me as having IR effectively requires me to complete all that training and there is no difference in Private IR or Commercial IR. This is just a paper exercise for me. But the DPE wants to do it by the book and views FAA's interpretation letter as such.
 
Last edited:
It is silly... the requirements intent is aimed at commercial pilots with no IR.
 
genna said:
I'm about to do a Comm ride and my DPE wanted 10 hours of my instrument training(i have IR) annotated with 61.129 by original CFII. Since the CFII has moved long ago, an email to him with list of flights(and specific maneuvers required) and his reply with signature "certifying" that all those flights were for 61.129 training is sufficient(according to my flight school).

EDIT: This seems completely silly to me as having IR effectively requires me to complete all that training and there is no difference in Private IR or Commercial IR. This is just a paper exercise for me. But the DPE wants to do it by the book and views FAA's interpretation letter as such.
Click to expand...
It is silly. Did he also want to make sure they specifically mentioned "61.65" to be sure the instrument rating was proper? And that all the pre-private tasks specifically mentioned 61.109?

I guess different people interpret interpretations in different ways, but "We are merely clarifying the requirement that the applicant for a commercial pilot certificate provide evidence that they have met the requirements of §61.129" (the exact language from Hartzell) doesn't sound like it is necessary to say "61.129" any more than it is necessary to say "61.65" or "61.109" in entries for primary or instrument training. Post Hartzell, it has become customary for some instructors to do so as an easy way of compliance, and apparently some DPEs are looking for it, but that doesn't mean it is required.
 
genna said:
I'm about to do a Comm ride and my DPE wanted 10 hours of my instrument training(i have IR) annotated with 61.129 by original CFII. Since the CFII has moved long ago, an email to him with list of flights(and specific maneuvers required) and his reply with signature "certifying" that all those flights were for 61.129 training is sufficient(according to my flight school).
Click to expand...

Ridiculous. Just requiring things that aren’t there.

Unit74 said:
It is silly... the requirements intent is aimed at commercial pilots with no IR.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
I don't really want to argue about validity of my DPE opinion. I haven't read the FAA's letter in question. On the face of it this is pretty silly, but it wouldn't be the first silly thing FAA required. This was a pretty easy thing for me to resolve. And I am not going to argue about regulations with a DPE before taking a test with him if it's not affecting me in the least. I wrote my post only to indicate that it is possible that OP is asked to do the same by his DPE. He should be ready for that or verify that he doesn't have to do it with his DPE.
 
genna said:
I don't really want to argue about validity of my DPE opinion. I haven't read the FAA's letter in question.
Click to expand...
Here you go. 2011 Hartzell letter.

You may have intended it as a discussion of what a DPE might do. But DPEs can be wrong too, and any time in forums on any regulatory subject should demonstrate the odds are very high discussion will surround what the rules actually are. Your desire not to argue is commendable, but doesn't stop that.

I'm reminded of the short series of articles in the old Designee Update periodical (dunno if it is still in existence) about holds. It started with an article in which DPEs are informed they cannot fail an applicant for using the "wrong" holding entry so long as they stay within protected airspace. Eventually there was another article on the same subject saying, in essence, "We really mean it! You cannot fail an applicant for using the "wrong" holding entry so long as they stay within protected airspace. So stop doing it!"

On the face of it this is pretty silly, but it wouldn't be the first silly thing FAA required. This was a pretty easy thing for me to resolve. And I am not going to argue about regulations with a DPE before taking a test with him if it's not affecting me in the least. I wrote my post only to indicate that it is possible that OP is asked to do the same by his DPE. He should be ready for that or verify that he doesn't have to do it with his DPE.
Click to expand...
No one should argue with a DPE while taking a test. Even if a DPE is 180 degrees off, the proper response is, "Oh, I didn't know that. Thank you."
 
Thanks for all the input everyone, sounds like it should all count. In the same vein do you think the long xc required during the instrument training would also count for this:

(Edit: The first leg of the IFR xc flight I did was over 100nm)

"One 2-hour cross country flight in a single engine airplane in daytime conditions that consists of a total straight-line distance of more than 100 nautical miles from the original point of departure;"​

Don't want to push my luck per say, but it would be nice to save some money on the relatively pointless crossing country flights with an instructor just sitting there.
 
Skid said:
Thanks for all the input everyone, sounds like it should all count. In the same vein do you think the long xc required during the instrument training would also count for this:

(Edit: The first leg of the IFR xc flight I did was over 100nm)

"One 2-hour cross country flight in a single engine airplane in daytime conditions that consists of a total straight-line distance of more than 100 nautical miles from the original point of departure;"​

Don't want to push my luck per say, but it would be nice to save some money on the relatively pointless crossing country flights with an instructor just sitting there.
Click to expand...
It can. It has never been uncommon for one to work on both at the same time — Jepp even has a syllabus and coursebook that combines the two. It's easier since the FAA dropped the requirement some years back that the commercial dual cross countries are exclusively visual.

The instrument training question was an easy one. The tasks are the same. The key and the challenge for the cross country is that the "areas of operation" for the instrument and the commercial are different. (The FAA uses the “areas of operation” language to differentiate requirements, and it is used both literally and qualitatively — e.g., commercial pilot level tasks are presumed to be qualitatively different from student pilot level tasks.)

Ideally, you and your CFI can come up with a plan that covers “the areas of operation” in 61.65(c), and the “areas of operation” in 61.127(b)(1). That's going to take some creative planning and your CFI's willingness to go on record and say as part of the instrument cross country flight lesson endorsement that it met the requirements of both 61.65 and 61.129. In this case, if I were doing it, I would specifically reference the two sections.
 
I just took my Commercial ride and the DPE was very specific about the 10 hours. The 10 hours must include 1) tracking and intercepting NAV ( VOR). 2) unusual attitude recovery and 3) partial panel. For flight training to count for the commercial it must be annotated 61.129(3)(i). This training can be used to satisfy the the training for 61.65(c) but not the other way around. My DPE was very clear that the FARs make no fallout to this effect YET but rather the FISDO is requiring DPE’s to require the above due to a Letter of Interpretation Dated Dec 17,2010 to Hartzell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top