FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 14 CFR, PART 61 ARRANGED BY SECTION MAINTAINED BY THE PILOT EXAMINER STANDARDIZATION TEAM, AFS-640 Contact: Allan Pinkston phone: (405) 954 - 6472 E-Mail: K.Allan.Pinkston@faa.gov (Please include your phone number on e-mail questions) THE ORIGINAL "Q&A" REFERENCE IS NOTED FOLLOWING EACH (GROUP OF) QUESTION (S) CHANGE NOTICE: REVISION #15, DATE: JUNE 26, 2001 INCORPORATING Q&A #s: 413-442 WITH ALL PREVIOUS Q&As 1 - 412 VERTICAL BAR IN LEFT MARGIN DENOTES CHANGES SINCE: 12/19/2000 CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE TO Part 61 sections: 61.1, 61.23, 61.31, 61.39, 61.43, 61.45, 61.51, 61.58, 61.63, 61.73, 61.75, 61.113, 61.129, 61.157, 61.159, 61.183, 61.193, 61.197. UPDATE YOUR FAQs at http://av-info.faa.gov or http://afs600.faa.gov look under "Other Designee Information" for: FAQ 14 CFR, Part 61 & 141 THE SOURCE OF ANSWERS IS JOHN LYNCH, AFS-840 CERTIFICATION BRANCH, WASHINGTON, DC UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED Disclaimer Statement: The answers provided to the questions in this website are not legal interpretations. Only the FAA's Office of Chief Counsel and Regional Chief Counsel can provide legal interpretations. The FAA's Office of Chief Counsel does not review this website nor does it disseminate legal interpretations through it. However, there are some answers provided in this website where the FAA Office of Chief Counsel's legal interpretations have been reprinted. However, the answers in this website address Frequently Asked Questions on 14 CFR part 61 and represents FAA Flight Standards Service policy as it relates to this regulation. The answers are provided for standardization purposes only. PART 61 QUESTION 1: What is the status of the information in the part 61/141 Q/A? Is it regulatory, an order, AFS policy, FAA HQ policy. ANSWER 1: The authority of the Part 61/141 Q&A website is strictly Flight Standards policy on parts 61 and 141 for standardization purposes. As we all know, only an administrative law judge can establish a legal precedent to make a rule legally binding. Even the FAA Chief Counsel offices at FAA HQ and at the regional offices only issue legal opinions. However, FAA Chief Counsel office legal opinions certainly carries more "weight/authority" than these Q&As on this website have. But only an administrative law judge can issue a legal ruling that establishes a legal precedent that makes the rule legally binding. And then there have been those times where the NTSB may overrule one of their administrative law judge's legal ruling. {q&a-435} 61.1 Applicability & definitions QUESTION: We have a situation where some U.S. pilots and Canadian pilots need flight training to qualify for a type rating in a Canadair 215 (the airplanes are U.S. registered; are used for fighting forest fires; and were built by Bombadier in Canada). The training is going to be conducted here in the United States near Kingman, AZ. The agricultural operator wants to hire the services of a Canadian citizen who holds a Canadian ATP and flight instructor certificate and is a check airman on the Canadair 215 in Canada to provide these U.S. pilots (and the Canadian pilots who will be applying for a U.S. pilot certificate and the CL-21 type rating) the ground and flight training for qualifying for a type rating in a Canadair 215. This Canadian flight instructor does not hold any U.S. pilot or flight instructor certificates. He is strictly a Canadian qualified ATP pilot and flight instructor only. The other problem is this airplane received its type certification from the FAA and Transport Canada just a few years ago, and there are only one or two FAA inspectors qualified to give checkrides in it and there is only one person who is a U.S. citizen who is qualified to give training in the airplane. Can this Canadian flight instructor give the flight training and endorsements required by § 61.63(d)(2) or § 61.157(b)(2), as appropriate, in the United States to these U.S. pilots for the CL-21 type rating? ANSWER: Ref. § 61.1(b)(2)(iii); This is a difficult one and my answer only applies to this specific question and circumstances. My answer to this question is based upon the fact there is only one "authorized instructor" who holds a current and valid U.S. flight instructor certificate with an AME rating and a CL-21 type rating on his pilot certificate and he is not readily available to go to Kingman, AZ to provide this training. However, your question is similar to the situation on what happens when an FAA Flight Standardization Board is certifying a new aircraft and the members of the board (who are FAA personnel/ASIs) have to receive training and checkouts from the manufacturer's test pilots and/or production pilots to qualify in a newly manufactured aircraft. The FAA has to get their personnel qualified to conduct practical tests in these aircraft. When a FAA Flight Standardization Board is certifying a new aircraft there are no qualified "authorized instructors" because it is a brand new aircraft that is in the certification process. So the FAA, in accordance with § 61.1(b)(2)(iii), will issue an authorization to the aircraft manufacturer's pilots to make them "authorized instructors." The only difference here in this specific question is that the "authorized instructor" will be a foreign flight instructor who does not hold any U.S. pilot or flight instructor certificates. He is strictly a Canadian qualified ATP pilot and flight instructor only. This question and situation is not the norm for most training and certification processes of Part 61 for pilot and flight instructor qualifications. And again, my answer only applies to this specific question and circumstances. In accordance with § 61.1(b)(2)(iii), an authorized instructor is ". . . A person authorized by the Administrator to provide ground training or flight training under SFAR No. 58, or part 61, 121, 135, or 142 of this chapter when conducting ground training or flight training in accordance with that authority." Therefore, the FAA may issue an authorization to a person to be an "authorized instructor" to provide ground and flight training. In these kinds of cases, the authorization is issued by the FAA's General Aviation and Commercial Division, AFS-800, Washington, DC or by the Air Transportation Division, AFS-200, Washington, DC, depending on the size of the aircraft (i.e., for general aviation kinds of aircraft the issuing office would be AFS-800 and for air carrier kinds of airplanes the issuing office would be AFS-200). So in this specific question and circumstances, AFS-800 will issue an authorization, in accordance with § 61.1(b)(2)(iii), to make this Canadian flight instructor an "authorized instructor." But someday when there are an adequate number of qualified "authorized instructors" for the CL-215, the FAA will not need to issue an authorization to make somebody an "authorized instructor." Ref. § 61.41(a)(2); Now for the norm, per § 61.41(a)(2), a foreign flight instructor may not give ground and flight training inside the United States. And furthermore, per § 61.41(b), a foreign flight instructor who gives the training outside the United States ". . . is only authorized to give endorsements to show training given." So what this means is, that only a holder of a U.S. flight instructor certificate may give the flight instructor endorsement for the training for a type rating required by § 61.63(d)(2) or § 61.157(b)(2), as appropriate. What the phrase ". . . is only authorized to give endorsements to show training given" means in § 61.41(b) is that the foreign flight instructor can make the endorsement in the pilot's logbook/training record to show the training given by that flight instructor during a training session, but that is all. The foreign flight instructor may NOT give the endorsements required to authorize a person to take a practical test or any of the other endorsements permitted under § 61.195. {q&a-427} QUESTION: Situation, I have a FAA Aviation Safety Inspector who is making application for an addition of a Fairchild 328JET type rating. The instructor who provided the training and endorsement is an instructor for Ozark Air Lines. The training and type rating practical test is through a contract with the FAA and Ozark Air Lines and has been approved and paid for by the FAA. However, the instructor only holds an ATP certificate and does not hold a flight instructor certificate. Is this instructor an "authorized instructor" under §61.1(b)(2)(iii) and is he/she able to provide the training and endorsement required for by §61.157(b)(1) and (2)? ANSWER: Ref. §61.1(b)(2)(iii); Yes, this instructor for Ozark Air Lines would be considered an "authorized instructor" and may provide the training and endorsement for the Fairchild 328JET type rating for the requirements of §61.157(b)(1) and (2) to our FAA ASI. I coordinated this answer with Thomas K. Toula, Manager, Air Carrier Training Branch, AFS-210, Washington, DC, and he agrees that since this pilot for Ozark Air Lines is an approved instructor for Ozark Air Lines that makes him/her an authorized instructor as: "(iii) A person authorized by the Administrator to provide ground training or flight training under SFAR No. 58, or part 61, 121, 135, or 142 of this chapter when conducting ground training or flight training in accordance with that authority." [i.e., §61.1(b)(2)(iii)] Therefore, the Ozark Air Lines pilot is an authorized instructor and may provide the training and endorsement required by §61.157(b)(1) and (2) [and also for §61.63(d)(2) and (3), if appropriate] to our FAA ASI. According to Mr. Toula, this question has come up before and AFS-210 has answered it verbally this way and has permitted it. {q&a-394} QUESTION: Explain the meaning of the phrases: a. Does the meaning of "24 calendar months" mean two years, (e.g. January 15, 1997, to January 15, 1999)? b. Does the meaning of "24 calendar months" mean 24 unit months, (e.g. regardless of the day in January 1997, to January 31, 1999)? c. How to interpret the meaning of "within the preceding 24 months?" d. How to interpret the meaning of "24 months after or from?" ANSWER: Ref. §61.19(b) and §61.58(g); Letter of legal interpretation from the FAA's Office of Chief Counsel addressing these questions are as follows: Mr. Sean Conlin Quality Assurance Pan American Airways Corp. 14 Aviation Avenue Portsmouth, NH 03801 Dear Mr. Conlin: I am responding to your letter dated September 15, 1999, to the Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), regarding the meaning of "within the preceding 24 calendar months." You state in your letter that two interpretations exist within the industry regarding the meaning of "24 calendar months." One interpretation is that it means two years, e.g. January 15, 1997, to January 15, 1999. The second interpretation is that it means 24 unit months, e.g. regardless of the day in January 1997, to January 31, 1999. You state that your local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) believes the second interpretation, 24 unit months, to be correct. You ask this office to confirm this before you change your policy. The term "24 calendar months" as used throughout the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR) means 24 unit months. The term "24 months" means two years." If you are required to comply with a regulation under 14 CFR "within the preceding 24 calendar months," you have from the beginning of the 24th calendar month of the month in which you are required to comply. For example, §91.411 (14 CFR §91.411) requires certain altimeter system and altitude reporting equipment tests and inspections to have been accomplished "within the preceding 24 months" before a person may operate an airplane or helicopter in controlled airspace under IFR. Therefore, if you want to operate an airplane in controlled airspace under IFR on January 15, 2000, you must have, since January 1, 1998, met the requirements of §91.411(a). If you are required to comply with a regulation under 14 CFR "24 calendar months after or from," you have until the end of the 24th month after the month in which the time began to run. For example, §61.19 (14 CFR §61.19) provides an expiration date for a student pilot certificate of 24 calendar months from the month in which the student pilot certificate is issued. Therefore, if you obtain a student pilot certificate on January 2, 2000, it expires on January 31, 2002. Please note that an additional "grace calendar month" may be provided to a person for purposes of complying with a particular section under 14 CFR [e.g. 14 CFR §61.58(g)]. If you are required to comply with a regulation under 14 CFR "within the preceding 24 months" or "24 months after or from," you have from two years before the date you are required to comply or two years after the date the time began to run, respectively. For example, if a regulation under 14 CFR requires you to meet certain requirements "within the preceding 24 months" before you can operate an aircraft, then you must have accomplished the requirements with the two years before the date you want to operate the aircraft. Therefore, if you want to operate an aircraft on January 19, 2000, you would have to have met the requirements within the period of time starting on January 19, 1998. I hope this satisfactorily answers your question. Sincerely, Donald P. Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulation Division {q&a-370} QUESTION: A part 135 operator in Colorado bought a used Puma AS-330J through the manufacturer (Aerospatiale / American Eurocopter / Eurocopter, SA). This is the only N registered Puma in the U. S. It is an early 1980-vintage helicopter, like the Sikorsky S-62. He sent two of his pilots down to Texas to get a type rating in it and turns out that the instructor for American Eurocopter is a French national who only holds a French ATP and French flight instructor certificate. He only now holds a US restricted private pilot certificate. FAR 61.41 says that the instruction given would only be valid if given outside the U. S. An ASW-200 regional ASI told the POI that this French guy was the only one who could give instruction in the Puma, so the POI sent him an LOA authorizing him to give the Part 61 instruction. The flight training is scheduled to begin next week. An ASW-200 ASI sat in on the ground school to get refreshed in the Puma, since he's rated in it, and we were planning on asking for an LOA so the ASI can give the type checks. But we're not there yet, since I'm not sure that the Part 61 instruction is valid or not? ANSWER: Ref. §61.1(b)(2)(iii); This French citizen would first have to be issued a Letter of Operational Authority (LOOA) by the local Flight Standards District Office and that LOOA must specifically state that he is authorized to provide ground and flight training in this AS-330J helicopter and is authorized to give the required endorsements for showing training given and recommendation for applicants to take the AS-330J type rating practical test for an additional type rating. Then this French citizen would be considered an "authorized instructor" as per §61.1(b)(2)(iii), and authorized to provide the applicant(s) the necessary training and endorsements for the additional type rating practical test for the AS-330J type rating. {q&a-318} CORRECTION: An error in the original issuance of Q&A-172 indicated that all instrument instruction given by an instrument instructor in flight simulator/training device or PCATD could be used toward ATP requirements. This is not true. QUESTION 1: If an applicant has 1,200 hour of flight time, and meets all the other requirements for the ATP certificate, (instrument time, cross-country time, night time etc.), can the applicant use the time they have accrued as an 'authorized instructor in a flight training device' (as per 61.1) towards the 300 hours still needed to fulfill the 1,500 hour requirement? ANSWER 1: Ref. §§61.1(b)(12)(iii) & 61.159(a)(5); No, the aeronautical experience requirements listed in §61.159 require "flight time." The terms "pilot time" and "flight time" are not synonymous. A flight instructor who is merely serving as an authorized instructor sitting outside the compartment of an flight training device or at a console of a flight simulator, or instructing using a PCATD can NOT log this time as pilot time for the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements of §61.159(a) except in limited amounts as specifically allowed. Now as per §61.159(a)(5), it does permit the crediting of ". . . Not more than 100 hours of the total aeronautical experience requirements of paragraph (a) of this section may be obtained in a flight simulator or flight training device that represents an airplane, provided the aeronautical experience was obtained in an approved course conducted by a training center certificated under part 142 of this chapter . . ." Or as per §61.159(a)(3)(i) and (ii), you can log 25 or 50 hours, as appropriate, in a flight simulator or flight training device. But again, as per §61.159(a)(5), ". . . Not more than 100 hours of the total. . ." Most instructors will have acquired these credits as a part of their own training received rather than while giving training. And as for the provisions contained in §61.1(b)(12)(iii): (12) Pilot time means that time in which a person-- * * * (iii) Gives training as an authorized instructor in an aircraft, flight simulator, or flight training device. The intent here is the instructor would need to occupy a pilot station. Never was the rule [i.e., §61.1(b)(12)(iii)] intended to permit the time to be logged while the instructor is sitting at some console or sitting on a chair outside the flight training device compartment. {q&a-172} QUESTION 11: What is the FAA's definition of the terms "instrument flight training" [found in §61.65(d)(2)(i)], "instrument flight instruction" [found in §61.51(g)(2)], and "flight instruction" [found in §61.77(b)(2)(iii)]? The terms "flight training" and "instrument training" are both defined in 61.1(b) but the other terms do not appear to be defined in Part 61. What do they mean? ANSWER 11: Ref. §61.1(b)(10); The only reference on this subject is the definition contained in §61.1(b)(10) and that term is "Instrument training" and is defined as meaning ". . . that time in which instrument training is received from an authorized instructor under actual or simulated instrument conditions." The term "flight instruction" in §61.77(b)(2)(iii) was mistakenly interchanged for "flight training" when drafting the rule. A rulemaking document will correct this error. {q&a-249} QUESTION: Can cross country legs of less than 50nm count toward the Part 135 requirements? ANSWER: Yes, flights including a landing at a point less than 50 nautical miles from and other than the original point of departure can count as a cross country and can be logged as a cross country for Part 135 operations in accordance with §61.1(b)(3)(i). There are no qualifying distance requirements for a cross country in Part 135. As long as we are NOT talking about an APPLICANT seeking a private pilot, commercial pilot, or airline transport pilot certificate, or an instrument rating, §61.1(b)(3)(i) applies. {q&a-190} QUESTION: What about a simulator instructor that was instructing from the console of a level D 747 simulator at an approved 142 center and a part 61 CFII that had an approved PC and was giving his friend instruction at home in the kitchen. Under 61.1(b)(12)(iii) can they both log pilot time? ANSWER: Reference §61.1(b)(12)(iii), YES, that time an authorized instructor gives training in an aircraft, flight simulator, or flight training device may be credited as pilot time. Note, "pilot time" and "flight time" are NOT synonymous. {q&a-108} QUESTION 2: Does the 50 NM landing requirement apply to all dual cross country training? ANSWER 2: Reference §§61.1(b)(3)(ii): Yes, each dual cross-country training flight must include AT LEAST ONE landing more than 50 NM from the original point of departure. {q&a-101} QUESTION: What is the definition or an interpretation of the term "original point of departure" contained in §61.129(b)(3)(iii). ANSWER: There is no definition of the term "original point of departure" in Parts 1 or 61 or any other FAA publication. Each situation is unique and a definitive definition of "original point of departure" that will cover ALL circumstances and situations is not practicable AND NOT POSSIBLE. Departure for the purpose of conducting a "round robin" cross-country flight is a normal scenario where "original point of departure" and destination are the same. See {q&a-60} ANSWER 6: The "original point of departure" does not change with a new day or delay. Other examples include: 1. The purpose of repositioning (emphasis: purpose of repositioning) the aircraft to another airport, to start a cross-country flight in order to meet the 250 nautical miles cross-country requirements of section 61.129(a)(4)(i). 2. A person departs the Los Angeles International Airport on day 1 for the purpose of conducting a cross country flight to the San Jose Airport (emphasis purpose of conducting a cross country flight to the San Jose Airport) and remains overnight. On day 2, that person departs San Jose Airport for the purpose of conducting a cross country flight to the Lake Tahoe Airport (emphasis purpose of conducting a cross-country flight to the Lake Tahoe Airport) and remains overnight. On day 3, that person departs Lake Tahoe Airport for the purpose of conducting a cross country flight to the Los Angeles Intl. Airport (emphasis purpose of conducting a cross-country flight to the Los Angeles Intl. Airport) for termination. Which airport is the "original point of departure?" All 3 airports would qualify as the "original point of departure." 3. Now in a similar situation, but slightly different, a person departs the Los Angeles International Airport for the purpose of conducting a round-robin (without ever landing enroute) cross-country flight from the Los Angeles International Airport to the San Diego, CA 030( radial at 12 DME to the Yuma, AZ 350( radial at 10 DME and then returns to the Los Angeles Intl. Airport (emphasis purpose of conducting a "round-robin" cross-country flight). Which airport is the "original point of departure?" The Los Angeles International Airport is the "original point of departure". But this cross country flight will not qualify for you applicants in pursuit of a private pilot certificate, commercial pilot certificate, or an instrument rating. However, if this flight were conducted by a pilot who already holds a commercial pilot certificate, the flight is creditable for the ATP certificate cross-country requirement. Adherence to these strict definitions of cross country and the "original point of departure" is only necessary when the purpose is for crediting cross country aeronautical experience for the furtherance of a pilot certificate and rating. Cross country aeronautical experience acquired in pursuit of a private pilot certificate, commercial pilot certificate, and an instrument rating must meet the requirements of §61.1(b)(3)(ii) or (iii) with a landing beyond 50 nautical miles for airplanes or 25 nautical miles for rotorcraft from the original point of departure. Cross country aeronautical experience acquired in pursuit of an airline transport pilot certificate (except rotorcraft category) must meet the requirements of §61.1(b)(3)(iv) and military pilots' cross country aeronautical experience is addressed in §61.1(b)(3)(v). If the cross country is NOT being utilized for the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience for the furtherance of a pilot certificate, then that cross country flight time may be logged in accordance with §61.1(b)(3)(i). The time logged in a flight simulator or flight training device CANNOT be credited toward meeting the cross country aeronautical experience. §61.1(b)(3) states in part, "time acquired during a FLIGHT. . ." and ". . . Conducted in an appropriate AIRCRAFT" Consequently, the time logged in a flight simulator or flight training device cannot be credited toward meeting the cross country aeronautical experience. {q&a-98} QUESTION: With the new definition of creditable cross country time in 61.1, an ATP applicant who credited cross country time under the old undefined policy (i.e., no distance requirement) prior to August 4, 1997 does that time still count? ANSWER: Yes. If the time accrued under the old rule prior to August 4, 1997 was valid, then that time remains valid and may be counted as cross country time even after August 4, 1997. However beginning August 4, 1997, any newly performed cross country time (performed on or after the date of August 4, 1997) must meet the new 50 NM distance requirement per §61.1(b)(3)(iv). {q&a-33 question # 1};{q&a-40 question # 3};{q&a-8 question #4} QUESTION 1: Is there a discrepancy between §§61.1(b)(3)(ii) vs. 61.109(a)(5)(ii)? In §61.1(b)(3)(ii) cross country is ". . . more than 50 nautical miles . . ." and in §61.109(a)(5)(ii) cross country appears to be ". . . at least 50 nautical miles . . ." ANSWER 1: §61.1(b)(3)(ii) is the overall rule for defining cross country for the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements (except for a rotorcraft category rating) for a private pilot certificate. However, §61.109(a)(5)(ii) is a stand alone rule that requires a private pilot applicant to conduct a cross country that is ". . . . at least 150 nautical miles total distance, with full-stop landings at a minimum of three points, and one segment of the flight consisting of a straight-line distance of at least 50 nautical miles between the takeoff and landing locations." {q&a-42} QUESTION: What are the qualifications to be an "authorized instructor" to give the ground training required for the additional training high performance airplane qualification [see §61.31(g)(1)(i)]? ANSWER: The rules that govern the answer to your question are contained in §61.1(b)(2) and §61.193. In answer to your specific question, the instructor who gives the ground training required by §61.31(g)(1)(i), may be either a: (1) US certified flight instructor who holds an airplane single engine or multiengine ratings, as appropriate, and: (i) Has received the one time endorsement that certifies the instructor is proficient to operate a high performance airplane; or (ii) Has logged flight time as pilot in command of a high-performance airplane, or in an approved flight simulator or approved flight training device that is representative of a high-performance airplane prior to August 4, 1997. (2) US certified ground instructor who holds a basic or advanced rating and has received an endorsement from another authorized instructor who certifies the instructor is proficient to give ground training on high performance airplane. {q&a-44} QUESTION 6: Is the "original point of departure" subject to change if there is an overnight, extended stay, or the aircraft is left for repair and the pilot returns later to continue the cross-country or bring it home? Does "original point of departure" change with a new day? ANSWER 6: The "original point of departure" does not change with a new day or delay. {q&a-60} 61.3 Requirements for certificates, ratings, & authorizations QUESTION: The Botswana DCA is referring to an ICAO document I have not seen, which allegedly states that a foreign registered aircraft may only be flown if the registering country has no objection. The only document I can think of may be referring to commercial operations, however as a private pilot license there is no prohibitive ruling in the Botswana air laws concerning this and as Botswana is an ICAO member, it would appear that the US FAR 61.3(a) clearly demonstrates that the US regulations accept a current certificate from the country on a US airplane operating in that country. Can I operate as PIC with private pilot license in Botswana on a US registered airplane within Botswana and not breach any FAR's in doing this? ANSWER: Ref. § 61.3(a); Per 14 CFR §61.3(a), it states, in pertinent part, "(a) Pilot certificate. . . . . However, when the aircraft is operated within a foreign country, a current pilot license issued by the country in which the aircraft is operated may be used." So, the answer is yes, § 61.3(a) permits you to exercise your Botswana private pilot license in Botswana to fly a US registered airplane and that would be in compliance with § 61.3(a). {q&a-409} QUESTION: Is the pilot who is serving as a "Safety Pilot" required to hold a current medical certificate even if the "Safety Pilot" is not going to act as the PIC? ANSWER: Ref. §61.3(c); Yes, the "Safety Pilot" is required to hold a current medical certificate. In accordance with §61.3(c), ". . . a person may not act as pilot in command OR IN ANY OTHER CAPACITY AS A REQUIRED PILOT FLIGHT CREWMEMBER of an aircraft, under a certificate issued to that person under this part, unless that person has a current and appropriate medical certificate that has been issued under part 67 of this chapter . . ." {q&a-232} QUESTION: I contacted Jeppesen and was told the CFI could use a copy of his certificate and a copy of the FAA form 8710-1 during the renewal process, and if questioned concerning this, to reply that his certificate was in the process of being renewed by Jeppesen. Will this work since FAR 61.3(d)(1) requires: "have that certificate in that person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft when exercising the privileges of that flight instructor certificate?" ANSWER: Ref. §61.3(d)(1); Yes, a copy of his old CFI certificate and a copy of the completed FAA form 8710-1 during the processing period is acceptable. But the completed copy of the FAA form 8710-1 is not even necessary. This policy is allowed in the preamble, of the final rule correction document that was issued in the Federal Register on July 30, 1997, (62 FR 40888; Amdt. No. 61-103) which states: "with the phrase under paragraph (d) "other documentation acceptable to the Administrator" would permit a flight instructor to use a copy of the completed application for renewal to meet the requirements of that paragraph. However, the FAA has determined that the latter document is not necessary. Therefore, a copy of a graduation certificate from a CFI refresher course, without the application for renewal, is acceptable documentation for the purpose of meeting the requirements of paragraph (d)." {q&a-178} 61.4 Flight simulators & training devices QUESTION 1: What is a PCATD? ANSWER 1: The terms PCATD stands for a "Personal Computer-Based Aviation Training Device." It is a personal computer-based simulation package that consists of flight simulation software and hardware which has been determined to meet requirements as approved by AFS-800 and outlined in Advisory Circular (AC) No. 61-126, "Qualification and Approval of Computer-Based Aviation Training Devices". This AC No. 61-126 establishes acceptable criteria under which instrument aeronautical experience gained in a PCATD may be credited toward an instrument rating. QUESTION 2: What is the regulatory authority for the use of a PCATD? ANSWER 2: Ref. §61.4(c); which states "The Administrator may approve a device other than a flight simulator or flight training device for specific purposes." QUESTION 3: What is involved in gaining FAA's qualification and approval of a PCATD? ANSWER 3: A manufacturer who desires to gain qualification and approval of a PCATD prepares and submits a PCATD Qualification Guide for the device representing specific single-engine and/or multiengine airplane modules in accordance with the guidance outlined in AC 61-126. This Qualification Guide is evaluated by AFS-800 to determine its acceptability in meeting the applicable parameters stated in the AC 61-126. If the PCATD is found to be acceptable by the desk audit, an on-site evaluation of the device is conducted. When the PCATD is found to meet the requirements of AC 61-126, a letter is issued by AFS-800 that states the PCATD's qualification and approval of replicating specific airplane modules. Any significant changes made to the PCATD's software/hardware combinations or the addition of airplane modules by the manufacturer requires submission of an updated Qualification Guide that must be further evaluated and approved by AFS-800. QUESTION 4: What are the requirements for using a qualified and approved PCATD under Parts 61 and 141? ANSWER 4: NOTE that the FAA has NOT AUTHORIZED the use of PCATD's for conducting practical tests nor for accomplishing recency of experience requirements. Use of a PCATD: (a) Must be used in connection with an integrated ground and flight instrument training curriculum. This means, after the procedure rehearsal using the PCATD, the curriculum calls for motor skill rehearsal in an aircraft, flight simulator, or flight training device. (b) May be used to provide a MAXIMUM of 10 hours of instrument training that may be creditable toward an Instrument Rating in the appropriate category and class of aircraft, provided the PCATD is representative of that category and class of aircraft. (c) May be used for training, provided the training in the PCATD was given by an authorized instructor [i.e., §61.1(b)(2)]. (d) May be used for instrument training, provided the training given consists of the procedural maneuvers listed in Appendix 1 of AC 61-126. (e) May be used under Part 61, and the curriculum used need not be approved by FAA , but it must meet the scope and content of a curriculum as if it were approved by FAA. (f) May be used under Part 141, but the curriculum must be structured to incorporate the PCATD and used in a curriculum that has been approved by FAA QUESTION 5: How should aeronautical experience gained in a PCATD be logged in a pilot's logbook and/or training record? ANSWER 5: To be creditable under Parts 61 or 141, aeronautical experience gained in an approved and qualified PCATD may not exceed 10 hour of instrument training and should be logged as "Simulated Instrument Time," and "Training Time Received" in a PCATD. It shall NOT be logged as flight time. Again, note that the FAA has not authorized the use of PCATD's for conducting practical tests nor for accomplishing recency of experience requirements. {q&a-269} QUESTION 4: Will flight schools still be permitted to use old ground trainers previously permitted prior to the issuance of this final rule and the definition in § 141.41? Can students still receive training credit when they are performing the training in these old ground trainers? ANSWER 4: Yes, per §61.4(b), as long as these old ground trainers were approved for use in the school's approved Part 141 course prior to August 1, 1996, can be shown to function as originally designed, and provided it is used for the same purposes for which it was originally accepted or approved and only to the extent of such acceptance or approval. And yes the students will receive the same credit. {q&a-45}; {q&a-7 question #11} 61.5 Certificates & ratings issued under part 61 INFORMATION: Implementation of the new Parts 61 and 141 final rule and specifically the new powered-lift rating. Manager, General Aviation and Commercial Division, AFS-800 All Regional Flight Standards Division Managers, AFS-200, AFS-600, AFS-700, AEU-200, and AAC-950 On August 4, 1997, the new Parts 61 and 141 became effective. Recently, it was discovered that one of our offices have attempted to issue a powered-lift rating. A powered-lift is defined in Title 14 of Part 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations as: Powered-lift means a heavier-than-air aircraft capable of vertical takeoff, vertical landing, and low speed flight that depends principally on engine-driven lift devices or engine thrust for lift during these flight regimes and on nonrotating airfoil(s) for lift during horizontal flight. However, at this time there are no US civilian certificated powered-lift aircraft. Additionally, we do not have an approved Practical Test Standard to conduct practical tests in a powered-lift. Therefore, until a US civilian certificated powered-lift is established and also an approved Practical Test Standard is established to conduct practical tests in a powered-lift, no powered-lift ratings will be issued. Sincerely, Louis C. Cusimano {q&a-87} QUESTION: A flight school in Texas is telling customers they cannot obtain a type rating in small helicopters any longer. Is this correct? I am asking because the preamble for part 61 references aircraft type ratings in Advisory Circular 61-89D and this AC contains the applicable type ratings for small helicopters that can be issued to holders of an ATP. Reference 14 CFR part 119.25 (a), and 135.243 (a) (2) you do need "an ATP pilot certificate, with appropriate type ratings and instrument rating" for "Interstate, Commuter Operations". ANSWER: Yes, they are correct. Reference §61.5(b)(5). Notice section 135.243(a)(2) states, in pertinent part, " . . . appropriate type ratings, . . ." Because of the change to §61.5(b)(5), there are NO "appropriate type ratings" for small helicopters any longer. The only "appropriate type ratings" are for "Large aircraft other than lighter-than-air aircraft" and "Other aircraft type ratings specified by the Administrator through the aircraft type certification procedures" The requirement for type ratings in small aircraft (i.e., small helicopters) was deleted. Persons who hold type ratings in small helicopters, may retain the ratings. We won't take the ratings away from those who already hold the ratings. {q&a-15}; {q&a-37} 61.13 Issuance of certificates, ratings & authorizations QUESTION: Two CFI renewal files were returned to us because the "Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application" (FAA Form 8710-1) did not have the DOT emblem printed on the form. The application forms were printed using the FAA Approved Forms Flow Software. All the other information was correct in the renewal packages. If Forms Flow Software is approved by the FAA and available on the AVR Web Site to use for renewal purposes and if all the information was correct on the application, except the DOT emblem is not printed on the form; then, would it be possible to waive the requirement of the DOT Emblem? ANSWER: Ref. § 61.13(a); No, it is not possible to waive the requirement of the DOT emblem on the "Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application" (FAA Form 8710-1). I checked the Flight Standards Home page just now. The "Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application" (FAA Form 8710-1) is directly connected to AFS-650's forms page. The "Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application" (FAA Form 8710-1) does have the DOT seal on it. There was a period of time when the form flow application did not show the DOT seal. However, it has been corrected and Flight Standards Home page now has the official "Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application" (FAA Form 8710-1) corrected on its home page with the DOT seal. If you need updated form flow software, please contact AFS-650, (314)890-4847 and that office will be glad to help you. There are several companies marketing their own application products and some of those applications do not meet the standards of our "Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application" (FAA Form 8710-1). We are rejecting these applications, in accordance with § 61.13(a) which requires ". . . must make that application on a form and in a manner acceptable to the Administrator." The official "Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application" (FAA Form 8710-1) must have the DOT seal. {q&a-397} QUESTION 3: Part 61.83(c), 61.96(b)(2), 61.103(c), 61.123(b) and 61.153(b) all provide relief from the requirement to be able to read, speak, write, and understand English if the reason is medical. The regulatory provision permits the administrator to add operating limitations to the airman's pilot certificate. The way these provisions are written and with the lack of handbook guidelines on how the field inspector is to apply this "medical determination", the field inspector is required to make "medical determinations" that he may not be qualified to make. This concern could be solved with handbook information or even a handbook bulletin that would provide some guidance to the field inspector. ANSWER 3: Ref. §61.13, §61.83(c), §61.96(b)(2), §61.103(c), §61.123(b), and §61.153(b); Medical limitations where it states ". . . If the applicant is unable to meet one of these requirements due to medical reasons, then the Administrator may place such operating limitations on that applicant's pilot certificate as are necessary for the safe operation of the aircraft." Well, there is some degree of guidance in FAA Order 8700.1, Chapter 27. However, ". . . medical reasons . . ." can be a number of reasons. In placing ". . . such operating limitations on that applicant's pilot certificate as are necessary for the safe operation of the aircraft . . ." if the ASI needs guidance as to what operating limitations should be placed on the pilot certificate then the Regional Flight Surgeon's office should be consulted for advice or with us here in AFS-840. However, we pay ASIs, not just for their piloting skills, but for their ability to exercise common sense. As for example, when testing an applicant with hearing impairments, COMMON SENSE would dictate that an operating limitation should be placed on the person's pilot certificate that it is not valid in airspace requiring radio communications. The pilot could only fly in such airspace with a qualified person acting as PIC on board to hear air traffic instructions. Or if the applicant has a missing leg(s), then COMMON SENSE would dictate that an operating limitation should be placed on the person's pilot certificate that requires the pilot to have the aircraft properly equipped and that specific manufacture's equipment should be identified on the pilot certificate. COMMON SENSE is a must in handling these situations. {q&a-309} QUESTION: Per FAA Order 8710.3C, Fig. 17-1, page 17-6, it seems to require than ACRs check boxes 2, 3, and 4 in the "Designated Examiner's Report" section of the FAA Form 8710-1 application. In the case of some flight instructor refresher clinic (FIRC) out-study programs that are being performed over the Internet, an ACR would not even see the applicant's logbook. In fact, I would venture to guess that most flight instructor refresher clinics, even those that the applicant appear in person) do not bring their logbook. So, how can ACRs be expected to check box 2 that states "I have personally reviewed this applicant's pilot logbook, and certify that the individual meets the pertinent requirements of FAR 61 for the pilot certificate or rating sought????" Or do we want to make a statement that FIRC attendees must furnish the appropriate record or a statement to show that block 2 does not need to be checked when an airman graduates from an FIRC until FAA Order 8710.3 can get changed? ANSWER: Ref. §61.13(a) and FAA Order 8710.3C, Fig. 17-1, page 17-6; I agree that the example shown in FAA Order 8710.3C, Fig. 17-1, page 17-6 would require an ACR to, in effect, perjure themselves by checking box 2. The example (Fig. 17-1, page 17-6) is a mistake. In discussing this matter with AFS-840, ACRs should discontinue checking box 2 unless the ACR has personally reviewed the applicant's pilot logbook. Therefore, until FAA Orders 8710.3C and 8700.1 get changed, ACRs will only be required to check boxes 3 and 4. As for the words ". . . have personally tested . . ." would not be applicable to an ACR's duties, but the ACR can and should be able to comply with the other portion of that statement "I have personally . . . or verified this applicant in accordance with pertinent procedures and standards with the result indicated below." {q&a-306} QUESTION: If a student is color blind, will he/she be restricted from flying at night? Or will the person never be able to get a pilot certificate? If there is simply a limitation, does the limitation go on the person's pilot certificate or on the person's medical certificate? ANSWER: Reference §61.13(b). This person must have all the night training required per §§61.109. However, the use of the certificate will be appropriately limited per Order 8700.1, Volume 2, Page 27-6, Paragraph 5.G or H. The "night flying prohibited" limitation goes on the person's medical certificate when issued because of the medically documented deficiency per 61.13(b). {q&a-218 question #3}; {q&a-60 question #21} QUESTION: FAA Inspectors have, in the past, made a determination concerning reading, speaking, and understanding the English language, but not relating to a medical limitation. Is it the intent of these rules that refer to the phrase "medical reason" that the medical reason be identified based on the Medical Examiner's physical or is it the intent that an Operations Inspector identify the medical reason and place an appropriate limitation on the Pilot Certificate. Each language requirement in §§61.83(c), 61.96(b)(2), 61.103(c), 61.123(b) and 61.153(b) refer to making a medical decision and placing an appropriate limitation on a Pilot Certificate. ANSWER: Ref. §61.13(b) as it applies to §§61.83(c), 61.96(b)(2), 61.103(c), 61.123(b), 61.153(b), 61.183(b), and 61.213(a)(2). It is expected that an FAA Inspector identify, consider, and evaluate the "medical reason" at the time he or she issues the pilot certificate. This "medical reason" should appear on the applicant's medical certificate in accordance with §6113(b)(ii) as a limitation. The term "medical reason" is contained in the text of §§61.83(c), 61.96(b)(2), 61.103(c), 61.123(b) and 61.153(b) and additionally in §61.183(b) and §61.213(a)(2) and states "If the applicant is unable to meet one of these requirements due to medical reasons, then the Administrator may place such operating limitations on that applicant's pilot certificate as are necessary for the safe operation of the aircraft" (e.g., Not valid for flights requiring the use of a radio). This limitation may only appear on the pilot's medical. The purpose of establishing "medical reasons" in the rule language was to make allowances for persons with medical disabilities such as hearing and speech disabilities due to medical reasons. It was never the intent of this rule to be discriminatory. This is the purpose of allowing operating limitations on an applicant's pilot certificate as found necessary for the safe operation of the aircraft. {q&a-204} 61.23 Medical certificates: Requirement & duration QUESTION: A multiengine pilot recently received about 100 hours of flight instruction to become proficient in the Piper Aerostar. Since all of his previous multi time had been in a Seminole, one of the endorsements the pilot received during the flight instruction was a high performance checkout. Subsequently, the pilot learned that the flight instructor did not have a valid medical certificate. The flight instructor was certified and current in the airplane. He simply didn't have a medical certificate and could not function as a PIC or a required crew member. Once discovering the CFI didn't have a medical certificate, the pilot believed that perhaps all of the endorsements he received, even the flight instruction he had logged, would be invalid. Is that the case? ANSWER: Ref. §61.23(a)(3)(iv) and (b)(5) and §61.31(f); Neither the endorsements nor the flight training received would become invalid just because the flight instructor did not have a current medical certificate. No place in §61.31(f) does it qualify the endorsement or the flight training must be given by an authorized instructor who holds a current medical certificate. Per §61.31(f)(1)(i) it only requires that the ground and flight training be given by an authorized instructor. And per §61.1(b)(2), it only defines what is an "authorized instructor." Again there, there is no qualifier that an authorized instructor must hold a current medical certificate. Nor in §§ 61.193 and 61.195 does it require the authorized instructor must hold a medical certificate. Only in §61.23(a)(3)(iv) does it establish the medical certification requirements for a flight instructor. However, the flight instructor will probably be getting a letter of investigation to inquire why he/she was serving as a required crewmember/PIC without holding at least a current medical certificate. {q&a-438} QUESTION 1: Do the rules permit a flight instructor to give flight training in an airplane and receive compensation for it when that flight instructor only holds a third class medical certificate? ANSWER 1: Ref. § 61.23(a)(3)(iv); The answer is yes, a flight instructor who holds a valid and current 3rd class medical certificate may give flight and ground training and be compensated for it. In the preamble of the parts 61 and 141 final rule that was published in the Federal Register on April 4, 1997 (62 FR 16220-16367) when the FAA revised the entire Part 61, the FAA stated the following in the Federal Register on page 16242 in response to 3rd class medical certificates for flight instructors: "With respect to the holding of medical certificates by a flight instructor, the FAA has determined that the compensation a certificated flight instructor receives for flight instruction is not compensation for piloting the aircraft, but rather is compensation for the instruction. A certificated flight instructor who is acting as pilot in command or as a required flight crewmember and is receiving compensation for his or her flight instruction is only exercising the privileges of a private pilot. A certificated flight instructor who is acting as pilot in command or as a required flight crewmember and receiving compensation for his or her flight instruction is not carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire, nor is he or she, for compensation or hire, acting as pilot in command of an aircraft. Therefore, because a certificated flight instructor who is acting as pilot in command or as a required flight crewmember and is receiving compensation for his or her flight instruction is exercising the privileges of a private pilot, he or she only needs to hold a third-class medical certificate." QUESTION 2: Do the rules permit a flight instructor to give flight training and receive compensation for it when that flight instructor does not hold a current medical certificate? ANSWER 2: § 61.23(b)(5); In accordance with § 61.23(b)(5), the answer is yes a flight instructor who does not hold a medical certificate may give flight and ground training and be compensated for it. In the preamble of the parts 61 and 141 final rule that was published in the Federal Register on April 4, 1997 (62 FR 16220-16367) when the FAA revised the entire Part 61, the FAA stated the following in the Federal Register on page 16242 in response to whether a medical certificate is required for a flight instructor to give ground and flight training: " With respect to the holding of medical certificates by a flight instructor, the FAA has determined that the compensation a certificated flight instructor receives for flight instruction is not compensation for piloting the aircraft, but rather is compensation for the instruction. A certificated flight instructor who is acting as pilot in command or as a required flight crewmember and is receiving compensation for his or her flight instruction is only exercising the privileges of a private pilot. A certificated flight instructor who is acting as pilot in command or as a required flight crewmember and receiving compensation for his or her flight instruction is not carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire, nor is he or she, for compensation or hire, acting as pilot in command of an aircraft. . . . In this same regard, the FAA has determined that a certificated flight instructor on board an aircraft for the purpose of providing flight instruction, who does not act as pilot in command or function as a required flight crewmember, is not performing or exercising pilot privileges that would require him or her to possess a valid medical certificate under the FARs." {q&a-429} QUESTION: I have situation where a student pilot is applying for a private pilot certificate-airplane single engine land. His student pilot certificate expired nine months ago, but the 3rd class medical portion of the student pilot certificate is still current because he is under 40 years of age. Do I reissue the student pilot certificate prior to administering the practical test for the private pilot certificate-airplane single engine land rating? Does the aeronautical experience that was obtained after the student pilot certificate expired now becomes invalid since the student did it on an expired student pilot certificate? ANSWER: Ref. §61.19(b) and §61.23(c )(3)(ii)(A); Reissue a student pilot certificate to the applicant and perform the practical test. And the answer is no, the aeronautical experience does not become invalid. That time is creditable. The disconnect between the duration of the student pilot certificate and the medical certificate duration was a bureaucratic mistake of the FAA's. When §61.23(c )(3)(ii)(A) was issued, we should have revised §61.19(b). We have since noticed that mistake and that revision is already in an NPRM that is being developed for the next round of refining changes to Part 61. {q&a-313} QUESTION: Is an airman who serves as safety pilot in accordance with 91.109(b) required to have a current medical certificate in their possession, and indeed, be medically qualified even if the "Safety Pilot" is not going to act as the PIC? ANSWER: YES. Reference §61.3(c)(1). The safety pilot is a required crew member per 91.109(b) and is therefore required to hold at least a current 3rd class medical certificate per §61.3(c)(1) even if he/she is not acting as the PIC. {q&a-293}; {q&a-232} QUESTION 1: What are the medical requirements for CFI and do we need to get information out to clarify requirements? ANSWER 1: The medical requirements for the CFI are covered in §61.23. In fact, ALL medical certification requirements are covered in §61.23. QUESTION 2: What class of medical certificate is needed to take the CFI practical test? ANSWER 2: Assuming the CFI applicant will be PIC during the practical test, at least a 3rd class medical certificate is required. Review the §§61.23(a)(3)(iv) and 61.39(a)(4). However, IF a designated pilot examiner AGREES to act as the PIC on the practical test as allowed by §61.47, then a medical would NOT be required as per §61.23(b)(5) and §61.39(a)(4). {q&a-61 questions #1 & 2}; {q&a-104} QUESTION: You state that the FAA Flight Standards Service (AFS) recently changed its policy regarding FAA medical certificate requirements for an Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI); an ASI only needs to possess a third-class medical certificate. Prior to the AFS policy change, a second-class medical certificate was required for an ASI. You state that an ASI receiving training at Hangar 6 acts as a required crewmember, second in command, in accordance with the airplane flight manual (AFM) limitations. In addition, the ASI, while actively participating in this flight training, is being compensated in many forms by the FAA (salary, per diem, lodging, transportation, logging of flight time). Also, you provide in your letter that the recurrent flight courses conducted by Hangar 6 are required events, that Hangar 6 operates its fleet as civil aircraft not public aircraft, and that the ASI receives the recurrent training in flight in airplanes and not in flight simulators. Accordingly, you seek a legal opinion regarding whether an ASI, who holds only a third-class medical certificate, is allowed to act as a required pilot flight crewmember while receiving compensation under 14 CFR. ANSWER: Ref. §61.23(a)(2) and §61.133(a)(1)(ii); The answer is no, an ASI who only holds a 3rd class medical certificate is NOT allowed to act as a required pilot flight crewmember while receiving compensation under 14 CFR §61.133(a)(1)(ii). Section 61.23 (14 CFR section 61.23) sets forth the medical certificate requirements for pilots. This section provides, in pertinent part, that a person exercising the privileges of a commercial pilot certificate must hold at least a second-class medical certificate and that a person exercising the privileges of a private pilot certificate must hold at least a third-class medical certificate. Section 61.117 (14 CFR section 61.117) sets forth the privileges and limitations of the holder of a private pilot certificate: second in command. That section provides, in pertinent part, that a person who holds a private pilot certificate may not, for compensation or hire, act as second in command of an aircraft that is type certificated for more than one pilot, nor may that pilot act as second in command of such an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire. Section 61.117 does provide for the exceptions to the above (incidental business activity, expense sharing, charitable airlifts, search and location missions, glider towing), however, none of the exceptions are applicable based on the facts presented in your letter. An ASI, when acting as a required pilot flight crewmember, whether he or she is providing pilot examinations or evaluations, or is receiving training as part of his or her job, is exercising the privileges of a commercial pilot certificate and needs to hold at least a second-class medical certificate. The ASI is exercising the privileges of a commercial pilot certificate because he or she is acting as a required pilot flight crewmember and is receiving compensation related to that authority. The ASI is receiving compensation in the form of his or her salary. Piloting activities are integrally related to the ASI job function. Acting as a required pilot flight crewmember during pilot examinations and evaluations, as well as acting as a required pilot flight crewmember during recurrent flight training courses, are a foreseeable and normal part of the job duties of an ASI; they are not incidental or casual and unimportant part of the work of an ASI. In addition, an ASI is receiving compensation in the form of recurrent flight training, per diem and lodging during the recurrent flight training, transportation to and from the recurrent flight training, logging of flight time during the recurrent flight training, and any additional rating the ASI obtains from the recurrent flight training Accordingly, an ASI that acts as a required pilot flight crewmember when performing the functions of his or her job, including training, is exercising the privileges of a commercial pilot certificate and must hold at least a second-class medical certificate. In reviewing your concern, we met with representatives from AFS-800 to review the "recent AFS policy change" that you mentioned in your letter. AFS-800 provided us with a memorandum, dated January 22, 1997, that discussed a policy change regarding the medical certificate requirements for an ASI. In this memorandum, it states that "third class medicals will meet the recurrent medical requirements for operations inspectors, with the exception of those inspectors who are performing crewmember functions that require a second class medical." (Emphasis added.) AFS-800 stated that this guidance was needed to address an ASI that does not need to act as a required pilot flight crewmember (e.g. an ASI that works only on flight simulators or flight training devices or an ASI that never acts as a required pilot flight crewmember). AFS-800 concurred that an ASI, who holds only a third-class medical certificate, is not allowed to act as a required pilot flight crewmember when performing the functions of his or her job, including training. Answered by: Donald P. Byrne, FAA's Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations Division, AGC-200 {q&a-287} QUESTION 1: Does the requirement, ". . . to certify that he has no known medical deficiency. . ." in the box W of the FAA Form 8710-1 application still exist for applicants of balloon or glider ratings? ANSWER 1: Ref. §§61.23; 61.53; No, the requirement no longer exists. On the new application form now being developed, this block will be deleted. In the interim, the rule applies. {q&a-136} QUESTION: Does a CFI even need a medical certificate to give flight training? ANSWER: Depends on the situation. Reference §§61.3(c)(2)(iv); 61.23(b)(5). NO, when exercising the privileges of a flight instructor certificate if the person is not acting as pilot in command or serving as a required pilot flight crewmember. Reference §§61.3(c)(1) & 61.23(a)(3)(iv) YES, at least a current 3rd class medical certificate when giving instruction to a student pilot (instructor must be PIC), or to anyone while that person is using a view limiting device (instructor is the safety pilot). {q&a-61 question #3}; {q&a-67 question #2} QUESTION 20: When I'm giving a flight test in a R-22 and the person doesn't meet the SFAR-73 requirements to act as PIC then I act as PIC. Therefore, the applicant is not exercising any pilot privileges. 61.39(a)(4) says "Hold at least a third class medical certificate if a medical is required". I understand this to mean that a medical certificate is not required and he would not need one to take this practical test. Is this correct? ANSWER 20: NO. The applicant is required to have at least a third class medical per 61.23 (a)(3) and 61.39(a)(4). The referenced 61.39(a)(4) "if a medical is required" relates to the fact that balloon and glider pilots do not have a medical certificate requirement. {q&a-60} 61.29 Replacement of lost certificates or reports QUESTION 4: §61.29(d)(3) requires a person requesting replacement of an airman certificate, medical, or knowledge report to include their social security number with the request. Should this be optional? ANSWER 4: §61.29(d)(3) reads as follows: "(d) The letter requesting replacement of a lost or destroyed airman certificate, medical certificate, or knowledge test report must state:" * * * * * "(3) The social security number." However, we agree this was a mistake, because the old §61.29(a)(1) had the words "(if any)" The next correction NPRM we will try to get it changed to say "if required." We know our unwritten policy guidance provides for people who don't want the FAA to know their social security number. {q&a-30} 61.31 Type rating, additional training, authorizations QUESTION: A multiengine pilot recently received about 100 hours of flight instruction to become proficient in the Piper Aerostar. Since all of his previous multi time had been in a Seminole, one of the endorsements the pilot received during the flight instruction was a high performance checkout. Subsequently, the pilot learned that the flight instructor did not have a valid medical certificate. The flight instructor was certified and current in the airplane. He simply didn't have a medical certificate and could not function as a PIC or a required crew member. Once discovering the CFI didn't have a medical certificate, the pilot believed that perhaps all of the endorsements he received, even the flight instruction he had logged, would be invalid. Is that the case? ANSWER: Ref. §61.23(a)(3)(iv) and (b)(5) and §61.31(f); Neither the endorsements nor the flight training received would become invalid just because the flight instructor did not have a current medical certificate. No place in §61.31(f) does it qualify the endorsement or the flight training must be given by an authorized instructor who holds a current medical certificate. Per §61.31(f)(1)(i) it only requires that the ground and flight training be given by an authorized instructor. And per §61.1(b)(2), it only defines what is an "authorized instructor." Again there, there is no qualifier that an authorized instructor must hold a current medical certificate. Nor in §§ 61.193 and 61.195 does it require the authorized instructor must hold a medical certificate. Only in §61.23(a)(3)(iv) does it establish the medical certification requirements for a flight instructor. However, the flight instructor will probably be getting a letter of investigation to inquire why he/she was serving as a required crewmember/PIC without holding at least a current medical certificate. {q&a-438} NOTE: Reference Q&A #428 in the Q&A area devoted to part 61 section §61.75 for discussion of training and endorsement requirements (per §61.31) for pilots holding Restricted U. S. pilot certificates. When a person who has received a Restricted U.S. pilot certificate [issued per §61.75(a) on the basis of holding a current foreign pilot license issued by a contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation] is exercising the privileges of his/her Restricted U.S. pilot certificate, that person is required to comply with our U.S. additional aircraft training requirements that are contained in § 61.31 as appropriate. QUESTION 1: An airman does not hold the tail-wheel endorsement required by 61.31(i) in order to act as PIC. He has a conventional gear aircraft but is configured with skis on the main gear and a wheel on the tail gear. Can he receive the tail-wheel endorsement in the aircraft? Can you meet the training requirement for wheel landings in a ski plane? ANSWER 1: Ref. §61.31(i) and Airplane Flying Handbook, FAA-H-8083-3, Chapter 15 and 17; The answer is no, an airplane that is configured with skis on the main gear and a wheel on the tail gear could not be used for meeting the additional training required by § 61.31(i) to serve as a PIC in a "tailwheel airplane." After the reviewing the Airplane Flying Handbook, FAA-H-8083-3 in Chapter 15 "Transition to Tailwheel Airplanes" vs. Chapter 17 "Transition to Skiplanes," and after discussing the issue with a qualified ASI who has flown both the "tailwheel airplane" and the "ski-configured airplane" there are significant differences in the takeoff and landing handling characteristics. So, the training and qualification in an airplane configured with "skis" would not equate to the required additional training in a "tailwheel airplane." In accordance with § 61.31(i), there is an additional training requirement for operating a "tailwheel airplane." Per § 61.31(i), the training must include normal and crosswind takeoffs and landings, wheel landings (unless the manufacturer has recommended against such landings), and go-around procedures. The handling characteristics of performing those training maneuvers in an airplane configured with "skis" would not be the same as the handling characteristics of performing those training maneuvers in a "tailwheel airplane." As per the Airplane Flying Handbook, FAA-H-8083-3, Chapter 17 Transition to Skiplanes, page 17-2 under the paragraph identified as "General," it states: Although Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 61 does not require specific pilot training and authorization to operate skiplanes, it is important for pilot to train with a qualified skiplane flight instructor. QUESTION 2: Can an instructor legally give a tail-wheel endorsement in a "ski-configured airplane" with the limitation "valid only for a ski equipped airplane?" I do not believe that the above mentioned limitation is appropriate because there is no provision for it in the regulation. I think we need to clarify the rule and make provisions for an endorsement for operating ski equipped tail-wheel type (conventional gear airplanes). ANSWER 2: Ref. § 61.193 and § 61.31(i), The only rule that I know that addresses flight instructors being permitted to qualify their endorsement is for student pilots in 14 CFR § 61.89(a)(8) where it states a student pilot may not act in a manner contrary to any limitation placed in the pilot's logbook by an authorized instructor. Other than 14 CFR § 61.89(a)(8), there are no rules that would specifically prevent or allow an instructor from qualifying his/her endorsement with limitations for the kind of situation you have presented in your question. But I have heard that some flight instructors do qualify their endorsements to protect themselves from possible lawsuits. Whether a qualifying limitation would stand up in the Courts is anybody's guess! However, there are no rules in Part 61 that require specific pilot training and authorization to operate a "ski-configured airplane." And an endorsement to operate a "ski-configured airplane" will not permit a pilot to operate a "tailwheel airplane." QUESTION 3: What is the definition of "tail-wheel airplane?" ANSWER 3: Ref Airplane Flying Handbook, FAA-H-8083-3, Chapter 15; The only place where I could find a written description of what a tail-wheel airplane is, is in the Airplane Flying Handbook, FAA-H-8083-3, Chapter 15 where it describes a tail-wheel airplane as a conventional gear airplane where the main landing gear forms the principal support of the airplane on the ground. The tailwheel also supports the airplane, but steering and directional control are its primary functions. With the tailwheel airplane, the main struts are attached to the airplane slightly ahead of the airplane's center of gravity. {q&a-425} QUESTION: What if you have an airplane with a 185 HP engine that is rated for 205 HP on take/off. Someone mentioned that a Navion qualifies for this. I realize that it also would be a complex aircraft. If I had a complex sign-off but no high performance am I legal? ANSWER: Ref.§61.31(f)(1)(ii); You'll need to have ". . . (ii) Received a one-time endorsement in the pilot's logbook from an authorized instructor who certifies the person is proficient to operate a high-performance airplane." As for whether a Navion that is rated for 205 horsepower on takeoff and that qualifies it, as per the definition of a high performance airplane, the rule § 61.31(f) just says a high performance airplane is ". . . (an airplane with an engine of more than 200 horsepower) . . ." If someplace in the airplane's flight manual if the engine specifications says "more than 200 horsepower" it qualifies as a high performance airplane. Section 61.31(f) doesn't qualify the definition of ". . . more than 200 horsepower . . ." it just says ". . . (an airplane with an engine of more than 200 horsepower) . . ." If Navion's engine specifications show ". . . more than 200 horsepower . . ." it meets the definition of a high performance airplane per §61.31(f) and the appropriate endorsement is required unless the provision of §61.31(f)(2) is met. {q&a-413} QUESTION: I was given about 25 hrs of dual in a high performance and complex Mooney in 1995. The flight instructor logged my dual flights but did not put a formal endorsement in the back of my logbook. Subsequently I logged PIC time in this airplane before August 4. 1997. Do I need a formal endorsement to fly a high performance or complex airplanes? ANSWER: Ref. §61.31(e)(2) and (f)(2); Yes, you need an instructor endorsement to act as a PIC in a complex airplane and high performance airplane. Granted in both §61.31(e)(2) and (f)(2), it states in pertinent part, ". . . has logged flight time as pilot in command of a . . . [high-performance airplane] [complex airplane] . . . prior to August 4, 1997 . . .," but you in fact were never qualified to act as pilot in command time in the high-performance airplane or in the complex airplane as your instructor for whatever reason determined to not give you the required endorsement. You must now comply with §61.31(e)(1)(ii) and/or (f)(1)(ii), as appropriate before acting as pilot-in-command in a complex and/or high performance airplane. From a safety point of view, it does not appear reasonable for you to attempt to ACT as pilot in command of a high-performance airplane or in the complex airplane when you have not completed the required training. Furthermore, it is doubtful that you could even find an insurance company that would provide you with insurance or an FBO that would rent you their airplane. {q&a-325} QUESTION: I hold Private Pilot Certificate with an Airplane Single Engine Land rating. I have Medical Certificate 3rd Class My current Flight Review was completed 10/7/99. The purpose of providing this personal information is to show that I am a licensed private pilot with current medical and BFR, important facts for the question to be asked of you. I am building a single-place gyroplane from a kit approved by FAA as meeting the "major portion" requirement of 14 CFR Part 21, specifically Section 21.191 (g). I will be licensing my single-place gyro in the Experimental Category and will fly it under my Private Pilot Certificate. FAR 61.31 (k) (2) says, "The rating requirements of this section [i.e., section 61.31] do not apply to -- (iii) The holder of a pilot certificate when operating an aircraft under the authority of an experimental or provisional aircraft type certificate." According to FAA 61.31 (k) (2) (iii), I can legally fly my single-place gyroplane with an Experimental certificate under a Private Pilot License rated for Airplane Single Engine Land. My question is: What should I do so that the FAA knows I am flying legally if there were a ramp check of me and my gyro? Should §61.31(k (2)(iii) be specifically referenced in the Experimental Airworthiness Certificate under "Operating Limitations" for this particular aircraft? ANSWER: Ref. §61.31(k)(2)(iii); As per §91.319(e), it depends on the limitations that have been incorporated in the letter of operating limitations that gets issued with the aircraft's experimental airworthiness certificate. The pilot will have to comply with those limitations. And if the limitations says his experimental airworthiness certificate is predicated on him holding a Rotorcraft-Gyroplane rating then that is what he'll have to hold. Regardless of what §61.31(k)(2)(iii) appears to say, the pilot still has to comply with §91.319(e) and the letter of operating limitations. And normally, in that letter of operating limitations, the FAA always establishes a category and class rating for operating an experimental aircraft. {q&a-322} QUESTION: What are the ratings needed to fly an amphibious airplane (Lake, Grumman Goose, etc.)? Does the PIC need both land and sea ratings, or can the pilot operate with only one of the ratings if operations are only to/from the surface on which the pilot is rated? I'd appreciate an "official" view. And we're not looking at ME vs SE -- let's assume we're talking about a Lake Buccaneer, and a pilot with only PVT-ASEL flying off land, or only PVT-ASES flying off water. ANSWER: Reference §61.31(d)(1). Only the appropriate rating (land/sea) is required. To operate an amphibious airplane for water operations using the float landing gear, one must hold the Airplane Single Engine Sea or Airplane Multiengine Sea rating, as appropriate. To operate an amphibious airplane for land operations using the wheeled landing gear, one must hold the Airplane Single Engine Land or Airplane Multiengine Land rating, as appropriate. {q&a-317} QUESTION: Ref. §61.31(b); The scenario is that I have a pilot who is type rated in a M-404. The aircraft's airworthiness certification basis for the M-404 is CAR Part 4b (or now 14 CFR Part 25). Does the pilot need a §61.58 check? If so, does the pilot need to get with an authorized instructor/PPE and get proficient, and then take the check? Or does the pilot need only to go to the FSDO and get a temporary letter of authorization (LOA) for flight training? ANSWER: Ref. §61.31(b); Yes, the pilot needs to accomplish a §61.58 PIC proficiency check. An yes, the pilot needs to get with an authorized instructor and get proficient, and then take the §61.58 PIC proficiency check with an Examiner. FAA Order 8700.1, Chapter 32 pertains to issuing letters of authorization (LOA) for operating an aircraft for which no civilian type designation exists for that specific aircraft. As in the case of operating an aircraft that only holds an experimental airworthiness certificate. FAA Order 8700.1, Chapter 33 applies to issuing letters of authorization (LOA) for operating an aircraft that requires a pilot to hold a type rating [i.e., §61.31(a)] in that type of aircraft, but no type rating exists. As in the case of industry pilots and FAA Inspectors who have airman/aircraft certification responsibility and need some FAA qualification status in that particular type of aircraft before a pilot certificate type designator is established for the aircraft. As in the case of conducting an Flight Standardization Board on a newly manufactured aircraft before it receives its initial type designator certification. {q&a-260} QUESTION: Ref. §61.31(g)(2); Is the purpose for the additional flight training to operate pressurized aircraft capable of operating at high altitudes to receive training on the flight characteristics of pressurized aircraft or to receive training on the pressurization systems of pressurized aircraft? ANSWER: The purpose is to receive training on both the ". . . operation of a pressurized aircraft . . ." [i.e., §61.31(g)(2)] and also the pressurization systems of pressurized aircraft. The history behind this rule was to respond to an NTSB safety recommendation that involved some accidents in the 1980's that involved pilots who had relatively limited experience in these turbojet airplanes that were also pressurized. Thus, the FAA issued §61.31(g) in response to the NTSB's safety recommendation. {q&a-256} QUESTION: Thank you for your letter dated April 20, 1999, to the Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), regarding the logging of pilot-in-command time. Specifically, whether a pilot needs to have the appropriate 14 CFR section 61.31 endorsements before he or she can properly log pilot-in-command time under 14 CFR section 61.51(e). In your letter you state that you are "concerned with the answers given by John Lynch, AFS-840, through his Frequently Asked Questions 14 CFR, PARTS 61 & 141 website," regarding the 14 CFR section 61.31 endorsements and the logging of pilot-in-command time under 14 CFR section 61.51(e). In this website, Mr. Lynch was given the following scenario: a person holds a private pilot certificate with a single-engine land rating. This pilot is obtaining training in a single-engine land airplane that is also a complex or high performance airplane. The question asked was whether this person could log the time he or she manipulated the controls as pilot-in-command time. Mr. Lynch stated that this person could not log pilot-in-command time under 14 CFR section 61.51(e) in a single-engine land airplane that is also a complex or high performance airplane, without having the appropriate endorsements required under 14 CFR section 61.31. This answer is incorrect. ANSWER: Ref. §61.51(e)(1)(i); Before discussing this issue, please note that Mr. Lynch's website is an informational website provided by the Flight Standards Service (AFS). It is not a legal site and the Office of the Chief Counsel does not review it. Accordingly, information provided on his website is not legally binding. 14 CFR section 61.51(e) governs the logging of pilot-in-command time. This section provides, in pertinent part, that a private pilot may log pilot-in-command time for that flight time during which that person is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated. (Emphasis added) The term "rated," as used under 14 CFR section 61.51(e), refers to the pilot holding the appropriate aircraft ratings (category, class, and type, if a type rating is required). These ratings are listed under 14 CFR section 61.5 and are placed on the pilot certificate. Therefore, based on the scenario given to Mr. Lynch, a private pilot may log pilot-in-command time, in a complex or high performance airplane, for those portions of the flight when he or she is the sole manipulator of the controls because the aircraft being operated is single-engine land and the private pilot holds a single-engine land rating. Note, while the private pilot may log this time as pilot-in-command time in accordance with 14 CFR section 61.51(e), he or she may not act as the pilot in command unless he or she has the appropriate endorsement as required under 14 CFR section 61.31. 14 CFR section 61.31 requires a person to have an endorsement from an authorized instructor before he or she may act as pilot in command of certain aircraft (a complex airplane, a high performance airplane, a pressurized airplane capable of operating at high altitudes, or a tailwheel airplane). These endorsements are not required to log pilot-in-command time under 14 CFR section 61.51(e). As you stated in your letter, there is a distinction between acting as pilot in command and logging pilot-in-command time. In order to act as pilot in command, the pilot who has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight, a person must be properly rated in the aircraft and be properly rated and authorized to conduct the flight. In order to log pilot-in-command time, a person who is the sole manipulator of the controls only needs to be properly rated in the aircraft. {q&a-288} [Replaces q&a-228] QUESTION: The situation is I want to give training and the required endorsement for operating pressurized aircraft capable of operating at high altitudes, as per §61.31(g). I have access to a Boeing 737 flight simulator. Will this Boeing 737 flight simulator suffice for this training? ANSWER: Ref. §61.31(g)(2); YES, a Boeing 737 flight simulator will suffice for this training. As it states, in pertinent part, in §61.31(g)(2): ". . . that person has received and logged training . . . . or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a pressurized aircraft . . ." However, this Boeing 737 flight simulator must first have been "evaluated" and "qualified" by the FAA's Flight Standards Service's National Simulator Program Office, AFS-205, plus evaluated and authorized by the appropriate (local) Flight Standards District Office. {q&a-214} QUESTION: We were asked the following questions by a person who has a commercial pilot certificate with ASEL, AMEL, and Instrument Rating. Reference §61.31(e)(2)(iii). (1) I am building a gyrocopter. What kind of authorization do I need to fly it? (2) How can I get a gyrocopter rating added to my pilot certificate? I talked to Ben Owens at EAA Headquarters. He indicated that the above referenced regulation would allow the person building the gyrocopter (I believe they are called gyroplanes) to fly it with only an authorization from this office. However, he pointed out AC 20-27D, Append 9, Para 9, Sample List of Operating Limitations which require a Category/Class Rating OR a letter of authorization from this office. He felt that most FSDOs were requiring the individual to have the category/class rating before flying it. How do you folks feel??? As regards question (2), I discovered an organization called the "Popular Rotorcraft Association" which apparently has several gyroplane instructors and pilot examiners around the states that could give training and a checkride in a gyroplane. Is this the best way to go for this person building this "gyrocopter??" ANSWER: Ref. §61.31(k)(2)(iii) and §61.63(b); In accordance with §61.31(k)(2)(iii), I assume this gyrocopter is " . . . operating an aircraft under the authority of an experimental or provisional aircraft type certificate . . ." If so, this person already has the authority to operate the aircraft as far as having the required pilot certificate, because you said the person holds a commercial pilot certificate. But additionally, the person must comply with the conditions and limitations that are contained on his aircraft's experimental or provisional aircraft type certificate. Now, if the person seeks to add a rotorcraft-gyroplane rating onto his pilot certificate, the rule that applies here is §61.63(b). {q&a-159} QUESTION 2: Situation is an applicant who holds a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane single land rating. The applicant is now seeking to add a helicopter rating onto his commercial pilot certificate. To show 35 hours of PIC time in helicopters as per §61.129(c)(2)(i) how can the applicant obtain and log that PIC time in a helicopter? ANSWER 2: Ref. per §61.51(e) or §61.31(d); The PIC time would have to be obtained: a. Already hold a helicopter rating at the private pilot level. Then PIC time can be logged while flying solo and/or while manipulating the control as per §61.51(e)(1)(i) when the flight instructor is on board; or b. Be the sole occupant of the aircraft and have a current solo endorsement in accordance with §61.31(d)(3). QUESTION 3: I am private pilot with an airplane single engine land rating. I am seeking to add a helicopter rating. Can I log the time as PIC while manipulating the controls with my instructor on board as in §61.31(d)(2)? ANSWER 3: No. You cannot log the time as PIC while his instructor is on board since you are not rated in the aircraft, see §6151(e)(1)(i). There is nothing wrong with the way §61.31(d)(2) has been written. To "serve" as the pilot in command while receiving training does not authorize logging PIC. There has always been a difference between logging PIC time vs. acting/serving as PIC. {q&a-146} QUESTION 1: Is it possible that a student pilot could take the practical test for a private pilot certificate in a tailwheel airplane without ever having received or logged wheel landings or have flown solo in a tailwheel airplane as a student pilot without having received or logged training on wheel landings? Part 61.31 (i) requires a pilot-in-command of a tailwheel airplane to have received and logged wheel landings. However, Part 61.31(k)(2)(ii) excepts holders of student pilot certificates from 61.31(i)(1)(ii). ANSWER 1: Reference §61.107(b)(1)(iv). Most certainly, the applicant would have to exhibit skill and proficiency in wheel landings. A student pilot applying for a private pilot certificate using a tailwheel airplane shall comply with §61.107(b)(1)(iv), and one of the tasks in that area of operation (see FAA-S-8081-15; Private Pilot PTS on pages 1-11 thru -14) would involve "Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to a . . . and landing", and §61.107(a) requires the training be received and logged. §61.31(k)(2)(ii) is a stand alone rule, completely independent of §61.31(i)(1)(ii). {q&a-97} QUESTION 2: Reference §61.31(f). Situation is, a person completed a high performance checkout in a Piper Cherokee with a 180hp engine prior to August 4, 1997. The endorsement says it is for a high performance airplane checkout. Can we accept this checkout for a high performance airplane checkout, in accordance with §61.31(f)? ANSWER 2: No; per §61.31(f). A Piper Cherokee with a 180hp engine IS NOT A HIGH PERFORMANCE AIRPLANE. As you stated, it has a retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller, but it does not have AN ENGINE with more than 200 horsepower. So, the endorsement is good for the §61.31(e) checkout (i.e., complex airplane), but not for the high performance airplane checkout. {q&a-89} QUESTION: Does 61.31(f) apply only to single engine airplanes? Almost all multiengine airplanes have more than 200 total horsepower. ANSWER: Read §61.31(f). It is says airplane. It doesn't say single engine airplane, it doesn't say multiengine, it says "airplane." As long as some place on that airplane you can find at least ONE engine that is more than 200 horsepower then it is a high performance airplane. {q&a-22} QUESTION 1: Does a pilot have PIC privilege in a high performance aircraft (e.g. C-182) if a "high performance" endorsement was received before Aug. 4, 1997 as the result of training in a 180hp Piper Arrow and the pilot has NEVER flown an aircraft with an engine having more than 200 hp? ANSWER 1: He does not have PIC privileges in a high performance airplane. Per §61.31(f)(2) says ". . . has logged flight time as pilot in command of a high performance airplane. . . prior to August 4, 1997." And §61.31(f)(1) says a high performance is ". . . (an airplane with an engine of more than 200 horsepower). . ." A 180 hp Piper Arrow does not meet the definition of a high performance airplane. QUESTION 2: Conversely: Does a pilot have PIC privilege in a complex aircraft (e.g. Piper Arrow) if a "high performance" endorsement was received before Aug. 4, 1997 as the result of training in a Cessna 182 and the pilot has NEVER flown an aircraft with retractable landing gear? ANSWER 2: No, he does not have PIC privileges in a complex airplane. Per §61.31(e)(2) says " . . . has logged flight time as pilot in command of a complex airplane . . . prior to August 4, 1997." And §61.31(e)(1) says a complex airplane is ". . . (an airplane that has a retractable landing gear . . .)" A fixed gear Cessna 182 does not meet the definition of a complex airplane. {q&a-64} QUESTION 1: If a Private Pilot is acting as SIC in a complex airplane, does that pilot need the complex endorsement? ANSWER 1: No; But §61.55 may apply, if a SIC is required. {q&a-67} QUESTION: In the definition of a high-performance airplane what about a multi-engine aircraft with two engines of 200 hp? Was it your intention that a 400 hp aircraft not qualify as high-performance because it derives that 400 hp from more than one engine? ANSWER: Please review the new §61.31(f) which states, in pertinent part, ". . . an engine . . ." So if that multiengine airplane doesn't have "an engine" of more than 200 horsepower then it isn't a high performance airplane. In your example, you state that both engines are exactly 200 horsepower. Therefore, IT IS NOT A HIGH PERFORMANCE AIRPLANE. {q&a-24} QUESTION 1: Is a Piper Senaca II a high performance airplane. The Piper Senaca II AFM says its engines are rated at 200 horsepower at sea level and increase in altitude up to 215 horsepower at 12,000. ANSWER 1: It is a high performance airplane. The rule states, in pertinent part, " . . . (an airplane with an engine of more than 200 horsepower) . . ." And as you stated, the Piper Senaca II is "an airplane with an engine of more than 200 horsepower." The rule does not differentiate where the engine has to be more than 200 horsepower, it just says "an engine of more than 200 horsepower." {q&a-59} QUESTION 1: Please confirm. Is it true that if you logged "complex" PIC under the old rule with the old "high performance" endorsement, you will not be eligible to PIC a high performance airplane under the new rule unless some of that "complex" time involves an aircraft that has at least one engine with more than 200 HP? ANSWER 1: Reference §61.31(f) and (g) Yes. Some PIC time logged in an airplane with an engine with more than 200 HP before August 4, 1997 would also be required. However, if the person showed PIC time before August 4, 1997 in a Cessna 210RG, then that airplane would meet the requirement for both the "complex airplane" and the "high performance airplane" and the "old high performance" endorsement would still be valid for both complex and high performance. {q&a-8} QUESTION 3: Now that "AERO TOW ONLY" and "GROUND LAUNCH ONLY" are obsolete, should we reissue all certificates with glider ratings to read "(PVT/COM'L) PRIVILEGES--GLIDER"? I have a GLIDER-AERO TOW. If I act as PIC during a ground launch after getting a CFI endorsement and if I don't get my certificate reissued-- wouldn't I be in violation of a restriction on my certificate, even though I'm in compliance with the rule. ANSWER 3: [§61.31(k)] Order 8700.1, Change 17 is being drafted to address that issue. But you can have the limitations removed when you have your certificate re-issued, or you can apply right now to have it reissued without the limitation, or if you never get your certificate re-issued you can keep the limitation. It makes no difference. §61.31(k) is the rule that addresses your question. {q&a-8} 61.33 Tests: General procedure QUESTION: Here is the running dialog that we have had with AFS-200 concerning group orals during 135 checks. The reason that this arose is because of the conflicting guidance in several of our publications. Since many of these 135 checks are given concurrently with a type rating ride at the end of the course, we would like to know whether this policy applies to a plain Part 61 type rating check. FlightSafety admits that they can not recall the last time anyone failed the oral portion of a type rating check when the group method was used. Before we send FSI the guidance clarifying the 135 position, we would like to have the official GA guidance. ANSWER: Ref. §61.33 and FAA Order 8710.3C, page 5-6, paragraph 19C; The FAA's written official position on this issue is as follows: "C. Group Testing. Normally, an examiner administers the oral portion of the practical test to each applicant individually. This ensures confidentiality and allows the examiner to conduct the test as the situation requires. In some circumstances, such as when the examiner is testing a crew of two, it may be advantageous to administer the oral portion of the test to two applicants simultaneously. When two applicants of similar backgrounds have trained in the same aircraft or training course and are being tested for identical certificates, simultaneous testing may be conducted if NO MORE THAN TWO APPLICANTS are tested and both applicants and the examiner agree to that method. If either applicant prefers to be tested separately, the examiner SHALL conduct separate oral tests." Therefore, it makes no difference whether the applicants are ". . . plain Part 61 type rating checks . . ." or are ". . . Part 135 checks that are being given concurrently with a type rating ride at the end of the course . . .", they still have to comply with FAA Order 8710.3C, page 5-6, paragraph 19C. {q&a-274} QUESTION: Recently I have several inquiries from FAA Aviation Safety Inspectors (Operations) regarding a possible conflict between the requirements of Private Pilot Certification in Part 61 and the PTS. For example, the PTS for a Private Pilot Certificate-Rotorcraft-Helicopter practical test requires tracking and interception. Unless I'm mistaken there is no such requirement in Part 61. What is the legal status of the PTS in such a case? ANSWER: The legal status of a Practical Test Standards is covered by §61.33 which states: "Tests prescribed by or under this part are given at times and places, and by persons designated by the Administrator" and §61.43 which specifies general test procedures. The regulations implement public law Title 49 of the United States Code. There is no conflict between the PTS and Part 61 for an applicant for a Private Pilot Certificate for a helicopter rating. Section 61.105(b)(4) requires ground training on "Use of aeronautical charts for VFR navigation using pilotage, dead reckoning, and navigation systems." Section 61.107(b)(3)(vii) requires both ground and flight training on "Navigation." And the Private Pilot-Helicopter PTS requires testing per Area of Operation VII, Task B on interception and tracking a given radial or bearing and locating position using cross radials, coordinates, or bearings. Yes, the examiner MUST test applicants on " Intercepts and tracks a given radial or bearing" or "Locates position using cross radials, coordinates, or bearings." This additional training is not only beneficial for improving the competency of helicopter pilots, but it's important for helicopter pilots to know how to operate SAFELY in today's National Airspace System. {q&a-241} 61.35 Knowledge test: Prerequisites & grades QUESTION: The CATS computer test people tell me that no instructor signoff is required, due to a "new" change in policy, to take the FOI/AGI/IGI/CFI/CFII knowledge tests. Is this true? I haven't been able to find anything in writing to support this, and don't want to show up for tests without required papers. ANSWER: Per §61.183(d); Applicants are not required to show such evidence of preparation to take the ATP, flight instructor (CFI), fundamentals of instruction (FOI), military competency, foreign pilot instrument (IFP) or the certificated ground instructor (CGI) knowledge tests unless they are applying to retake a test after failing that test (per § 61.49). Paragraph 5. b. of the Advisory Circular (AC) 61-65D now relates this information. Regarding fundamentals of instruction (FOI), per §61.185(a), the applicant needs to ". . . receive and log ground training from an authorized instructor . . ." When the applicant applies for the practical test, the examiner shall ensure that the applicant has: ". . . receive and log ground training from an authorized instructor . . .", but such logbook endorsement need not be presented to take the computer knowledge test. {q&a-173} QUESTION 1: Must an applicant for the ATP knowledge test present his/her logbook to be inspected by the FAA prior to taking the ATP knowledge test? The old §61.153 stated "An applicant for an airline transport pilot certificate with an airplane rating must, after meeting the requirements of §§61.151 [except paragraph (a) thereof] and 61.155, pass a written test on . . ." which, in effect, required that applicant's logbook to be inspected by the FAA to ensure the applicant possessed the required aeronautical experience prior to taking the knowledge test. ANSWER 1: The policy concerning the prerequisites for taking a knowledge test is addressed in §61.35. Section 61.35 applies to ATP applicants taking the ATP knowledge test just like it applies to all other applicants for knowledge tests. However, section 61.151 does not require an ATP applicant to receive an endorsement from an instructor prior to taking the knowledge test (or, for that matter, a practical test recommendation is not required). {q&a-134} QUESTION: Can a person take the Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) - Airplane knowledge test before age 21 and the ATP practical test before age 23? For years it was permissible for a person as young as age 18 that had the required flight experience to take the Airline Transport Pilot - Airplane written (knowledge) test and then the practical test. If the person was successful with both, a letter was then issued and later at age 23 the person could receive the actual ATP certificate. Isn't this still true? ANSWER: NO. Knowledge test: In accordance with §61.35(a)(2)(iii) the knowledge test can not be administered before the first day of the month of the person's 21st birthday. The knowledge test requires identification at the time of application that contains the persons date of birth, which must show that the applicant meets or will meet the age requirements for the certificate sought before the expiration date (24 "calendar" months) of the airman knowledge test report. Practical test: In accordance with §61.39(a)(5) the practical test can not be administered before the person's 23rd birth day; the prescribed age requirement for issuance per §61.153(a). {q&a-114} QUESTION: An airman has asked if he can take the ATP knowledge test without a commercial/instrument certificate. I've reviewed 61.153, 61.155, 61.35, and the preambles (61-102 & 61-103) and it is not clear to me. ANSWER: There is no eligibility prerequisites for the ATP knowledge test other than age, which is addressed in §61.35. For the ATP knowledge test, there is NO endorsement requirement. Let the person take the knowledge test. {q&a-58} 61.39 Prerequisites for practical tests QUESTION: Here's the situation: a person's certificates were all revoked. Legal made a deal that he could re-qualify in a month. He has 10,000 hours, and he's still 90-day PIC current. The month is now over. He's taken all of his knowledge tests and now he will be going to a pilot examiner to take the checkrides. Each rule (private, commercial, instrument) says he needs three hours of prep. We know that the maneuvers on each test are different. We're pretty sure, though, that the instrument stands on it's own, but could the private/commercial 3 hours be combined, or, could they all be? We're flexible; no one is digging their heels in. He will be taking all of his checks in a CE402 @ $$$ an hour, so the FSDO was calling to see if he could get some relief. But we would understand if there were none. ANSWER: Ref. §61.39(a)(6)(i); The way the rules [i.e., §61.109(a)(4) or (b)(4)] are structured/formatted, they require "3 hours of flight training in a [single engine / multiengine] airplane in preparation for THE practical test within the 60-day period preceding the date of the test. Which means the private pilot practical test. And the way the rules, [§61.129(a)(3)(v) or (b)(3)(v)], are structured/formatted they require "3 hours in a [single engine / multiengine] airplane in preparation for THE practical test within the 60-day period preceding the date of the test." Which means the commercial pilot practical test. And the way the rule, [§61.65(d)(2)(ii)], is structured/formatted, it requires "At least 3 hours of instrument training that is appropriate to the instrument rating sought from an authorized instructor in preparation for THE practical test within the 60 days preceding the date of the test." So, this means the revocation re-qualification applicant must accomplish 3 hours of flight training prior to the private pilot practical test. And 3 hours of flight training prior to the commercial pilot practical test. And 3 hours of instrument training prior to instrument rating practical test. Which equates to a grand total of 9 hours of training within the 60-day period preceding the date of THE test. {q&a-434} QUESTION 1: We have recently had several CFI applicants arrive without two endorsements which we feel are required by the latest version of AC 61-65D. Under the old AC 61-65C we were allowed to accept the recommending instructor's signoff on the rating application form (FAA Form 8710-1) as evidence that the area's in which the applicant was deficient on the knowledge (written) test had been reviewed. It now appears under the revised AC 61-65D that an endorsements is required (rather than just the 8710-1 signoff) for the knowledge test review. Is this true and applicable to CFI applicants? ANSWER 1: Ref. § 61.39(a)(6)(iii) and the "NOTE" on page 4, paragraph 9 in AC 61-65D; An instructor endorsement is required to show the applicant, including a CFI applicant ". . . Has demonstrated satisfactory knowledge of the subject areas in which the applicant was deficient on the airman knowledge test . . ." The only exceptions for not being required to comply with § 61.39(a)(6) is addressed in § 61.39(c) and flight instructor applicants are not exempted. QUESTION 2: Apparently the same signoff (instructor's recommendation on the rating application) is no longer valid to indicate that the applicant had received required training in the past 60 days, correct? We have had some files returned from OKC because the instructor's recommendation date (on the FAA Form 8710-1) was beyond the 60 days whether or not the applicants logbook had shown training within the previous 60 days as required by FAR 61.39 (a)(6)(i). It now appears under the revised AC 61-65D that an endorsement is also required (in addition to the 8710-1 instructor recommendation) for training within 60 days. Q&A 314 indicates that some of the endorsements reference regulations which state an applicant must have received training within the previous 60 days prior to the practical test, but there does not appear to be one that applies to the CFI candidate. ANSWER 2: Ref. § 61.39(a)(6)(i) and (c); The only exception for not being required to comply with § 61.39(a)(6) is addressed in § 61.39(c) and flight instructor applicants are not exempted. Even though a specific amount of training (like 3 hours) within the 60 days preceding the date of application in preparation for the practical test ". . . received and logged . . ." is not required of a flight instructor applicant, that applicant must show having received and logged SOME training within the 60 days preceding the date of application in preparation for the practical test. Personally speaking, I cannot imagine an applicant not having ". . . received and logged . . ." at least 3 hours of training within the 60 days preceding the date of application in preparation for the practical test, but CFI is not really a "pilot" rating and we did not put a specific time requirement in the regulation. {q&a-375} QUESTION: Looking at the recommended endorsements in AC 61-65D, apparently we will no longer use the old one which specified training accomplished in the last 60 days and demonstrated sat knowledge of areas found to be deficient in the knowledge test....is this correct? ANSWER: Ref. §61.39(a)(6)(i); The "recommended" endorsements in the Advisory Circular 61-65D are not intended to be "required word-for-word" endorsements. They are examples that "should" be used, but we recognize that some inspectors and examiners tend to treat them as "required word-for-word." The recommended endorsements that are shown do not include the two specific items you are asking about. (1) Regarding the §61.39(a)(6)(i) endorsement of training within the preceding 60 days, look at Recommended Endorsements numbers 12, 18, 20, and 22 and note that the references incorporated in these endorsements include an amount of training (e.g., §61.109(a)(4) requires 3 hours flight training ... within 60 days preceding the date of the test). The regulatory references for example 24 (§61.183 & §61.187) and example 37 and 39 (§61.63(b), (c) & (d)) do not include a specific amount of training required within the preceding 60 days, however at least some training "more than zero" is still required and these examples refer to the "required training." In any event, an examiner must review the applicant's logbook/training records to verify that the required amount (e.g., 3 hours, 1 1/2, or some) of training occurred within the preceding 60 days. NOTICE. These specific endorsements stating that the applicant is prepared/proficient to pass the required practical test in accordance with §61.39(a)(6)(ii) are required in the logbook or training record for those certificates that include the requirement as a prerequisite [e.g.. §§61.63(b)(3) & (c)(2), 61.65(a)(6), 61.96(b)(5)(ii), 61.103(f)(2), 61.123(e)(2), and 61.187)]. The endorsement MUST be included IN ADDITION to the instructor's signature on the appropriate line on the FAA Form 8710-1 Airman Certificate &/or Rating Application. (2) Regarding the §61.39(a)(6)(iii) endorsement of knowledge test item review there is a "NOTE" in paragraph 9 of the Advisory Circular that reiterates this requirement. Unfortunately, the endorsement examples pointed out were intended for permission to take the knowledge test rather than endorsement of the required review. This error was not realized in time for change before publication. An endorsement worded much like the statement on the knowledge test result form or like the following would suffice: "I have given _____ additional instruction in the subject areas found deficient on the knowledge test as required by §61.39(a)(6)(ii) and he/she demonstrates satisfactory knowledge." {q&a-314} QUESTION 1: My question involves the words "60-day period" of §61.43(f)(1). An applicant who completes an air carrier employer's approved training program for a type rating to be added to an ATP certificate often completes the practical test in 3 phases, which are the oral/knowledge portion, flight simulator portion, and the actual aircraft portion. The applicant takes the oral portion first. Then, provided the oral portion was completed satisfactorily, the applicant receives training in the flight simulator and then performs the flight simulator portion of the practical test. Provided the flight simulator portion of the practical test was accomplished satisfactorily, the applicant then receives flight training in the actual aircraft. Then the applicant performs the aircraft portion of the practical test in the actual aircraft in flight. When does the "60-day period" begin for §61.43(f)(1) requirement that the applicant pass the remainder of the practical test within the 60-day period after the date the practical test was discontinued? ANSWER 1: Ref. §§61.39(d) and (e) and 61.43(f)(1); The 60 days begins when the practical test is begun/discontinued. In your scenario, the practical test was DISCONTINUED when the oral portion was satisfactorily completed, which is also the day the test began. Per §61.43(f)(1), the applicant has 60 days to complete the remainder of that practical test. And for the record, DISCONTINUED doesn't just mean when the practical test was discontinued due to failure by the applicant or an equipment malfunction or inclement weather, it also applies when the applicant has not completed the entire practical test, otherwise the practical test was DISCONTINUED! The definition of discontinue means "To interrupt the continuance of; to stop; to give up." And so, when the applicant satisfactorily completed the oral portion of the practical test and the practical test was DISCONTINUED, the clock starts ticking and that applicant now has a "60-day period after the date the practical test was discontinued" to complete the practical test. QUESTION 2: Also, does §§61.39(d) and (e) and 61.43(f)(1) vs. FAA Order 8400.1, Volume 5, Chapter 1, paragraph 17.E conflict with one another when it relates to applicants who are taking a practical test on the basis of completing an air carrier training program? As per FAA Order 8400.1, Volume 5, Chapter 1, paragraph 17.E, it states: "E. Time Limits. The flight test phase must completed within 60 days of completion of the oral test. If a flight test is conducted with a combination of flight simulator and aircraft segments, the aircraft segment must be completed within 30 days of the simulator portion." vs. §61.39(d) states: (d) If all increments of the practical test for a certificate or rating are not completed on one date, all remaining increments of the test must be satisfactorily completed not more than 60 calendar days after the date on which the applicant began the test. §61.39(e) states: (e) If all increments of the practical test for a certificate or a rating are not satisfactorily completed within 60 calendar days after the date on which the applicant began the test, the applicant must retake the entire practical test, including those increments satisfactorily completed. §61.43(f)(1) states: "Passes the remainder of the practical test within the 60-day period after the date the practical test was discontinued." ANSWER 2: Ref. §§61.39(d) and (e) and 61.43(f)(1); These rules are not contrary to FAA Order 8400.1, Volume 5, Chapter 1, paragraph 17.E. The rules are merely silent on the "30 days" time limit between the flight simulator and aircraft segments of the practical test. Therefore, the "30 days" time limit of FAA Order 8400.1, Volume 5, Chapter 1, paragraph 17.E. applies and the applicant who is making application for the rating on the basis of completing an air carrier training program must comply with this "30 days" time limit requirement. This answer was coordinated and approved by Flight Standards Service's Air Carrier Training Branch, AFS-210. AFS-210 added the following comments to support the above answers: 1. An all airplane practical test must be completed with 60 days of starting the practical test (an the oral portion is part of the practical test). So if a practical test is performed under a Part 121 training program, the applicant is required to have completed the entire practical test ". . . within 60 calendar days after the date on which the applicant began the test . . ." 2. A practical test that also involves a flight simulator portion, then in accordance with FAA Order 8400.1, Volume 5, Chapter 1, paragraph 17.E., the applicant must complete the entire practical test ". . . within 30 days of the simulator portion . . . " 3. And the entire practical test, including the flight simulator portion of the practical test, must be completed within ". . . 60 calendar days after the date on which the applicant began the test . . ." {q&a-281} QUESTION: Order 8700.1, Volume II, chapter 1, section 4, paragraph 3, B, (5) directs the Inspector to accept the instructor's recommendation on the back side of the 8710-1 as meeting the required endorsements prescribed under §61.39(a)(6). In reading the current §61.39(a)(6), it requires the logbook or training record endorsement "and" have a completed and signed application form. Am I correct in addressing this information in the classroom, considering the two references (Part 61.39 and 8700.1, vol II), that the Instructor's recommendation on the back of the 8710-1 will still satisfy the regulatory requirement of Part 61.39 (a)(6)"and"(7). ANSWER: No. Ref. §61.39(a)(6) and (7); It requires an endorsement ". . . in the applicant's logbook or training record . . ." if an endorsement is required. And it also requires a ". . . a completed and signed application form." Right now, FAA Order 8700.1 is hopelessly out of date and the rule applies. I don't know the time schedule for when FAA Order 8700.1 is going to be updated, because it is outside my responsibility. AFS-805 has responsibility for issuing changes to FAA Order 8700.1. Personally, I wish I had been around when the policy was initially established in FAA Order 8700.1, volume II, chapter 1, section 4, paragraph 3, B, (5), because I believe it conflicts with even the old §61.39(a)(5). I believe both the new §61.39(a)(6) and the old §61.39(a)(5) requires and required an endorsement ". . . in the applicant's logbook or training record . . ." When §61.39(a)(6) was re-written in the way it was it was for a purpose. Because, we wanted the applicant to: "(6) Have an endorsement, if required by this part, in the applicant's logbook or training record that has been signed by an authorized instructor who certifies that the applicant--" and we also wanted the applicant to: "(7) Have a completed and signed application form. Why we ever put out such a policy, considering even what the old §61.39(a)(5) said, is beyond me? {q&a-272} QUESTION: Ref. §61.39(b)(1)(i) and (2); I serve as a Navigator "flight crewmember" in the United States Air Force Reserves on a KC-135 Tanker. I've also completed an approved air carrier First Officer training program for a Part 121 operator that I work for as a First Officer. I also hold a Commercial Pilot Certificate with an Airplane Single Engine Land and Airplane Multiengine Land and Instrument-Airplane ratings. And I also meet the ATP aeronautical experience requirements of §61.159. My question is, am I qualified to make application for the ATP-Airplane Multiengine Land practical test with an EXPIRED ATP-Airplane knowledge test? ANSWER: Reference §61.39(b)(1)(i) and (2); You are not qualified to take the ATP practical test with an EXPIRED ATP-Airplane knowledge test. Your qualifications do not comply with §61.39(b)(1)(i) because you have not accomplished your air carrier employer's "Pilot in command aircraft qualification training program . . ." Nor are you qualified in accordance with §61.39(b)(2), since you are not a military pilot nor have you ". . . accomplished the pilot in command aircraft qualification training program . . ." Even though you've pointed out that as a Navigator in your U.S. Air Force Reserve unit you are a "flight crewmember" (i.e., Navigator), the rule requires you to be a military pilot and you must have ". . . accomplished the pilot in command aircraft qualification training program . . ." of that U.S. Air Force reserve unit. {q&a-266} QUESTION 1: An applicant holds a Commercial Pilot Certificate, Airplane-Single-Engine Land Rating, Instrument-Airplane Rating and wants to make application for an add-on Cessna Citation type rating at the Commercial Pilot Level. Must the applicant FIRST hold an Airplane Multiengine Land class rating before he is eligible to take the type rating practical test in a Cessna Citation?" There appears to be some disagreement on this requirement with our folks here. Is this new PTS change #1 to the PTS correct? ANSWER: §61.63(d) and §61.39(a); The answer is no, the applicant does not need to hold an Airplane Multiengine Land class rating to be eligible for the CE500 type rating practical test. The reference made in the ATP/Type Rating PTS, dated August 1998 on page 7, item No. 3 is wrong. Item No. 3 has been corrected in change #1. The way we revised §61.129(b), it is permissible for an applicant to receive their initial Commercial Pilot Certificate for an Airplane category rating and Multiengine Land class rating in a CE-500. {q&a-263} QUESTION 7: What about the ATP applicant who is not adding a type rating but is simply getting an ATP certificate in a small (no type rating required) airplane? Does such an applicant require any flight training and instructor endorsement in preparation for the ATP practical test? Sections 61.63(d) and 61.157(b) seems to only require ground and flight training and an endorsement from an authorized instructor if the test is for or includes a type rating. ANSWER 7: Ref. §61.39(c)(3) and §61.157(b)(2); The answer is no, an ATP applicant does not need an instructor endorsement to apply for the practical test. As per §61.157(b)(2), this provision only requires the endorsement be for ". . . Must receive a logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor certifying that the applicant completed the training on the areas of operation listed in paragraph (e) of this section that apply to the aircraft type rating sought;" The endorsement is not for ". . . Certifying the person is prepared for the required practical test . . ." {q&a-249} QUESTION: Re: 61.39(b)(1)(i); I've looked in the old and new 61.39, the preamble and your list of questions/answers and have not been able to ascertain why the applicant wording was changed from 'flight crewmember' to 'pilot-in-command'. The only thing I found in the preamble was that (b) and (c) were revised and clarified to reflect the current eligibility requirements for ATP certificates and ratings (Page 16246). I looked at 61.153 and couldn't see any tie-in relating to ATP requirements. 61.157 (c) addressed type ratings and related 121 and 135 training programs. ANSWER: Ref. §61.39(b)(1)(i); Look at the preamble of the NPRM (Notice No. 95-11 on page 41196; August 11, 1995). We proposed it word for word just like §61.39(b)(1)(i) now states. We got no comments on this proposal, so we adopted that language in the final rule. But the reason we proposed it this way, is because it was determined that completion of an air carrier SIC training program does not meet the requirements for permitting a person to be eligible to apply for a type rating. Never did! The old rule was not correct, so we changed it. Most likely the old rule made a lot of air carrier SIC's happy that they became eligible to apply for a type rating by only completing an air carrier SIC training program! However, the old rule made the general aviation pilot complete all the training of the old Appendix A of Part 61 to become eligible to apply for a type rating. {q&a-157} QUESTION: Can a person take the Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) - Airplane knowledge test before age 21 and the ATP practical test before age 23? For years it was permissible and the policy in Order 8700.1, volume 2, page 7-1, paragraph 5.D. permitted an applicant as young as age 18 that had the required flight experience to take both the knowledge and the practical test for the ATP certificate. If they passed, the FSDO would then issue the applicant a letter of aeronautical competency. Later at age 23 the person could receive the actual ATP certificate. Isn't this still true? ANSWER: NO. Knowledge test: In accordance with §61.35(a)(2)(iii) the knowledge test can not be administered before the first day of the month of the person's 21st birthday. The knowledge test requires identification at the time of application that contains the persons date of birth, which must show that the applicant meets or will meet the age requirements for the certificate sought before the expiration date (24 "calendar" months) of the airman knowledge test report. Practical test: In accordance with §61.39(a)(5) the practical test can not be administered before the person's 23rd birth day; the prescribed age requirement for issuance per §61.153(a). {q&a-134}{q&a-114} QUESTION 20: When I'm giving a flight test in a R-22 and the person doesn't meet the SFAR-73 requirements to act as PIC then I act as PIC. Therefore, the applicant is not exercising any pilot privileges. 61.39(a)(4) says "Hold at least a third class medical certificate if a medical is required". I understand this to mean that a medical certificate is not required and he would not need one to take this practical test. Is this correct? ANSWER 20: NO. The applicant is required to have at least a third class medical per 61.23 (a)(3) and 61.39(a)(4). The referenced §61.39(a)(4) "if a medical is required" relates to the fact that balloon and glider pilots do not have a medical certificate requirement. {q&a-60} 61.41 Flight training from other than CFI's QUESTION: I had a CFI call yesterday afternoon who lives most of the year in Sweden. His 24 months for his Flight Review expires while he is in Sweden and he is wondering if a Flight Instructor with ICAO certificate can give him a flight review or if he must have a Flight instructor with U.S. certificate conduct the flight review? FAR 61.56 states the flight review should be conducted "...by an appropriately rated instructor under this part or other person designated by the administrator..." The way I read this is to indicate that the "other person designated by the administrator" is one of the individuals outlines in paragraph (d) of 61.56. Since more and more pilots are moving abroad this is becoming a question I get quite frequently. Can you shed some light on this one. ANSWER: Ref. §61.41(b). The foreign instructor may give training, but a foreign instructor can NOT endorse a person for satisfactory completion of a §61.56 Flight Review. {q&a-156} 61.43 Practical tests: General procedures QUESTION: I'm a MEI instructor and one of my student failed the instrument part of the commercial pilot certificate - airplane multiengine land practical test. After he received a commercial pilot certificate for VFR only, I trained him for the IFR portion of this certificate and I sent him back up for the re-test. We thought that he would only have to do the two approaches. But when it came the date of the ride, the DPE and the local FSDO came back on their decision. They said that the certificate wasn't accepted by the FAA and he would have to take a full check ride (meaning the entire oral and practical flight test). I just read in a multi engine book that it was possible to get a Commercial Pilot Certificate - Airplane Multiengine Land (VFR ONLY). I need some clarifications about this certificate if you would. ANSWER: Ref. §61.43(a)(1), (c), (d), and (f); §61.133(b)(1); and FAA Order 8700.1, Volume 2, page 6-5, Section 2, paragraph 5.k.(f); If your student holds an Instrument-Airplane rating, he would be required to be tested on Area of Operation IX - Multiengine Operations, Tasks A, B, and C of the Commercial Pilot Practical Test Standards for the Airplane Multiengine Land rating [i.e., § 61.43(d)]. If this is so, your student failed the practical test and he should have been issued a Notice of Disapproval. He should not have been issued a commercial pilot certificate with a VFR ONLY limitation. If your student did not hold an Instrument-Airplane rating, he would not be required to be tested on Area of Operation IX - Multiengine Operations, Tasks A, B, and C of the Commercial Pilot Practical Test Standards for the Airplane Multiengine Land rating [i.e., §61.133(b)(1) and FAA Order 8700.1, Volume 2, page 6-5, Section 2, paragraph 5.k.(f)]. If this is so, your student would have been eligible to be issued a Commercial Pilot Certificate with an Airplane Multiengine Land rating with the limitation "The carriage of passengers for hire in airplanes on cross-country flights in excess of 50 nautical miles or at night is prohibited." [i.e., §61.133(b)(1)] I am assuming your student did [emphasis DID] hold an Instrument Airplane rating, so provided the applicant received additional training and an additional endorsement from you to re-apply for the certificate [i.e. § 61.49(a)], and the re-test was accomplished within 60 days from the date of the initial practical test [i.e., § 61.43(f)(1)], he should have only been re-tested on those Areas of Operation that he failed and those Areas of Operation that he was not tested on during the initial practical test. Since you said your applicant received a temporary airman certificate for a Commercial Pilot Certificate with an Airplane Multiengine Land rating with a VFR only limitation, I am assuming he passed everything except for Area of Operation IX - Multiengine Operations, Tasks A, B, and C. If that is so, and your student appeared for the re-test within 60 days from the date of the initial practical test, then he should have only been re-tested on Area of Operation IX - Multiengine Operations and the failed Tasks (i.e., Tasks A, B, and C, as appropriate). Reference your comment ". . . I just read in a multi engine book that it was possible to get a commercial multi engine certificate VFR ONLY . . ." I believe you are referring to the provisions of § 61.133(b)(1) that permit a person who applies for a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane category and does not hold an instrument rating in the same category and class will be issued a commercial pilot certificate that contains the limitation, "The carriage of passengers for hire in (airplanes) (powered-lifts) on cross-country flights in excess of 50 nautical miles or at night is prohibited." {q&a-417} QUESTION: Do we now follow the intention of the new §61.43(b) as stated in the preamble, and issue SIC required when single-pilot competency is not demonstrated in a CE-501, or use the dated guidance in FAA Orders 8710.3 & 8700.1 which prohibits the limitation in Cessna 501 & 551 aircraft? Section 61.43(a)(5) states "Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the ability of an applicant for a certificate or rating issued under this part to perform the required tasks on the practical test is based on that applicant's ability to safely...Demonstrate single-pilot competency if the aircraft is type certified for single-pilot operations." FAR 61.43(b) states "If an applicant does not demonstrate single pilot proficiency, as required in paragraph (a)(5) of this section, a limitation of "Second in Command Required" will be placed on the airman's certificate. This limitation may be removed..." FAA guidance (Order 8710.3C, page 12-1 & 2, Order 8700.1, page 9-2) states that practical tests given in the CE-501 or CE-551 will NOT be given a SIC required limitation on the pilot certificate if single pilot proficiency is not demonstrated. This applies only when SFAR Part 43 aircraft are used. This guidance was issued prior to the new revised FAR Part 61. The new preamble for FAR 61.43 states "With regard to the demonstration of single-pilot competence listed in proposed paragraph (a)(5), most aircraft that are type certified for one pilot are currently operated by one pilot. However, some aircraft (e.g. the Cessna Citation 501 and 551) are type certified for one pilot, but are operated by either one- or two-pilot crews. The FAA realized that some pilots may desire to operate an aircraft type certified for one pilot with a two-pilot crew. In this situation, the applicant would have the option, contained in proposed paragraph (b), not to demonstrate single-pilot competence, but a limitation would be placed on the applicant's airman certificate that states a second in command is required." ANSWER: Ref. §61.43(b); You comply with §61.43(b). As is the case always, if their is a difference between a Federal Regulation vs. a provision in an FAA order, the Federal Regulation always wins out. In the specific case you're asking about, FAA Orders 8710.3C and 8700.1 have not been completely updated since the issuance of the "Pilot, Flight Instructor, Ground Instructor, and Pilot School Certification Rules; Final Rule" (62 FR 16220 through 16367; April 4, 1997). Therefore, if an applicant does not demonstrate single-pilot competency in a Cessna 501 or Cessna 551 the limitation "Second in Command Required" will be placed on the person's pilot certificate. {q&a-307} QUESTION 1: My question involves the words "60-day period" of §61.43(f)(1). An applicant who completes an air carrier employer's approved training program for a type rating to be added to an ATP certificate often completes the practical test in 3 phases, which are the oral/knowledge portion, flight simulator portion, and the actual aircraft portion. The applicant takes the oral portion first. Then, provided the oral portion was completed satisfactorily, the applicant receives training in the flight simulator and then performs the flight simulator portion of the practical test. Provided the flight simulator portion of the practical test was accomplished satisfactorily, the applicant then receives flight training in the actual aircraft. Then the applicant performs the aircraft portion of the practical test in the actual aircraft in flight. When does the "60-day period" begin for §61.43(f)(1) requirement that the applicant pass the remainder of the practical test within the 60-day period after the date the practical test was discontinued? ANSWER 1: Ref. §§61.39(d) and (e) and 61.43(f)(1); The 60 days begins when the practical test is begun/discontinued. In your scenario, the practical test was DISCONTINUED when the oral portion was satisfactorily completed, which is also the day the test began. Per §61.43(f)(1), the applicant has 60 days to complete the remainder of that practical test. And for the record, DISCONTINUED doesn't just mean when the practical test was discontinued due to failure by the applicant or an equipment malfunction or inclement weather, it also applies when the applicant has not completed the entire practical test, otherwise the practical test was DISCONTINUED! The definition of discontinue means "To interrupt the continuance of; to stop; to give up." And so, when the applicant satisfactorily completed the oral portion of the practical test and the practical test was DISCONTINUED, the clock starts ticking and that applicant now has a "60-day period after the date the practical test was discontinued" to complete the practical test. QUESTION 2: Also, does §§61.39(d) and (e) and 61.43(f)(1) vs. FAA Order 8400.1, Volume 5, Chapter 1, paragraph 17.E conflict with one another when it relates to applicants who are taking a practical test on the basis of completing an air carrier training program? As per FAA Order 8400.1, Volume 5, Chapter 1, paragraph 17.E, it states: "E. Time Limits. The flight test phase must completed within 60 days of completion of the oral test. If a flight test is conducted with a combination of flight simulator and aircraft segments, the aircraft segment must be completed within 30 days of the simulator portion." vs. §61.39(d) states: (d) If all increments of the practical test for a certificate or rating are not completed on one date, all remaining increments of the test must be satisfactorily completed not more than 60 calendar days after the date on which the applicant began the test. §61.39(e) states: (e) If all increments of the practical test for a certificate or a rating are not satisfactorily completed within 60 calendar days after the date on which the applicant began the test, the applicant must retake the entire practical test, including those increments satisfactorily completed. §61.43(f)(1) states: "Passes the remainder of the practical test within the 60-day period after the date the practical test was discontinued." ANSWER 2: Ref. §§61.39(d) and (e) and 61.43(f)(1); These rules are not contrary to FAA Order 8400.1, Volume 5, Chapter 1, paragraph 17.E. The rules are merely silent on the "30 days" time limit between the flight simulator and aircraft segments of the practical test. Therefore, the "30 days" time limit of FAA Order 8400.1, Volume 5, Chapter 1, paragraph 17.E. applies and the applicant who is making application for the rating on the basis of completing an air carrier training program must comply with this "30 days" time limit requirement. This answer was coordinated and approved by Flight Standards Service's Air Carrier Training Branch, AFS-210. AFS-210 added the following comments to support the above answers: 1. An all airplane practical test must be completed with 60 days of starting the practical test (an the oral portion is part of the practical test). So if a practical test is performed under a Part 121 training program, the applicant is required to have completed the entire practical test ". . . within 60 calendar days after the date on which the applicant began the test . . ." 2. A practical test that also involves a flight simulator portion, then in accordance with FAA Order 8400.1, Volume 5, Chapter 1, paragraph 17.E., the applicant must complete the entire practical test ". . . within 30 days of the simulator portion . . . " 3. And the entire practical test, including the flight simulator portion of the practical test, must be completed within ". . . 60 calendar days after the date on which the applicant began the test . . ." {q&a-281} QUESTION: Ref. §61.43(a); Situation, I have an applicant for a Commercial Pilot Certificate for an Airplane Single Engine Land rating. As a minimum, what tasks must be accomplished in a complex airplane? ANSWER: Ref. §61.43(a) and FAA-S-8081-12A, "Commercial Pilot Practical Test Standards, page 1-6; As a minimum, the applicant must demonstrate/perform/exhibit, etc., etc., ". . . satisfactory proficiency and competency . . ." on the following: Area of Operation IV. Takeoffs, Landings, and Go-Arounds Task A. Normal and Crosswind (if crosswind conditions exist) Takeoff and Climb Task B. Normal and Crosswind (if crosswind conditions exist) Approach and Landing And, if the airplane manufacturer provides appropriate procedures: Task C. Soft-field Takeoff and Climb Task D. Soft-field Approach and Landing Task E. Short-field Takeoff and Climb Task F. Soft-field Approach and Landing Area of Operation IX. Emergency Operations Task C. Systems and Equipment Malfunction d. Loss of oil pressure (i.e., uncontrollable propeller, etc.) j. Landing gear k. Flaps (asymmetrical position) n. Any other emergency unique to the airplane flown. Plus at least one other simulated emergency to meet the Objective #2 requirement. {q&a-258} QUESTION: Reference (as for example) Private Pilot PTS for Rotorcraft Helicopter (dated April 1996) states on page No. v: "The FAA requires that all practical tests be conducted in accordance with the appropriate Private Pilot Practical Test Standards and the policies set forth in this INTRODUCTION. Private pilot applicants shall be evaluated in ALL TASKS included in the AREAS OF OPERATION of the appropriate practical test standards." Does this mean an examiner MAY test an applicant orally on certain tasks within the Area of Operation "VII-Navigation" of the Private Pilot Rotorcraft-Helicopter practical test and some tasks on the flight portion of the practical test? Or, must all the tasks be tested during the flight portion of the practical test? ANSWER: Ref. §61.43(a)(1) and the Practical Test Standards; As for the answer to your specific question (i.e., Area of Operation "VII-Navigation" of the Private Pilot Rotorcraft-Helicopter PTS), each task within that Area of Operation requires a "knowledge" testing (meaning orally) and a "skill" testing which means it has to be tested during the flight portion of the practical test. So in response to your specific question on the tasks noted as "Radio Navigation and Radar Services," "Pilotage and Dead Reckoning," "Diversion," and "Lost Procedures" in the Area of Operation "VII-Navigation" has to be tested BOTH orally and during the flight portion of the practical test. As a continuation of your specific question, under item No. 1 under the caption "Objective" of the task "Pilotage and Dead Reckoning" it states, "Exhibits knowledge (emphasis on the word "knowledge") of the elements related to pilotage and dead reckoning." However, items 2 through 8 under the caption "Objective" of that same task "Pilotage and Dead Reckoning" requires the applicant to ALSO demonstrate flying skills on "2. Correctly flies to at least the first planned checkpoint . . ." "3. Identifies and follows landmarks . . ." etc. Therefore, an examiner does not have the option to orally test some and flight test other tasks. If a Task has the words "Exhibits knowledge" under the caption "Objective" of a particular Task in the PTS, then that indicates that portion of the Task must be tested orally. Additionally, if the items under the caption "Objective" of a particular Task in the PTS requires demonstration of flying skills then that portion of the Task must be tested during the flight portion of the practical test. {q&a-250} QUESTION: Our office had an inspector trainee recently return from the Academy with information that appears in conflict with our office inspectors opinions and some of the practical test standards. He was told that if an applicant failed an area of operation he must be retested on the entire area of operation failed including the tasks that were completed successfully within that area. I will use the Private PTS as an exaggerated example. An applicant successfully completed the entire flight test but on one of the tasks listed in area of operation I, he failed. I will use aeromedical factors task H, as the unsuccessful task. When he is retested, according to the academy training, he must be retested on the entire area of operation I, which would included the following tasks: A. Certificates and documents, B. Weather information, C. Cross country flight planning, D National airspace system, E. Performance and limitations, F. Operation of systems, G. Minimum equipment list, and the failed task H. Aeromedical factors. In this exaggerated example, that is an incredible amount of retesting for someone not knowing anything about carbon monoxide dangers. Further, this procedure conflicts with page vii, describing Unsatisfactory Performance that states the applicant is entitled credit for only those TASKS satisfactorily performed. ANSWER: Ref. §61.43(f), Order 8710.3C [Page 5-21, paragraph 5.E.(7)(a) and page 5-6, paragraph 21.B] and the PTS [Paragraphs noted as "Unsatisfactory Performance"]; THE RULE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN EXAMINER TO RE-TEST AN APPLICANT ON EVERY TASK WITHIN A FAILED AREA OF OPERATION. Section 61.43(f) is silent on the matter of retesting TASKS within a failed area of operation. AGAIN EMPHASIS IS ON "THE RULE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN EXAMINER TO RE-TEST AN APPLICANT ON EVERY TASK WITHIN A FAILED AREA OF OPERATION." However, the rule does not prevent an examiner from re-testing an applicant on every task within a previously failed area of operation. In accordance with Order 8710.3C, page 5-6, paragraph 21.B, an examiner has the authority to re-evaluate any TASK within an area of operation that was previously failed. Ref. §61.43(f); Per §61.43(f), it states: "If a practical test is discontinued, the applicant IS ENTITLED CREDIT FOR THOSE AREAS OF OPERATION THAT WERE PASSED, but only if the applicant . . ." The key words to focus on here is "AREAS OF OPERATION." It doesn't say anything about "TASK." Reference a review of the Private Pilot PTS, the paragraph noted as "Unsatisfactory Performance" on page vii, it states in pertinent part, ". . . Whether the test is continued or discontinued, the applicant is entitled credit for only those TASKS satisfactorily performed. However, during the retest and at the discretion of the examiner, any TASK may be re-evaluated, including those previously passed." Yes, the examiner has the authority to ". . . at the discretion of the examiner, any TASK may be re-evaluated, . ." What this is saying, in effect, is yes, any TASK may be re-evaluated within that failed area of operation. But read on, because Order 8710.3C, page 5-6, paragraph 21.B states: "Whenever the examiner has reason to doubt the applicant's competence in areas for which the applicant received credit during a previous practical test, the examiner SHALL reexamine the applicant on all areas of operation required for that certificate or rating." First example, what Order 8710.3C, page 5-6, paragraph 21.B is saying: An applicant for a Private Pilot Certificate for an airplane single engine land rating successfully completes the entire flight test but on one of the tasks listed in Area of Operation I of the Private Pilot PTS, he failed. The applicant failed aeromedical factors task H. When the applicant is retested, the examiner MAY or MAY NOT retest the applicant on every task within Area of Operation I. Area of Operation I includes the following task: A. Certificates and documents; B. Weather information; C. Cross country flight planning; D National airspace system; E. Performance and limitations; F. Operation of systems; G. Minimum equipment list; H. Aeromedical factors. The examiner, in accordance with Order 8710.3C, page 5-6, paragraph 21.B, has the authority and should re-examine the applicant on all tasks within that failed area of opeation. However, the examiner in accordance with the Private Pilot PTS [the paragraph noted as "Unsatisfactory Performance" on page vii] ". . . the applicant is entitled credit for only those TASKS satisfactorily performed. However, during the retest and at the discretion of the examiner, any TASK may be re-evaluated, including those previously passed." Second example: An applicant for a Private Pilot Certificate for an airplane single engine land rating fails the VI. Ground Reference Maneuvers Area of Operation but passes all of the remaining Areas of Operation of the Private Pilot PTS. On the retest, ". . . the examiner has reason to doubt the applicant's competence on the Navigation Area of Operation because applicant appeared to be weak in finding his way back to the airport. Then, in accordance with Order 8710.3C, page 5-6, paragraph 21.B, yes the examiner has the authority and should re-examine the applicant on that area of opeation. So, for an individual examiner to make a "blanket policy" to retest applicants on everything is not appropriate, nor does §61.43(f) support such a policy, nor does the PTS support such a policy, nor does FAA Order 8710.3C support such a policy. {q&a-140} QUESTION: Every PTS gives the examiner the option to retest even areas of operation that were passed. But, §61.43(f) states: (f) If a practical test is discontinued, the applicant is entitled credit for those areas of operation that were passed, but only if the applicant: ... Does this mean those areas can not be retested on the applicants next attempt? ANSWER: The rule does NOT prevent an examiner from reexamining areas where there is reasonable doubt on that applicant's skills and abilities. The FAA's existing policy supports an examiner if during the retest he or she observed an unsatisfactory performance of a task on an area of operation that was initially passed. We believe the wording of the rule supports that. But we don't want the examiner doing the entire test over again. That isn't fair either. {q&a-9 question #13} & {q&a-30 question #7} QUESTION 6: §61.43(b) as written could possibly apply to a private pilot practical test in a Cessna 150 if you don't clarify that this provision is only applicable to aircraft that by its type certificate requires a crew of two. ANSWER 6: We have to disagree with you on this one. §61.43(b) states: (b) If an applicant does not demonstrate single pilot proficiency, as required in paragraph (a)(5) of this section, a limitation of "Second in Command Required" will be placed on the applicant's airman certificate. and (a)(5) states: (5) Demonstrate single-pilot competence if the aircraft is TYPE certificated for single-pilot operations. {q&a-30} QUESTION 1: The REG talks to a 60 day limit for the certification process. 1. The Discontinued practical test; is that adding an additional 60 days to the process or is it 60 days Period? ANSWER 1: The answer to your question is contained in §61.43(f) subparagraph (1): (f) If a practical test is discontinued, the applicant is entitled credit for those areas of operation that were passed, but only if the applicant: (1) Passes the remainder of the practical test within the 60-day period after the date the practical test was discontinued; For example, if an applicant's practical test is discontinued on September 5, 1997, then that applicant must complete the rest of the practical test on or before 11:59:59pm on November 11, 1997, OR ELSE. In counting from September 5 to November 11, it is 60 days exactly. QUESTION 2: Is there any time limit between simulator and aircraft checks? ANSWER 2: Just like §61.43(f) says, "the 60-day period after the date the practical test was discontinued;" So, if an applicant's practical test is discontinued on September 5, 1997, then that applicant must complete the rest of the practical test on or before 11:59:59pm on November 11, 1997, OR ELSE. QUESTION 3: If I completed a Simulator check and are waiting to get an Aircraft Check, and my Oral date exceeds 60 days. Must I redo the Simulator portion or just restart the 60 day clock with a new Oral? ANSWER 3: Just like §61.43(f)(1) says, "the applicant is entitled credit for those areas of operation that were passed, but only if the applicant: (1) Passes the remainder of the practical test within the 60-day period after the date the practical test was discontinued;" So, if an applicant's practical test is discontinued on September 5, 1997, then that applicant must complete the rest of the practical test on or before 11:59:59pm on November 11, 1997, OR start over. {q&a-54} QUESTION 1: As per §61.43(b), our read on this new rule would allow somebody to qualify in a Cessna 500 or 550 for a CE-500 type rating and then operate a Cessna 501 or 551 as a PIC without an SIC. As you know the Cessna 500 and 550 are airplanes that require an SIC and the Cessna 501 and 551 do not require an SIC. However, it is possible for a person to take his checkride in a Cessna 500 or 550 and never have demonstrated PIC proficiency without having an SIC on board. But because the Cessna 500, 501, 550, and 551 all have the same "CE-500" type rating on a person's pilot certificate, it is possible for that same person to take his practical test in a Cessna 500 or 550 and then be legal to serve as a PIC on a Cessna 501 and 551 without an SIC. ANSWER 1: The new §61.43(b) neither added to or subtracted from the possibility of this happening. In a review of this issue, we agree that the possibility of this happening is possible, but as it has always been said ALL the rules in the world will not prevent stupidity. However, to date this office is not aware of any cases where persons who qualified in a Cessna 500 or 550 are operating Cessna 501's and 551's as a PIC in solo flight. Do you know of any such cases where this is occurring or has occurred? {q&a-6} QUESTION 10: The revised FAR 61.43(b) requires that the limitation "Second in Command Required" be placed on the airman certificate of an airman who does not demonstrate single-pilot competence during a practical test if the aircraft is type certificated for single-pilot operations. In the past, the Cessna Exemption (4050I, as amended) defined competence as completing the entire practical test required by the Practical Test Standards (PTS) for the airman rating sought, and it specified circling approaches in both directions. This exemption does not apply to the C-501 and C-551 aircraft, which are type certificated for a single pilot. The PTS for Airline Transport Pilot and type ratings is silent on the subject of single pilot competence. This office believes, that in order to meet the requirement of demonstrating competence in single-pilot operations, it would be necessary for the applicant to circle in both directions. Additionally, it is felt that an individual who wishes to add single-pilot authority to his/her certificate must complete the entire practical test to remove the restriction. This authority is not clearly granted or denied in the PTS. We respectfully request guidance on this matter as the date of Part 61 implementation is fast approaching (Aug. 4, 1997). ANSWER 11: To summarize, the question involves an applicant who qualifies in a Cessna 550 and now holds a CE-500 type rating. No place on that applicant's pilot certificate does it contain the limitation "Second in Command Required" and the applicant did not demonstrate single pilot performance. So the applicant is technically legal to fly a Cessna 501 and a Cessna 551 without an SIC. However going the different route, an applicant who qualifies in a Cessna 501, but did not demonstrate single pilot performance, would have the limitation "Second in Command Required" Both applicants now hold a CE-500 type rating. The new §61.43(b) did not add nor did it create this problem. we find it quite improbable that a person who has never received training nor passed a practical test in the Cessna 501 (or a Cessna 551 whatever) would attempt to fly it single pilot. We believe this is one of these "what if" questions. We realize this is a potential problem, but going the other way and requiring our AFS-760 office to place the limitation "Second in Command Required" on every applicant's pilot certificate causes a different set of problems and bookkeeping requirements. {q&a-73} 61.45 Practical tests: Required aircraft & equipment QUESTION: The question continues to surface among the flight instructors as to what is acceptable "vision restriction". Some instructors are saying that no vision restriction is required if the instructor or examiner determines that no vision restriction is necessary even though the training is accomplished as "simulated instrument conditions". The other condition is the use of a "ball cap" or "the agreement by the student that he will not look outside", with the obvious question being, is either of these methods considered to be suitable "restriction to outside references"? I was told today that Flight Safety does not use any vision restriction device in Jets even though simulated instrument conditions are required by the PTS. ANSWER: Ref: §§ 61.45(d)(2) and 61.51(g); FAA Order 8700.1, vol. 2, page 1-12; FAA Order 8400.10, vol. III, page 3-270 and vol. V, page, 5-88; The only specific rule reference to what constitutes what is acceptable "vision restriction" is addressed in § 61.45(d)(2) [i.e., "(2) A device that prevents the applicant from having visual reference outside the aircraft, but does not prevent the examiner from having visual reference outside the aircraft, and is otherwise acceptable to the Administrator.]. Emphasis added ". . . A device that prevents the applicant from having visual reference outside the aircraft." And per FAA Order 8700.1, vol. 2, page 1-12, paragraph 15.B. it states "During the practical test for an instrument rating or other ratings requiring a demonstration of instrument proficiency, the applicant must provide equipment, satisfactory to the inspector, which prevents flight by visual reference." Now in reference to your question/statement ". . . does not use any vision restriction device . . ." Per § 61.51(g)(1), it states "A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions." So, in order to log instrument flight time the pilot must be utilizing a view limiting device. Except for when a pilot is operating an aircraft solely by reference to instruments in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC), how else could a pilot comply with § 61.51(g)(1) for logging instrument flight time [i.e., ". . . when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions."] unless the pilot was utilizing a view limiting device! So the answer is, in order to log instrument flight time for simulated instrument flight a person must be utilizing a view limiting device. A promise by the applicant to not look outside the aircraft is not acceptable. And neither is the use of an ordinary ball cap, unless there is view limiting attachments to the bill of the cap that prevents the applicant from having visual reference outside the aircraft. However, as per § 61.51(g)(2), an authorized instructor may log instrument time when conducting instrument flight instruction in actual instrument flight conditions. Per FAA Order 8400.10, vol. III, page 3-270 and vol. V, page, 5-88 address the policy requirement for use of a view limiting device when training and evaluating a pilot to control an aircraft on instruments and to navigate without reference to outside cues under 14 CFR parts 121 and 135. And under FAA Order 8400.10, the policy requires the use of a view limiting device when performing ". . . training and evaluating a pilot to control an aircraft on instruments and to navigate without reference to outside cues." {q&a-420} QUESTION: An applicant is seeking an ATP pilot certificate for an airplane multiengine land rating in a Cessna 337. The applicant holds a Commercial Pilot Certificate with an Airplane Single Engine Land, Airplane Multiengine Land, and Instrument Airplane rating. Otherwise, the applicant does not have any "Limited to Center Thrust" limitation on his Airplane Multiengine Land rating at the Commercial Pilot Certificate level. Is it appropriate to allow the applicant for an ATP pilot certificate for an airplane multiengine land rating to take the practical test in a Cessna 337? Will the applicant's ATP certificate be issued with the "Limited to Center Thrust" limitation on the Airplane Multiengine Land rating? ANSWER: Ref. § 61.45(b)(2); Yes, an applicant may chose to take a practical test for an ATP certificate for an Airplane Multiengine Land rating in a Cessna 337. That airplane has operating characteristics that preclude the applicant from performing all of the tasks required for the practical test. In the ATP PTS, reference to Vmc speed is made in III. Area of Operation Takeoff and Departure Phrase -- D. Task: Rejected Takeoff in Objective 7. And III. Area of Operation Takeoff and Departure Phrase -- C. Task: Powerplant Failure During Takeoff and VI. Area of Operation: Landing and Approaches to Landings -- C. Task: Approach and Landing with (Simulated) Powerplant Failure-Multiengine Airplane are indicative of procedures that are for a conventional multiengine airplane with a manufacturer's Vmc speed. Yes, the applicant will receive the limitation "Limited to Center Thrust" on his ATP pilot certificate. Section 61.45(b)(2) allows for the use of an aircraft with operating characteristics that preclude the applicant from performing all of the tasks required for the practical test, but it requires that the applicant's pilot certificates to ". . . be issued with an appropriate limitation." Therefore, the applicant's pilot certificate will be issued with the limitation "Limited to Center Thrust" on his Airplane Multiengine Land rating at the ATP certificate level. The newly issued Airline Transport Pilot Certificate will read as follows: Airline Transport Pilot Airplane Multiengine Land - "Limited to Center Thrust" Commercial Pilot Privileges Airplane Single Engine Land When the applicant accomplishes the removal of the limitation "Limited to Center Thrust' at the ATP certificate level, as set forth on page 10 of the ATP PTS [i.e., FAA-S-8081-5D, or additional policy is set forth in HBGA 99-07A, (Amended)], then the limitation will be removed. {q&a-418} QUESTION: I am seeking concurrence that I can use an Aeronca 11AC airplane, or equivalent, which has only basic flight instruments (airspeed indicator and altimeter), to take the Private Pilot Practical Test. This aircraft is incapable of performing flight solely by reference to instruments (i.e., Area of Operation IX, Tasks A, B, C, D, and E of the Private Pilot Practical Test Standards, FAA-S-8081-14). A handheld radio permits performing Task F of Area of Operation IX. Section 61.45(b)(2) states that "An applicant for a certificate or rating may use an aircraft with operating characteristics that preclude the applicant from performing all of the tasks required for the practical test. However, the applicant's certificate or rating, as appropriate, will be issued with an appropriate limitation." It is my judgement that § 61.45(b)(2) allows the use of an airplane with only basic flight instruments for the Private Pilot Practical Test subject to an appropriate limitation, such as "VFR only." As VFR flight does not entail flight solely by reference to instruments, this limitation seems safe, reasonable, and appropriate. In the FARs there is no relief from the instrument training requirement of § 61.109, to be completed prior to taking the Practical Test. Therefore, any Private Pilot applicant that, pursuant to § 61.45(b)(2), wishes to take the Private Pilot Practical Test in an "antique" or "classic" aircraft, which has only basic flight instruments, must have the same instrument training as every other Private Pilot applicant, and so in no way jeopardizes safety or fairness. ANSWER: Ref. § 61.43(d) and § 61.45(b)(1)(i) and Private Pilot Practical Test Standards, page iv, paragraph noted as Aircraft and Equipment Required for the Practical Test; No, you may not accomplish the entire private pilot practical test for the airplane single engine land rating in your Aeronca 11-AC. However, you may utilize your Aeronca 11-AC for those tasks in the Private Pilot Practical Test Standards that your Aeronca 11-AC is equipped for and capable of performing. If you still want to use your Aeronca 11-AC, this will require you to bring two airplanes for use during the practical test. Your Aeronca 11-AC makes it incapable for you to be tested on Area of Operation IX of the Private Pilot Practical Test Standards, FAA-S-8081-14 (i.e., flight solely by reference to instruments). Your Aeronca 11-AC has no electrical system, so it makes it incapable for you to be tested on Area of Operation III Airport Operations; Area of Operation VII, and certain emergency tasks in Area of Operation X. You will need to bring a single engine airplane to the practical test that is equipped to allow the examiner to test you on those Areas of Operation. Per the Private Pilot Practical Test Standards, page iv, paragraph noted as Aircraft and Equipment Required for the Practical Test, it states "The aircraft must be equipped for, and its operating limitations must not prohibit, the performance of all TASKS required on the test." And per § 61.43(d), it states: "An applicant is not eligible for a certificate or rating sought until all the areas of operation are passed." As per § 61.103(f), (g), and (h), an applicant for a private pilot certificate is required to receive flight training and a logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor who ". . . Conducted the training in the areas of operation listed in § 61.107(b) of this part that apply to the aircraft rating sought. . . . " ". . . Meet the aeronautical experience requirements of this part that apply to the aircraft rating sought before applying for the practical test . . . " and ". . . Pass a practical test on the areas of operation listed in § 61.107(b) of this part that apply to the aircraft rating sought." You could not do this in your Aeronca 11-AC. Nor in your Aeronca 11-AC could you accomplish night flight training/aeronautical experience and flight training on the control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to instruments. As for your referencing § 61.45(b)(2) [i.e., ". . . may use an aircraft with operating characteristics that preclude the applicant from performing all of the tasks required for the practical test . . . "], the FAA has established specific policy in FAA Order 8700.1, Volume 2, page 1-24, paragraph E and page 27-2, paragraph 3.I to address certain aircraft (i.e., the Ercoupe 415 series without rudder pedals, Cessna 336/337 that does not have a Vmc speed, and other aircraft that are equipped for pilots with medical disabilities). However, the FAA has not established policy on the Aeronca 11-AC. I doubt if the FAA will ever establish policy to allow the use of Aeronca 11-AC, because your aircraft lacks the basic equipment for it to be allowed to be utilized solely for a private pilot practical test. {q&a-415} QUESTION: Meaning of "dual controls" as it applies to civil aircraft being used for either flight instruction or practical tests, in accordance with (IAW) Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 91, section 91.109. ANSWER: Ref. § 61.45(c); The below Flight Standards handbook bulletin (i.e., HBGA 00-08) was issued on May 26, 2000 in response to explaining the meaning of "dual controls" as it applies to civil aircraft being used for either flight instruction or practical tests. ORDER 8700.1 APPENDIX: 3 BULLETIN TYPE: Flight Standards Handbook Bulletin for General Aviation (HBGA) BULLETIN NUMBER: HBGA 00-08 BULLETIN TITLE: Clarification of Requirement for "Dual Controls" on Civil Aircraft without "Dual Brakes" Being Used to Provide Flight Instruction or Conduct Practical Tests EFFECTIVE DATE: 5-26-00 TRACKING NUMBER: N/A 1. PURPOSE. This bulletin provides guidance concerning the meaning of "dual controls" as it applies to civil aircraft being used for either flight instruction or practical tests, in accordance with (IAW) Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 91, section 91.109. 2. BACKGROUND. A. Neither previous nor current 14 CFR section 61.45 or 91.109 have listed brakes as a "required control" in a civil aircraft when used for either flight instruction or a practical test. B. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has held that both flight instruction and practical tests may be conducted in an airplane without dual brakes when the instructor/examiner determines that the instruction or practical test, as applicable, can be conducted safely in the aircraft. Further, numerous makes and models of both single- and multi-engine civil aircraft, not equipped with two sets of brakes or a central handbrake, have been used to provide flight instruction required for virtually all certificate and rating areas authorized under 14 CFR part 61. C. The FAA Office of General Counsel (AGC) responded to a recent request from industry for an interpretation of the requirement for the brakes on the right side to be equal to the brakes on the left. AGC's response stated that the brakes on the right side did not have to be a duplicate or equal to the brakes on the left side; however, the response inadvertently stated that the brakes on the right side were required. Therefore, it meant that the operating controls accessible to the pilot in the right seat of the aircraft, or to both pilots in a tandem seated aircraft must be capable of performing the same function. This effectively required that an aircraft used for flight instruction or a practical test must be equipped with two sets of brakes or a central handbrake. (1) Title 14 CFR section 91.109(a) states, in part, that no person may operate a civil aircraft that is being used for flight instruction unless that aircraft has fully functioning dual controls. (2) Title 14 CFR section 141.39(d) provides that each aircraft used in flight training must have at least two pilot stations with engine power controls that can be easily reached and operated in a normal manner from both pilot stations. (3) Title 14 CFR section 61.45(b)(1)(i) provides that an aircraft used for a practical test must have the equipment for each area of operation required for the practical test. For example, an examiner may conduct a flight instructor practical test with an applicant in the right seat without brakes on that side. If a task requires the applicant to use the brakes, he or she may either switch seats with the examiner to perform the task or ask the examiner to apply and release the brakes at the applicant's request. (4) Title 14 CFR section 61.45(c) provides that an aircraft (other than lighter-than-air aircraft) used for a practical test must have engine power controls and flight controls that are easily reached and operable in a conventional manner by both pilots, unless the examiner determines that the practical test can be conducted safely in the aircraft without the controls being easily reached. (5) As noted, dual brakes are not a requirement in either of the above sections of 14 CFR. D. Based on FAA's long standing interpretation that brakes are not required controls under 14 CFR section 91.109(a), and upon determining that safety has not been impacted negatively, on April 27, the Office of General Counsel clarified its position that the term "dual controls" as used under 14 CFR section 91.109(a) refers solely to the flight controls of an aircraft (e.g., pitch, yaw, and roll controls). 3. ACTION. Aviation safety inspectors in all Flight Standards District Offices (FSDO) are requested to advise certificated flight instructors, certificated pilot schools, and affected aircraft owners and operators within their jurisdiction, that FAA's previous and long standing policy regarding this matter continues to apply and that civil aircraft with a single set of brakes, with or without a central handbrake, may continue to be used for flight instruction or practical tests IAW all applicable provisions of 14 CFR. 4. INQUIRIES. This bulletin was developed by AFS-800. Any questions or comments regarding the information provided should be directed to AFS-800 at (202) 267-8196. 5. EXPIRATION. This bulletin will expire upon its incorporation in a future change to FAA Order 8700.1, General Aviation Operations Inspectors Handbook, volume 2, chapter 1, section 3, Considerations for the Practical Test. /s/ Michael L. Henry, Manager, General Aviation and Commercial Division {q&a-378} QUESTION: A pilot holds a commercial pilot certificate with a multiengine land rating. He is making application for an add-on airplane single engine land rating. Is he required to train and test in a complex single engine airplane for the added rating or could the training and practical test be in a non-complex single engine airplane (i.e., Cessna 152 or 172, etc.)? ANSWER: Ref. §61.45(a)(1)(i) and §61.63(c)(4) and the Commercial Pilot Practical Test Standards, FAA-S-8081-12A, page 1-v, Change 2 (8-15-97), Note No. 1, "Rating Task Table" that states: "1. If an applicant holds an AMEL rating, a complex airplane is not required for added ASEL rating." The applicant may take the training and the practical test in a non-complex single engine airplane. Reference the "Aircraft and Equipment Required for the Practical Test" stated in the Commercial Pilot Practical Test Standards, FAA-S-8081-12A, Introduction page 6, a complex airplane was required for the initial testing for the commercial certificate in an airplane. Demonstration in complex airplane is required only once for the initial issuance of the commercial airplane certificate and not necessary for class add-on. That is why the above stated note on the Rating Task Table is valid. If, for example the initial commercial certificate were obtained in a helicopter or glider, testing in a complex airplane would be required for an airplane add-on. {q&a-359} QUESTION: We have an application that we returned on correction notice because the instrument maneuvers were not completed. The designated examiner sent a copy of a letter addressed to the FSDO that states "At the time of this ride, the airplane's (i.e., BE-58) navigation equipment was INOP and removed for repairs". It was my understanding that if the aircraft was instrument capable the instrument must be performed, please advise. The checkride was for an add-on airplane multiengine land rating at the commercial pilot level. The applicant holds a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane single engine land and instrument airplane rating. ANSWER: Ref. §§61.43(d) and 61.45(b)(1)(i) and (ii); In this scenario, the applicant would be required to perform the required instrument tasks (i.e., Area of Operation IX, Tasks A, B, and C of the Commercial Pilot Practical Test Standards, FAA-S-8081-12A). In your question, you stated the problem is not with the ". . . aircraft's operating characteristics . . ." but with an inoperative navigation radio. And this aircraft is a current production general aviation airplane (i.e., BE-58). It is not a vintage or antique aircraft that is incapable of instrument flight by type certificate or because of outdated instruments or navaids no longer in production and incompatible for instrument flight as was the case in the scenario with the old Cessna 310 in Q&A #220. The Commercial Pilot Practical Test Standards, FAA-S-8081-12A requires that Area of Operation IX, Tasks A, B, and C be accomplished. Therefore, the applicant is not allowed to get out of performing the required instrument tasks on this practical test. Otherwise, the reason for the applicant not performing the required instrument tasks (i.e., Area of Operation IX, Tasks A, B, and C of the Commercial Pilot Practical Test Standards, FAA-S-8081-12A) must be because of the provisions permitted under §61.45(b)(2) which only account for ". . . . an aircraft with operating characteristics that preclude the applicant from performing all of the tasks required for the practical test." {q&a-358} QUESTION: I read the HBB 99-07A regarding the Center Line Thrust Limitation and noticed the term "manufacturer's published Vmc". We have an inquiry from an applicant who wishes to build a multiengine trainer and keep it in the experimental-amateur built category. As I read FAR 61, it is possible to train and check an applicant in such an airplane(at the examiner's discretion), but there is no "approved AFM" with a published Vmc. But there could be a POH or such provided by the manufacturer of the kit that has a Vmc. Would this satisfy the requirement for a manufacturer published Vmc? ANSWER: Ref. §61.45(b)(2); If the builder/operator can show a proven Vmc (emphasis added PROVEN Vmc meaning during the flight test phase) and the aircraft is capable of performing the task "Engine Inoperative - Loss of Directional Control Demonstration" and the other engine inoperative tasks, then yes it is permissible to utilize an experimental-amateur built multiengine airplane for training and for the practical test ["at the discretion of the examiner . . ." as per §61.45(a)(2)]. However, the aircraft's operating limitations letter, FAA Form 8130-12, and FAA Form 8000-38 must identify the aircraft as an Airplane category and Multiengine class, as required by FAA Order 8130.2C, paragraph 142 b.(8) and per §91.319(e). This answer has been coordinated with Inspector William F. O'Brien, National Resource Specialist, AFS-300 and Lauren Basham, Manager, AFS-840. {q&a-334} QUESTION 1: The situation is I have an applicant who holds a Private Pilot Certificate that reads as follows: PRIVATE PILOT AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE The applicant is seeking a Commercial Pilot Certificate and an Airplane Multiengine Land rating. The applicant has informed me the multiengine airplane (e.g., Cessna 310) is incapable of performing the flight by reference to instruments (i.e., Area of Operation IX, Tasks A, B, and C of the Commercial Pilot Practical Test Standards, FAA-S-8081-12A). Can the applicant be allowed to take the practical test and, if passed, receive the pilot certificate with eather a "VFR ONLY" limitation or the limitation, "The carriage of passengers for hire in multiengine airplanes on cross-country flights in excess of 50 nautical miles or at night is prohibited?" ANSWER 1: Yes, Ref. §61.45(b)(2) and §61.133(b)(1) and FAA Order 8700.1, Volume 2, page 8-6, Section 2, paragraph 5.I.(3); an applicant can be allowed to use an aircraft that is incapable of performing the instrument areas of operations of the practical test. Per §61.45(b)(2), it states: "(2) An applicant for a certificate or rating may use an aircraft with operating characteristics that preclude the applicant from performing all of the tasks required for the practical test. However, the applicant's certificate or rating, as appropriate, will be issued with an appropriate limitation." And since the applicant already holds an Instrument-Airplane rating, there is no requirement to add the limitation "The carriage of passengers for hire in airplanes on cross-country flights in excess of 50 nautical miles or at night is prohibited." Per FAA Order 8700.1, Volume 2, page 6-5, Section 2, paragraph 5.k.(f) Therefore, the limitation that would be placed on the applicant's pilot certificate who did not perform the required instrument Area of Operation IX, Tasks A, B, and C [of the Commercial Pilot Practical Test Standards, FAA-S-8081-12A] would be "Airplane Multiengine VFR Only." That limitation, per FAA Order 8700.1, Volume 2, page 8-6, Section 2, paragraph 5.I.(3), would be so noted with the limitation, "VFR Only," on the applicant's pilot certificate in the limitation section of that certificate. So after the applicant satisfactorily accomplishes the Commercial Pilot Practical Test for the multiengine airplane land rating (but remember in this scenario the applicant DID NOT demonstrate instrument privileges in the multiengine airplane), so the applicant's newly issued pilot certificate will read as follows: COMMERCIAL PILOT AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND PRIVATE PILOT AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND INSTRUMENT - AIRPLANE Airplane Multiengine VFR Only QUESTION: 2 I have a situation where an applicant is seeking an additional class rating in a multiengine land airplane at the commercial pilot level. The applicant currently holds a Commercial Pilot Certificate with an Airplane Single Engine Land rating and an Instrument-Airplane rating. The applicant does not want [emphasis added does not want] to demonstrate the required instrument tasks (i.e., Area of Operation IX, Tasks A, B, and C of the Commercial Pilot Practical Test Standards, FAA-S-8081-12A) in the multiengine airplane during the practical test. If the applicant did not perform the required instrument tasks during the practical test, do we add a limitation of "VFR only" to the airplane multiengine land rating or the limitation "The carriage of passengers for hire in multiengine land airplanes on cross-country flights in excess of 50 nautical miles or at night is prohibited?" ANSWER 2: Ref. §§61.43(d) and 61.45(b)(1)(i) and (ii); In this scenario, the applicant is required to perform the required instrument tasks (i.e., Area of Operation IX, Tasks A, B, and C of the Commercial Pilot Practical Test Standards, FAA-S-8081-12A). In this situation, the problem is not with the aircraft, but with the applicant who does not to want to perform the required instrument Area of Operation IX, Tasks A, B, and C [of the Commercial Pilot Practical Test Standards, FAA-S-8081-12A]. Therefore, the applicant is not allowed to get out of performing the required instrument tasks on the practical test. Otherwise, the reason for the applicant not performing the required instrument tasks (i.e., Area of Operation IX, Tasks A, B, and C of the Commercial Pilot Practical Test Standards, FAA-S-8081-12A) must be because of the provisions permitted under §61.45(b)(2) which only account for ". . . . an aircraft with operating characteristics that preclude the applicant from performing all of the tasks required for the practical test." {q&a-220} CORRECTION: Removal of the example of a person using a Cessna 336/337 to add an airplane multiengine rating onto a flight instructor certificate for which the applicant already holds an airplane single engine rating. This example was incorrect. For correct information see Q&A #350 under §61.187. QUESTION 1: Reference §61.45(b). Several calls have been coming in concerning a possible change in policy on allowing Cessna 336's and 337's to again be allowed to be used for practical tests for certificates and ratings. Is this true, has there been a change? It appears with the new wording in §61.45(b) that it is now possible once again to begin doing practical tests in Cessna 336's and 337's. ANSWER 1: In the preamble of the final rule correction document that was issued on April 23, 1998 (78 FR 20283), we stated the following: "Section 61.45 Practical tests: Required aircraft and equipment. In the correction to the final rule, the FAA added the language ``Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator'' to the introductory paragraph of §61.45(b). This language was added to permit an applicant to obtain authorization from the Administrator to take the practical test in an aircraft whose operating characteristics preclude a pilot from demonstrating all of the maneuvers required to be performed during the practical test. For example, the Cessna (C) 336 and 337 series airplanes do not have a published minimum control speed with critical engine inoperative (Vmc) and thus an applicant for an airplane multiengine rating would not be able to perform the Vmc demonstration task if a C-336/337 series airplane is used to take the practical test. As noted in the correction to the final rule, a similar provision was included in §61.13(c) before the adoption of the final rule but was inadvertently omitted when the provisions of that paragraph were incorporated into §61.45(b). Upon further review, the FAA has determined that instead of relying on the phrase ``Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator,'' §61.45(b) should be revised to explicitly provide for the use of such aircraft. Therefore, §61.45(b) has been revised to provide that an applicant for a certificate or rating may use an aircraft whose operating characteristics preclude the applicant from performing all of the tasks required for the practical test. The FAA notes that before the adoption of the final rule, §61.13(c) also provided for the placement of a limitation on an applicant's certificate or rating if such an aircraft is used by an applicant. This provision was inadvertently omitted from the previous correction of §61.45(b). Therefore, §61.45(b) now provides that the applicant's certificate or rating will be issued with an appropriate limitation if an aircraft whose operating characteristics preclude demonstration of all the tasks required for a practical test." Additionally, the Airbus A300 is capable of performing steep turns, and they are in fact required as part of the type rating checkride. Fly-by-wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A320, A330, A340 and B-777 are not required to perform certain maneuvers historically required during the practical test. The FAA's Flight Standardization Board has determined there is no requirement to check steep turns and stalls on these aircraft, by virtue of their design and system architecture. These maneuvers may be addressed as training proficiency items. Therefore, it is now permissible to use a Cessna 336 or Cessna 337 for an airplane multiengine engine land rating. And the pilot certificates will retain the "Limited to center thrust" limitation that is addressed in Order 8700.1, Volume 2, page 28-6, paragraph 5.I.(2)(a). As an example, the person is using a Cessna 336 to add an airplane multiengine land rating onto a commercial pilot certificate for which the applicant already holds an airplane single engine land rating. Specific guidance on the limitations to place on the applicant's pilot certificate, are as follows: Commercial Pilot Airplane Single & Multiengine Land Airplane multiengine land privileges limited to center thrust NOTE: When the applicant completes a commercial pilot practical test in a multiengine airplane that has a published Vmc speed, the limitation may be removed. Another example, the person is using a Cessna 337 to qualify for an additional airplane multiengine land rating onto her existing Private Pilot certificate and instrument privileges in a multiengine airplane for which the applicant already holds an airplane single engine rating and instrument airplane rating. Specific guidance on the limitations to place on the applicant's private pilot certificate, are as follows: Private Pilot Airplane Single and Multiengine Land Instrument - Airplane Airplane multiengine land privileges limited to center thrust NOTE: When the applicant completes the training, endorsements, and the instrument tasks required by the Practical Test Standards in a multiengine airplane that has a published Vmc speed, the limitation may be removed. Another example, the person is using a Ercoupe 415B for a Private Pilot Certificate for an airplane single engine land rating. Specific guidance on the limitations to place on the applicant's private pilot certificate, are as follows: Private Pilot Airplane Single Engine Land Airplane single engine land privileges limited to Ercoupe 415 NOTE: When the applicant completes a private pilot practical test in a single engine airplane that has a published stall speeds and stalling capabilities, the limitation may be removed. Another example, the person is using an Airbus 320 to apply for an Airline Transport Pilot Certificate with an airplane multiengine land rating and an A320 type rating. The applicant previously held a Commercial Pilot Certificate with ratings in an ASEL, ASES, and AMEL-Limited to Center Thrust. The applicant's AMEL rating was gained previously by completing the practical test in a CE-337. Specific guidance on the limitations to place on the applicant's pilot certificate, are as follows: Airline Transport Pilot Airplane Multiengine Land Commercial Pilot Privileges Airplane Single Engine Land & Sea Airplane multiengine land privileges at the ATP level limited to A320 NOTE: When the applicant completes an ATP practical test in a multiengine airplane where stalls and steep turns were performed, the limitation may be removed. The center line thrust limitation was removed at completion of the ATP practical test in the A320, because the A320 has a published Vmc speed. The guidance for the center thrust limitation for military pilots, is being restated here, in accordance with Order 8700.1, Volume 2, page 28-6, paragraph 5.I.(2)(a). Military pilots who qualify for their Commercial Pilot Certificate with an Airplane Multiengine Land Rating and Instrument-Airplane rating, in accordance with §61.73, and for which the military pilot only qualified in a multiengine airplane that was limited to center thrust during the course of his or her military training shall be issued a center thrust limitation. That guidance is stated in Order 8700.1, Volume 2, page 28-6, paragraph 5.I.(2)(a) which states in pertinent part, ". . . If the military applicant qualified in a multiengine airplane that does not have a Vmc speed, enter LIMITED TO CENTER THRUST after the airplane multiengine class rating." Specific guidance on the limitation to place on the applicant's pilot certificate, are as follows: Commercial Pilot Airplane Multiengine Land Instrument - Airplane Airplane multiengine land privileges limited to center thrust This guidance is being developed and will be incorporated into an upcoming change to FAA Orders 8700.1 and 8710.3C. In the interim, comply with the above guidance. There is an upcoming final rule document that we're getting ready to issue on this matter. I am sure there may be some aircraft out there that I haven't captured here, so those aircraft will have to be addressed on a case by case basis. If you have a unique situation that occurs that is not addressed here, then please call AFS-840 at 202 267-8196 and this office will give you more specific guidance. {q&a-89} QUESTION 3: Reference §61.45(a)(1)(i). Is it possible, as an example, for an applicant to use a Piper Senaca II on the practical test for the complex airplane requirements for the Commercial Pilot Certificate with an airplane single engine land rating? Even if the applicant is not rated in a multiengine airplane" ANSWER 3: Yes, a complex multiengine airplane can be used on the practical test to meet the complex airplane requirements of the Commercial Pilot Certificate for an airplane single engine land rating. However, if the applicant does not hold an airplane multiengine land rating, somebody else has to be the PIC for the practical test. Hopefully, this doesn't happen to often. This is the rationale behind this answer. The aeronautical experience for the commercial pilot certificate with a single engine airplane rating [i.e., §61.129(a)(3)(ii)] just says ". . . in an airplane that has a retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller. . ." Now for the commercial pilot certificate with a multiengine airplane rating [i.e., §61.129(b)(3)(ii)] it says ". . . in a multiengine airplane that has a retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller. . ." We made a distinction between the commercial pilot certificate with a single engine airplane rating [i.e., §61.129(a)(3)(ii)] vs. the commercial pilot certificate with a multiengine airplane rating [i.e., §61.129(b)(3)(ii)]. In the aeronautical experience for the commercial pilot certificate with a single engine airplane rating [i.e., §61.129(a)(3)(ii)] the rule is silent on whether the airplane has to be a single engine or multiengine. But in §61.129(b)(3)(ii) for the commercial pilot certificate with a multiengine airplane rating, the rule specifically requires the aeronautical experience be in a multiengine airplane. But, there is a difference for Part 141 schools. The rules in Appendix D of Part 141 [i.e., paragraph (b)(1)(ii)] specifically require the training to be in a complex single engine airplane for a course of training leading to a Commercial Pilot Certificate with an airplane single engine rating. Yes, the rule was written that way on purpose! We should expect better standards from our Part 141 schools without question! {q&a-89} QUESTION 3: Ref 61.45(c), how does a DPE give a practical test in a glider if the regs require engine power controls? ANSWER 3: The intent of §61.45(c) is really for powered aircraft. Well, it also applies for taking practical tests in motorized gliders. But we agree, we probably should have added the words "and a glider without an engine)" in the phrase "(other than a lighter-than-air aircraft)." {q&a-67} QUESTION 2: The Winston-Salem police department wants to use their military surplus OH-58 helicopters to qualify some of their police personnel for a commercial pilot certificate with a helicopter rating. These OH-58 helicopters do not hold any kind of FAA airworthiness certificate. They are excess military aircraft that were given to the police department. Can they take their practical tests in these helicopter? ANSWER 2: No; per §61.45(a)(1)(ii) or (a)(2)(i). The aircraft has to have an airworthiness certificate. This is not just required in §61.45(a), but is also a requirement in Public Law 100-223, AC No. 00-1.1 [i.e., paragraph 5.a.], and also by HBGA 97-06, paragraph 3 that was issued on June 11, 1997. Furthermore, we in the FAA have the responsibility to administer Public Law 100-223. Per this public law and per an AGC-100's legal interpretation, training for pilot certification is not even permitted in these public use aircraft that do not hold an FAA airworthiness certificate. {q&a-75} 61.49 Retesting after failure QUESTION: An applicant holds a private pilot certificate with ASEL and AMEL ratings. He attempted a initial instrument airplane check ride in a PA23 airplane multiengine land airplane. He passed all area of operation EXCEPT Area of Operation V, Objective 4 (intercept a specified radial at a predetermined angle, inbound or outbound from a navigational facility). The question is: Can he use a ASEL for the re-test? It would seem that he could since the applicant did furnish an appropriate aircraft and did successfully complete the tasks required (Area's of Operation II and VII.) to not have a restriction against AMEL (MEL VFR ONLY) on his instrument rating. Had the applicant wanted to, he could have split the check ride into two airplanes to start with; doing most of the ride in a ASEL and then just doing those specified tasks called out for AMEL privileges. Therefore I believe it would be acceptable for the retest to be completed in a Cessna 172 or any other properly equipped ASEL. ANSWER: Ref. § 61.49(a); §61.45(a)(1)(i); the Commercial Pilot PTS - Airplane MEL, Area of Operation IX; and the Instrument Rating PTS - Airplane; and § 61.65(a)(8)(ii). YES, The applicant may perform the retest in that Cessna 172 or other properly equipped ASEL. The basis for the answer: For instrument privileges in a multiengine airplane, per the Commercial Pilot PTS - Airplane MEL, Area of Operation IX, the applicant is only required to perform Tasks A, B, and C [i.e., A. Engine Failure During Flight (By Reference to Instruments); B. Instrument Approach - All Engine Operating (By Reference to Instruments); C. Instrument Approach - One Engine Inoperative (By Reference to Instruments)]. And a further review of §61.45(a)(1)(i), it states "(i) Is of the category, class, and type, if applicable, for which the applicant is applying for a certificate or rating." "Class" is not appropriate in this situation, because the Instrument Rating is only an Airplane category. "Type" isn't appropriate in this situation either. The "category" is met with the Cessna 172. You stated, ". . . the applicant only failed Area of Operation V, Objective 4 . . . to intercept a specified radial at a predetermined angle, inbound or outbound from a navigational facility . . ." of the Instrument Rating PTS. That is not a "Area of Operation" that is uniquely associated with the AMEL rating for instrument privileges and otherwise § 61.49(a) is silent on this issue. So, the applicant may perform the failed " Area of Operation V, Objective 4" for the retest in an airplane single engine land. Or it may be performed in a flight training device. Or it may be performed in a flight simulator. Ref. § 61.65(a)(8)(ii). {q&a-410} QUESTION 1: Does an applicant for an ATP or type rating retest have to have an instructor endorsement on the back of an airman application? ANSWER 1: §61.49(a)(2); The answer is yes, an applicant for an ATP or type rating retest must have an instructor endorsement on the back of an airman application. QUESTION 2: If yes, does the instructor who signs the application have to have a flight instructor certificate issued under Part 61 with the category, class and, if applicable, type rating associated for the type of retest? ANSWER 2: Ref. §61.3(d)(2)(iii) or §61.3(d)(3)(i) through (v) and §61.167(b); It would have to be a holder of a CFI certificate and that CFI would have to hold the type rating on his/her pilot certificate, if it is a type rated aircraft. However, there are five exceptions listed under §61.3(d)(3) (i) through (v). Two of the exceptions may apply to this situation. One of the exceptions for requiring a CFI is addressed in §61.3(d)(3)(ii), whereas the signing instructor is only required to hold an airline transport pilot certificate with a rating appropriate to the aircraft in which the training is given . . ." if ". . . the training is given in accordance with the privileges of the certificate and conducted in accordance with an approved air carrier training program approved under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter . . ." The other of the exceptions is §61.3(d)(3)(iii) in the case of training provided under Part 142, the signing instructor for the re-test would not need to hold a CFI if ". . . the training is given by a person who is qualified in accordance with subpart C of part 142 of this chapter, provided the training is conducted in accordance with an approved part 142 training program . . ." {q&a-355} QUESTION 9: §61.49(a)(2) states: "(2) An endorsement from an authorized instructor who gave the applicant the additional training." Where is the endorsement given, on a piece of paper, another application, logbook??? ANSWER 9: We will change §61.49(a)(2) to clarify where the endorsement should be placed to read as follows: (2) An endorsement on a newly completed application and in the applicant's logbook from an authorized instructor who gave the applicant the additional training. {q&a-30} 61.51 Pilot logbooks QUESTION: A person is receiving training for a U.S. Commercial Pilot and Instrument Rating. The person holds a Canadian Commercial Pilot Certificate - ASEL and AMEL, and Instrument-Airplane Rating. The person has received a Restricted U.S. private pilot certificate, ASEL and AMEL, Instrument Airplane (passed the instrument foreign knowledge test) that was issued in accordance with §61.75 (based on her Canadian pilot certificate). The person stated that the examiner is denying her to take the practical tests because he said he cannot count her previous flight training received in Canada from a Canadian flight instructor [§61.41(a)(2)] because the individual training sessions were not signed off individually by the instructor. She stated her logbook and the way they do it in Canada at the school she attended to earn her Canadian Commercial Pilot Certificate and Instrument Rating was that she would fill in the contents and times of each training session, and then the school's chief instructor would make one single signature endorsement on each page of her logbook that essentially states that he the chief instructor is certifying the times and contents of the training are correct. The person stated the examiner who is denying her to take the practical tests told her each entry must be signed by the flight instructor. I assume this examiner is reading §61.51(h)(2) and understanding that to specifically state that the training must be individually signed off for each lesson. Does each individual flight training session have to be signed off individually by the instructor or can one signature from the instructor serve as a "blanket" signature for all the flight training sessions? ANSWER: Ref. §61.51(b) nor (h)(2); Neither §61.51(b) nor (h)(2) require that each training session be signed off individually by the instructor. I agree that may be the normal and probably preferred method, but it is not the only method for ". . . Be endorsed in a legible manner by the authorized instructor . . ." [i.e., §61.51(h)(2)]. It is possible and I've seen it both ways, that the instructor just makes one blanket signature for the entire page or the instructor can make individual signatures to log the flight training given. And I've seen it where the instructor makes one blanket signature on the last page of the student's training jacket that certifies the flight training given. Either way, the rules are not specific on addressing this issue. Unless there is something more that I'm not being told in the question to suspect the flight training time may not be legitimate, I would not prevent the person from qualifying for the practical test merely because each flight training session was not individually signed off by the instructor. As I previously stated, neither §61.51(b) nor (h)(2) require the training sessions to be individually signed off by the instructor. {q&a-437} REVISION: Q&A #254 revision is a result of the issuance of Public Law 106-424, section 14, dated November 1, 2000. Public Law 106-424. Public Law 106-424, Section 14 and some pertinent discussion is shown in Appendix #1 at the end of this Q&A document. QUESTION 1: In accordance with §61.51(e)(1)(i), can a rated and qualified pilot [e.g., meaning a pilot who holds a Commercial Pilot Certificate with a Helicopter rating] log that flight time to meet the aeronautical experience, recency of experience, and currency requirements of 14 CFR part 61 in the Baltimore County Police Department's OH-58's which are surplus former military helicopters? Otherwise, is this flight time logable while these police officers are flying these Baltimore County Police Department OH-58's during the performance of their assigned police functions and missions? Meaning, is this time logable as PIC time under § 61.51(e)(1)(i) [meaning if the pilot ". . . Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated . . ."]? ANSWER 1: Ref. § 61.51(e)(1)(i); Public Law 106-424, § 14, dated November 1, 2000; and FAA Order 8700.1, Volume 2, Chapter 1, page 1-46 and 1-47, paragraph 9.B; The answer is yes, the time is logable provided the pilot of a Federal, State, County, or Municipality law enforcement agency is (or was) engaged in a law enforcement flight activity. QUESTION 2: Is the flight time acquired by a pilot of a Federal, State, County, or Municipality law enforcement agency who is engaged in a law enforcement flight activity logable for the purpose of meeting the requirements of § 61.51(a)(1) and (2)? ANSWER 2: Ref. § 61.51(a)(1) and (2); Public Law 106-424, § 14, dated November 1, 2000; Yes this time is logable, provided the pilot of a Federal, State, County, or Municipality law enforcement agency is engaged in a law enforcement flight activity. QUESTION 3: What about the flight time [i.e., meaning "pilot time," "solo flight time," "pilot in command flight time," and "instrument flight time"] performed in public aircraft by a pilot of a Federal, State, County, or Municipality law enforcement agency who was engaged in an official and authorized law enforcement activity prior to the establishment of Public Law 106-424, § 14, meaning flight time performed prior to November 1, 2000? Will those pilots who were not allowed to log the flight time prior to the establishment of Public Law 106-424, § 14 now be allowed to log that flight time that was performed prior to November 1, 2000 (otherwise will that flight time now be "grandfathered" in as logable flight time now? ANSWER 3: § 61.51; Public Law 106-424, § 14, dated November 1, 2000; Yes, the flight time may be "grandfathered or grandmothered," (yes it may be logged) provided the pilot of a Federal, State, County, or Municipality law enforcement agency was engaged in a law enforcement flight activity. QUESTION 4: Does Public Law 106-424, § 14, dated November 1, 2000, permit a pilot of a Federal, State, County, or Municipality law enforcement agency to utilize a public aircraft for the purpose of receiving pilot training to meet the aeronautical experience, recency of experience, and currency requirements of 14 CFR part 61 and also log the time? As for example, can the Baltimore County Police Department and its pilots utilize their surplus military OH-58 helicopter to provide flight training for one of their pilot applicants for the purpose of receiving pilot training to meet the aeronautical experience, recency of experience, and currency requirements of 14 CFR part 61? Meaning, the flight does not involve any law enforcement activity. The purpose of the flight is strictly for the purpose of their pilot applicant to receive pilot training to meet the aeronautical experience, recency of experience, and currency requirements of 14 CFR part 61. ANSWER 4: Ref. § 61.51 & Public Law 103-411 and Section 40102 of Title 49 of the United States Code; The answer is no. In the scenario you have presented in your question, a public aircraft may NOT be used for the purpose of receiving pilot training for the furtherance of a certificate, rating, or recency of experience, and no the time cannot be logged. Public aircraft may only be used for the purposes as set forth in 49 U.S.C. § 40102 (B) or as per Public Law 103-411. As I mentioned previously, Public Law 106-424, § 14, dated November 1, 2000 only addresses the logging of flight time in public aircraft during flights involving a law enforcement activity. {q&a-254} REVISION: Q&A #254 revision is a result of the issuance of Public Law 106-424, section 14, dated November 1, 2000. Public Law 106-424. Public Law 106-424, Section 14 and some pertinent discussion is shown in Appendix #1 at the end of this Q&A document. QUESTION 1: In accordance with §61.51(e)(1)(i), can a rated and qualified pilot [e.g., meaning a pilot who holds a Commercial Pilot Certificate with a Helicopter rating] log that flight time to meet the aeronautical experience, recency of experience, and currency requirements of 14 CFR part 61 in the Baltimore County Police Department's OH-58's which are surplus former military helicopters? Otherwise, is this flight time logable while these police officers are flying these Baltimore County Police Department OH-58's during the performance of their assigned police functions and missions? Meaning, is this time logable as PIC time under § 61.51(e)(1)(i) [meaning if the pilot ". . . Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated . . ."]? ANSWER 1: Ref. § 61.51(e)(1)(i); Public Law 106-424, § 14, dated November 1, 2000; and FAA Order 8700.1, Volume 2, Chapter 1, page 1-46 and 1-47, paragraph 9.B; The answer is yes, the time is logable provided the pilot of a Federal, State, County, or Municipality law enforcement agency is (or was) engaged in a law enforcement flight activity. QUESTION 2: Is the flight time acquired by a pilot of a Federal, State, County, or Municipality law enforcement agency who is engaged in a law enforcement flight activity logable for the purpose of meeting the requirements of § 61.51(a)(1) and (2)? ANSWER 2: Ref. § 61.51(a)(1) and (2); Public Law 106-424, § 14, dated November 1, 2000; Yes this time is logable, provided the pilot of a Federal, State, County, or Municipality law enforcement agency is engaged in a law enforcement flight activity. QUESTION 3: What about the flight time [i.e., meaning "pilot time," "solo flight time," "pilot in command flight time," and "instrument flight time"] performed in public aircraft by a pilot of a Federal, State, County, or Municipality law enforcement agency who was engaged in an official and authorized law enforcement activity prior to the establishment of Public Law 106-424, § 14, meaning flight time performed prior to November 1, 2000? Will those pilots who were not allowed to log the flight time prior to the establishment of Public Law 106-424, § 14 now be allowed to log that flight time that was performed prior to November 1, 2000 (otherwise will that flight time now be "grandfathered" in as logable flight time now? ANSWER 3: § 61.51; Public Law 106-424, § 14, dated November 1, 2000; Yes, the flight time may be "grandfathered or grandmothered," (yes it may be logged) provided the pilot of a Federal, State, County, or Municipality law enforcement agency was engaged in a law enforcement flight activity. QUESTION 4: Does Public Law 106-424, § 14, dated November 1, 2000, permit a pilot of a Federal, State, County, or Municipality law enforcement agency to utilize a public aircraft for the purpose of receiving pilot training to meet the aeronautical experience, recency of experience, and currency requirements of 14 CFR part 61 and also log the time? As for example, can the Baltimore County Police Department and its pilots utilize their surplus military OH-58 helicopter to provide flight training for one of their pilot applicants for the purpose of receiving pilot training to meet the aeronautical experience, recency of experience, and currency requirements of 14 CFR part 61? Meaning, the flight does not involve any law enforcement activity. The purpose of the flight is strictly for the purpose of their pilot applicant to receive pilot training to meet the aeronautical experience, recency of experience, and currency requirements of 14 CFR part 61. ANSWER 4: Ref. § 61.51 & Public Law 103-411 and Section 40102 of Title 49 of the United States Code; The answer is no. In the scenario you have presented in your question, a public aircraft may NOT be used for the purpose of receiving pilot training for the furtherance of a certificate, rating, or recency of experience, and no the time cannot be logged. Public aircraft may only be used for the purposes as set forth in 49 U.S.C. § 40102 (B) or as per Public Law 103-411. As I mentioned previously, Public Law 106-424, § 14, dated November 1, 2000 only addresses the logging of flight time in public aircraft during flights involving a law enforcement activity. {q&a-254} QUESTION: Ref. § 61.51; 1. You ask whether the above pilot can log PIC time during those portions of the flight when he or she is the sole manipulator of the controls and whether a pilot may be considered the SIC for the part 135 operation if he or she is paying the part 135 operator to conduct the flight. Answered by: Donald P. Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations Division, AGC-200, Washington, DC Mr. Jeff Karch P.O. Box 5791 Lynnwood, WA 98046-5791 Dear Mr. Karch: This is in response to your letter dated August 26, 1996, to the Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), concerning the logging of pilot-in-command (PIC) time. Additionally, your letter raises questions regarding the qualifications of pilots designated as second in command (SIC) by part 135 (14 CFR part 135) operators. In your letter you present the following scenario: A pilot, wishing to advance his or her career, pays a part 135 operator to fly in the right pilot seat during part 135 operations. The part 135 operator designates this pilot as second in command (SIC) and allows him or her to manipulate the controls. The aircraft being flown during these operations is not required by type certification to have more than one pilot and the part 135 operation being conducted does not require more than one pilot. You ask whether the above pilot can log PIC time during those portions of the flight when he or she is the sole manipulator of the controls and whether a pilot may be considered the SIC for the part 135 operation if he or she is paying the part 135 operator to conduct the flight. The answers to these questions are discussed below. The logging of flight time is governed by section 61.51 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 61.51). That section requires the logging of aeronautical experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate or rating, flight review, or the recent flight experience requirements of 14 CFR part 61. The FAA does not require the logging of other flight time, but it is encouraged. Logging of SIC flight time is governed by section 61.51(f), which provides, in pertinent part, that a person may log SIC time only for that flight time during which that person acts as SIC of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required by the aircraft's type certificate or the regulations under which the flight is conducted. If a pilot designated as SIC is not required by either the aircraft type certificate or the regulations under which the operation is being conducted (e.g. 14 CFR part 135.103), as is the case in the scenario above, then the pilot designated as SIC may not log flight time as SIC. Although the flight time cannot be logged as SIC time, the pilot designated as SIC may be able to log part or all of the flight time as PIC in accordance with section 61.51(e). Section 61.51(e) provides, in pertinent part, that a private or commercial pilot may log PIC time only for that flight time during which that person is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, or is acting as the PIC of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted. Accordingly, a pilot designated as SIC may log as PIC time all of the flight time during which he or she is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which that individual is rated. Although the pilot designated as SIC in the scenario you provided in your letter may be properly logging flight time pursuant to section 61.51(e), the more important issue raised in your letter concerns whether or not this individual is properly qualified to be designated as SIC and to manipulate the controls of the aircraft. Section 135.95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 135.95) provides, in pertinent part, that no certificate holder may use the services of any person as an airman unless the person performing those services holds an appropriate and current airman certificate and is qualified, under this chapter, for the operation for which the person is to be used. (Emphasis added) Section 135.115 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 135.115) governs who may manipulate the controls of an aircraft being operated under part 135. This section states, in pertinent part, that no person may manipulate the flight controls of an aircraft during a flight conducted under part 135 unless that person is a pilot employed by the certificate holder and qualified in the aircraft. (Emphasis added) As a result, a part 135 operator may only designate a pilot as SIC and allow that individual to manipulate the controls of the aircraft if that pilot is "qualified" in the aircraft and "employed" by the certificate holder. In order to be "qualified" in the aircraft for the operation for which the person is to be used, a pilot designated as SIC must meet all applicable regulatory requirements including the eligibility requirements under section 135.245 (14 CRF part 135.245) and the initial and recurrent training and testing requirements under section 135.293 (14 CFR part 135.293). Section 135.245 provides, in part, that a certificate holder may not use any person, nor may any person serve, as SIC of an aircraft unless that person holds at least a commercial pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings and an instrument rating. Section 135.293 provides, in part, that a certificate holder may not use any person, nor may any person serve as a pilot, unless that pilot has passed a written or oral test on the listed subjects in this section as well as pass a competency flight check. Therefore, a part 135 operator may only designate a pilot as SIC if that pilot is properly "qualified" in accordance with the regulations including sections 135.95 and 135.115 (he or she holds the appropriate certificate and ratings pursuant to section 135.245 and that pilot has received the initial and recurrent training and testing requirements in accordance with section 135.293). In addition to being properly "qualified," a pilot may only manipulate the controls of an aircraft under section 135.115 if that individual is also "employed" by the part 135 operator. A pilot is considered to be "employed" by a certificate holder under part 135 if the pilot's services are being "used" by the certificate holder. This is the dictionary definition of the word "employed"; there does not have to be a direct employer to employee compensatory relationship. While there does not have to be a direct employer to employee compensatory relationship, there does have to be an oversight relationship of the individual by the certificate holder for that individual to be considered properly "employed" (used) by the certificate holder. As part of this oversight relationship, the part 135 operator is required, pursuant to 14 CFR part 135.63(a)(4), to keep certain records of each pilot the certificate holder uses in flight operations (e.g. the pilot's full name, the pilot's certificates and ratings, the pilot's aeronautical experience, the pilot's duties and assignments, the date and result of each initial and recurrent competency tests and proficiency and route checks, the pilot's flight time,...). In addition, the part 135 operator is required under 14 CFR parts 135.251 and 135.255 to provide, directly or by contract, drug and alcohol testing for each individual it "uses" in safety-sensitive positions. Flight crewmember positions, of which pilots fall under, are considered to be safety-sensitive positions as defined under part 121, appendices I and J, (14 CFR part 121, appendices I and J), which require drug and alcohol testing. In summary, based on your scenario, a pilot, wishing to advance his or her career, may pay a part 135 operator to fly in the right pilot seat during part 135 operations provided he or she is qualified, under part 135, for the operation for which the person is to be used. In addition, this pilot may manipulate the controls of the aircraft during part 135 operations provided he or she is employed by the certificate holder. This pilot may be designated as SIC even though the aircraft being flown does not require more than one pilot and the regulations under which the flight is being conducted do not require more than one pilot. Finally, this pilot may log PIC time for those portions of the flight when he or she is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, but may not log any portion of the flight as SIC time. We hope that this satisfactorily answers your questions. This opinion has been coordinated with Flight Standards. Sincerely, Donald P. Byrne Assistant Chief Counsel Regulations Division {q&a-393} QUESTIONS: Ref. § 61.51; 1. First, you ask whether you could act as pilot in command, and log pilot-in-command flight time, on any aircraft that your are appropriately rated, on flights conducted under part 91. 2. Second, you ask whether you may log pilot-in-command flight time, under part 91, when you are not the acting pilot in command. 3. Third, you ask whether you may log pilot-in-command flight time, under part 135, when you are not the acting pilot in command. 4. Fourth, you ask whether both the pilot in command and the second in command may log pilot-in-command flight time simultaneously. Answered by: Donald P. Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations Division, AGC-200, Washington, DC August 21, 2000 Mr. George E. Prasinos 413-B South Melville Ave. Tampa, FL 33606 Dear Mr. Prasinos: Thank you for your letter dated January 27, 2000, to the Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), regarding acting as pilot in command and the logging of pilot-in-command flight time. In your letter you state that you are the holder of an airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate and a first-class medical certificate. Your ATP certificate contains the appropriate ratings (category, class, and type rating) for the operation of a Citation 560. You are employed as second in command on a Citation 560 for a part 135 operator (14 CFR part 135). You operate the Citation 560 on both part 135 and part 91 (14 CFR part 91) operations. You state that you have successfully completed a "VFR/IFR SIC Part 135 check (Citation 560)" and that you meet the second in command qualifications under section 61.55 (14 CFR section 61.55). You then ask four questions. First, you ask whether you could act as pilot in command, and log pilot-in-command flight time, on any aircraft that your are appropriately rated, on flights conducted under part 91. You may act as pilot in command on all aircraft that you hold the appropriate ratings (category, class, and type (if a type rating is required)) on your pilot certificate, under part 91, if your pilot certificate is current and valid, your pilot certificate authorizes the privileges you seek to exercise, and you hold a current and valid medical certificate issued under part 67 (14 CFR part 67) appropriate to the privileges you seek to exercise (see section 61.23(a) and (b)). In order for your pilot certificate to be "current" for acting as pilot in command, you must meet the recent flight experience requirements under section 61.57 that are appropriate to the operation you seek to conduct, and you must meet the flight review requirements under section 61.56. In order for your pilot certificate to be "valid," your pilot certificate must not be suspended, revoked, or expired. In order for your medical certificate to be "current," it must meet the appropriate duration requirements under section 61.23(c) for the privileges you seek to exercise. In order for your medical certificate to be "valid," your medical certificate must not be suspended, revoked, or expired. You may log pilot-in-command flight time in accordance with section 61.51(e). Section 61.51(e) provides, in pertinent part, that you may log pilot-in-command flight time during which you are the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which you are rated, you are the sole occupant of the aircraft, you are acting as pilot in command on an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification or the regulations under which the flight is conducted, or while you (the holder of an ATP certificate) are acting as pilot in command of an operation requiring an ATP certificate. Second, you ask whether you may log pilot-in-command flight time, under part 91, when you are not the acting pilot in command. The answer is yes. You may log pilot-in-command flight time for all of the flight time during which you are the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which you are rated (section 61.51(e)(1)(i)). Third, you ask whether you may log pilot-in-command flight time, under part 135, when you are not the acting pilot in command. The answer is yes. As stated above, you may log pilot-in-command flight time for all of the flight time during which you are the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which you are rated (section 61.51(e)(1)(i)). Fourth, you ask whether both the pilot in command and the second in command may log pilot-in-command flight time simultaneously. The answer is yes. If more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted then the acting pilot in command may log pilot-in-command flight time for the entire flight even though he or she may not manipulate the flight controls, and the second in command may log pilot-in-command flight time for all of the flight time during which he or she is the sole manipulator of the controls as long as he or she is rated in that aircraft (section 61.51(e)(1)(iii)). In addition, if the regulations require the pilot in command to hold an ATP for that operation, even if more than one pilot is not required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted, then the acting pilot in command may log pilot-in-command flight time for the entire flight even though he or she may not manipulate the flight controls, and the second in command may log pilot-in-command flight time for all of the flight time during which he or she is the sole manipulator of the controls as long as he or she is rated in that aircraft (section 61.51(e)(1)(i) and (2)). Please note that there is a distinction between acting as pilot in command and logging of pilot-in-command flight time. In the discussions of logging of pilot-in-command flight time, I am discussing the logging of pilot-in-command flight time for purposes of section 61.51, where you are keeping a record to show recent flight experience or to show that you meet the requirements for a higher certificate or rating. This is important because even though you may properly log pilot-in-command flight time, you may not be qualified to act as pilot in command. In addition, under part 135, you may be able to properly log flight time in accordance with section 61.51, even though you may not meet the pilot qualification requirements of part 135. I have attached a previous interpretation issued by this office that discusses this issue. I hope this satisfactorily answers your questions. This opinion has been coordinated with Flight Standards. Sincerely, Donald P. Byrne Assistant Chief Counsel Regulations Division {q&a-392} QUESTION: Some time ago I wrote looking for input on FAR 1.1 that defines "pilot flight time". I said that some of our pilots claimed "flight time" included start, warmup, taxi, runup, and further taxi (all under the assumption that this time is "for the purpose of flight") while the purists in the group claimed that flight time didn't even start until power was applied at the end of the runway. After we get to FAR 1.1, does flight time include start, warm-up, taxi to the run-up area, further taxi to the runway, etc. or does "moving under its own power for the purpose of flight" begin only when the aircraft is lined up on the centerline beginning its take-off roll? The argument, of course, is that since most GA aircraft begin charging for the airplane once the engine starts, most pilots have decided to log what they pay for. But there is another group of pilots who say that warm-up and taxi time is not flight time. Has the FAA explained the definition we find in FAR 1.1? ANSWER: Ref. § 1.1 and § 61.51; It means ". . . when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing . . ." Or, the more commonly referred definition is "Block-to-Block" time. The following has been checked and verified with General Counsel, AGC-240: Start up: No, you can not log that as flight time. Warm-up: No, you can not log that as flight time if the aircraft has not yet moved from the parking location. Taxi: Yes, you can log that as flight time. Run-up: Yes, you can log that time. After all, attempted flight without run-up could appear careless & reckless. Further taxi to the runway, etc.: Yes, you can log that as flight time. The aircraft moves out onto the runway, throttle up to takeoff power, and begins the takeoff roll: Obviously, yes, you can log that as flight time. Landing and roll out: Yes, you can log that as flight time. Taxi in to parking: Yes, you can log that as flight time. Engine Shut Down: No you can not log that as flight time after the airplane is in a parking position. {q&a-374} QUESTION 1: The situation: A private pilot is training for the instrument rating. Both he and the instructor are current in the airplane and both have current medicals. Who will log the PIC time? I know that the CFI will, based on §61.51(e)(3). The main question is, will the private pilot who is training for the instrument rating ALSO log PIC time, based on §61.51(e)(1)(i)? ANSWER 1: Ref. §61.51(e)(1)(i); Yes , provided the private pilot ". . . Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated . . ." then that private pilot may also log the time as PIC time. QUESTION 2: Same situation: Next, does the phrase, "for which the pilot is rated" in §61.51(e)(1)(i) mean the private pilot IS or IS NOT rated in the airplane when training for the instrument rating. If he is then he should also be able to log PIC. If he is not, then he would not be able to log PIC, and would log only "dual" instruction. ANSWER 2: Ref. §61.51(e)(1)(i); The phrase ". . . of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated . . ." means the aircraft, not the conditions of flight. So, the private pilot would log the time when he/she ". . . Is the sole manipulator of the controls . . ." as PIC time and training received time. QUESTION 3: Would this also apply to adding additional class ratings, such as multiengine and seaplanes? ANSWER 3: Ref. §61.51(e)(1)(i); Again, the phrase ". . . of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated . . ." means the aircraft for which the pilot is rated. Airplane multiengine land or airplane single engine sea are a specific category and class of airplane rating. For example, if the private pilot was receiving instrument training in a multiengine airplane with a flight instructor (e.g., CFII & ME ratings), then the private pilot would have to hold an Airplane Multiengine Land rating on his/her private pilot certificate in order to log PIC time in that airplane multiengine land. If the private pilot in this example held only single-engine land rating, he/she could only log "training received" time and could NOT log PIC. {q&a-368} QUESTION: We had a discussion about whether a private pilot SSA member, acting as a tow pilot, could, without monetary compensation: 1) Log the time he/she towed 2) Count the time toward additional ratings or certificates. My understanding is that the time can be logged, but not used toward a new rating. This would allow the logged time to satisfy currency requirements for tailwheel time, PIC time, etc. ANSWER: Ref. §61.113(g) and §61.51(e)(1); Yes, a pilot who is serving as a "tow pilot" may log the flight time when he or she is towing. And there are no rules that would prevent counting that time toward currency or the furtherance of a rating or certificate. As per §61.113(g), it states: (g) A private pilot who meets the requirements of Sec. 61.69 of this part may act as pilot in command of an aircraft towing a glider. and Section 61.51(e)(1) states: (e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A recreational, private, or commercial pilot may log pilot-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person-- (i) Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated; {q&a-356} QUESTION 1: I have a situation where a flight school is allowing two pilots (PP #1 and PP #2), who are both private pilots and both hold airplane single engine land ratings, to go out together for PIC training. Both pilots are enrolled in the school's Commercial Pilot - Airplane Single Land course. No instrument flight training (i.e., otherwise no use of a view limiting device, hood, etc.) is occurring. The training is purely to practice takeoffs, landings, performance maneuvers, etc. The aircraft being used is a Cessna 172. The school assigns PP #1 to serve as the pilot in command (i.e., § 1.1) for the flight. During the flight, PP #2 is the sole manipulator of the controls and then they switch seats and PP #1 becomes the sole manipulator of the controls. At the conclusion of the flight, the breakdown of the flight was the total flight time flown was 3.0 hours. The flight occurred during daytime visual conditions. PP #2 was the sole manipulator of the controls for 2.0 hours. PP #1 was the sole manipulator of controls for only 1.0 hours. But PP #1 served as the PIC for the entire flight. How does each pilot log the time? ANSWER 1: Ref. § 61.51(e)(1)(i); PP #1 logs 1.0 PIC time, 1 hour of airplane single engine land time, and 1 hour of total flight time. PP #2 logs 2.0 PIC time, 2.0 hours of airplane single engine land time, and 2.0 hours of total flight time. The rule that addresses logging of time is § 61.51. Section 1.1 merely addresses the legal basis for serving as pilot in command, but not logging the time. QUESTION 2: Similar situation and again the situation is two pilots (PP #1 and PP #2), who are both private pilots and both hold airplane single engine land ratings, go out together for PIC training. Both pilots are enrolled in this school's Commercial Pilot - Airplane Single Land course. No instrument flight training (i.e., otherwise no use of a view limiting device, hood, etc.) is occurring. The training is purely to practice takeoffs, landings, performance maneuvers, etc. The aircraft being used is a Cessna 172. The school assigns PP #1 to serve as the pilot in command (i.e., § 1.1) for the entire flight. During the entire flight, PP #2 is the sole manipulator of the controls. At the conclusion of the flight, the breakdown of the flight was the total flight time flown was 3.0 hours. The flight occurred during daytime visual conditions. PP #2 was the sole manipulator of the controls for the entire flight. PP #1 served as the PIC for the entire flight and never once touched the controls. How does each pilot log the time? ANSWER 2: Ref. § 61.51(e)(1)(i) and § 61.51(a)(1) and (2); PP #2 logs 3.0 of PIC time, 3.0 hours of airplane single engine land time, and 3 hour of total flight time. PP #1 cannot log ANY OF THE TIME for the purpose of recording the time to document training and aeronautical experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate, rating, or flight review of this part. Nor can PP #1 log ANY OF THE TIME for the purpose of recording the time for the aeronautical experience required for meeting the recent flight experience requirements of this part.. Otherwise, PP #1 cannot use any of the time for meeting the requirements of § 61.51(a)(1) and (2). Notice how I very specifically qualified my answer as it relates to PP #1. In effect, I said PP #1 cannot log ANY OF THE TIME for meeting the requirements set forth in § 61.51(a)(1) and (2). And § 61.51(a)(1) and (2) states: (a) Training time and aeronautical experience. Each person must document and record the following time in a manner acceptable to the Administrator: (1) Training and aeronautical experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate, rating, or flight review of this part. (2) The aeronautical experience required for meeting the recent flight experience requirements of this part. {q&a-353} QUESTION: Regarding §61.51's definition of "operating an aircraft" an aircraft certified for two pilots is being operated under part 121. The PIC is "flying" the aircraft. The SIC is the non-flying pilot. Can the SIC log actual instrument flight time for those periods of actual IMC conditions when the PIC is flying the aircraft? Is the SIC considered to be "operating" the aircraft at this moment to justify logging this instrument time. ANSWER: Ref. §61.51(f) and (g); The SIC is permitted to log the time as SIC time, as per §61.51(f). However, he is not permitted to log the time as instrument time, because as per §61.51(g), the person can only log instrument time ". . . for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions . . ." {Emphasis added "operates the aircraft"]. In your scenario, you stated the SIC was the non-flying pilot. So, the SIC crewmember was not operating the aircraft. And even though you didn't ask, the logged time has limited value. It cannot be used for the recency of experience under §61.57(c) because " . . . operates the aircraft . . ." (otherwise meaning hands-on, flying pilot, etc.) is required. Nor can this SIC time be used for meeting the ATP instrument aeronautical experience requirements of §61.159(a)(3) [i.e., "75 hours of instrument flight time, in actual or simulated instrument conditions, subject to . . . ."] {q&a-345} QUESTION: I recently upgraded to captain and have a question regarding the logging of flight time. My question is: As the PIC, when I'm not the flying pilot, should I be logging night and/or instrument flight time? Obviously the approaches can't be logged, but I'm wondering if the actual instrument time can be logged. Same goes for the night time. ANSWER: Ref. §61.51(e)(2) and §61.57; If you're a holder of an ATP certificate, and provided you're ". . . acting as pilot-in-command of an operation requiring an airline transport pilot certificate" then yes you may log actual instrument time and night time while acting as pilot-in-command. But don't read into that answer, that you can count the time toward meeting the recent flight experience of §61.57. Because you can't. Those requirements are "hands-on-the-controls" requirements. {q&a-340} QUESTION: Don't have a specific example, but can you give me the low down on how flight simulator and flight training device time can be logged (flight time, pic, sic, night, x-c, etc.) in a persons log book. ANSWER: Ref. §61.51(b)(1)(iv), (b)(3)(iii), (g)(4), and (h)(1) and §61.51(a)(1) and (2); But keep in mind the requirements for logging time is only required for the purposes stated in §61.51(a)(1) and (2). As per §61.51(a)(1) and (2), it states: (1) Training and aeronautical experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate, rating, or flight review of this part. (2) The aeronautical experience required for meeting the recent flight experience requirements of this part. I also direct you to the definition of "flight training" as per §61.1(b)(6) which states: "Flight training means that training, other than ground training, received from an authorized instructor in flight in an aircraft." Emphasis added "in flight in an aircraft." And furthermore, §61.51(h)(1) addresses logging of training time as "A person may log training time when that person receives training from an authorized instructor in an aircraft, flight simulator, or flight training device." However, time in a flight simulator or flight training device CANNOT be logged as "flight time" or as "PIC time" or as "SIC time" or as "night time" or as "daytime" or as "cross country time" or as time in an "aircraft category, class, or type." Time in a flight simulator or flight training device can only be logged in the columns noted as "Flight Simulator or Flight Training Device" time and "Dual Received" time. And in most logbooks, the person has to write in the notation "FS/FTD" as a heading on one of the extra columns. And in some logbooks they do have a column noted as "Synthetic Trainer." Now, where the FARs specifically permit it [i.e., §61.57(c)(1) and (d)(1)(ii), §61.58(e), §61.65(e), §61.109(i), §61.129(i), §61.157(i), §61.187(c)(2), etc.], time in a flight simulator or flight training device can be credited in lieu of the required flight time towards meeting the total aeronautical experience or recency of experience, but it CANNOT be logged as flight time. For example, an ATP applicant with 1,475 hours total time as a pilot in aircraft that includes at least 500 hours cross-country and 100 hours night, but only 50 hours instrument flight time would meet minimum aeronautical experience using 25 hours instrument training in a flight simulator or flight training device (FTD) in accordance with §61.156(a)(3)(iii). Though the 25 hours in the sim/FTD can not logged as flight time, it may be used in lieu of flight time for the minimum aeronautical experience requirement of 1,500 hours total time. But, only because it is allowed under §61.156(a)(3)(iii). Now, the way it would be interpreted and should be logged on the FAA Form 8710-1 application is to list the time in the "Instruction Received" and "Instrument" columns and in the line for "Training Device" or "Simulator" in the appropriate boxes. When the time is computed to insure the applicant meets the appropriate aeronautical experience requirements for the airman certificate and rating sought, the time listed in the "Instruction Received" column and "Training Device" or "Simulator" boxes, as appropriate, would be accepted in lieu of the required flight time experience required to the limit allowed, as in the example above. {q&a-320} SITUATION: Student holds Private-ASEL, with 61.31 tailwheel endorsement. Instructor holds Commercial-ASEL-IA and CFI-ASE-IA, but no tailwheel experience and endorsement.. The student is working on an Instrument-Airplane rating. QUESTION 1: Can this instructor give instrument instruction towards an instrument rating to the student in a single-engine tailwheel airplane while the student serves as PIC? ANSWER 1: Ref. §61.51(e)(3), §61.31(e) and §61.195(c); Yes, the flight instructor may log the time as PIC time. Yes, the instructor may give instrument instruction towards an instrument rating to a student in a single-engine tailwheel airplane while the student serves as PIC. But the flight instructor CANNOT ACT as PIC. And the reason I say may log the time as PIC time is per §61.51(e)(3) [i.e., "An authorized instructor may log as pilot in command time while acting as an authorized instructor"]. But be advised, somebody must be aboard the aircraft who meets the requirements of §61.31(e) in order to ACT AS PIC. QUESTION 2: If so, can the instructor log PIC time under the "authorized instructor giving instruction" clause of 61.51, or is he banned from logging PIC time because he lacks the tailwheel endorsement? (The only part of 61.51 to which I've seen the requirement for a 61.31 endorsement applied is logging PIC time under the "sole manipulator" clause.) ANSWER 2: Ref. §61.51(e)(3); Yes, the flight instructor may log the time as PIC time while performing instrument instruction and only that time while giving instrument instruction. Emphasis added it has to be instrument instruction. But again be advised, somebody must be aboard the aircraft who meets the requirements of §61.31(e) in order to ACT AS PIC. QUESTION 3: If allowed to instruct but banned from logging PIC time, would the instructor then log only "dual given" and SIC (as safety pilot) for the period during which the student is under the hood? ANSWER 3: Ref. §61.51(e)(3); Yes, the flight instructor may log the time as PIC time while performing instrument instruction and only that time while giving instrument instruction. QUESTION 4: If the instructor is allowed to instruct, would the only "dual received" time logged by the student be the time during which instrument instruction is received, i.e., the hooded time. ANSWER 4: Ref. §61.51(e)(1); The person receiving the instrument instruction, may log it as PIC time during that time that person ". . . Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated . . ." But ONLY during the time while the person ". . . Is the sole manipulator of the controls . . ." Emphasis added while ". . . the sole manipulator of the controls . . ." In the scenario you've given, be advised if the person isn't manipulating the controls he must stop logging PIC time, but he will be the acting PIC, per §1.1, for the entire flight. Because remember you said, the flight instructor is not qualified in a tailwheel airplane. Refrences: §61.31(e) and §61.51(e)(1) and (3) and §61.195(b) and (c). {q&a-297} QUESTION 1: The question came up about logging "actual" instrument time when over the desert at night with no visual references. When you are flying with sole reference to instruments, is that actual time? If not, is it "simulated" instrument time? Our take on the question is actual instrument time can only be logged when the aircraft is in IMC. The weather determines actual instrument time, not flying by sole reference to instruments. That settles the actual instrument question, but what about "simulated" instrument time? Our feeling is it can be logged as "simulated instrument time." It would be the same as having a hood on while flying by sole reference to instruments. What about the requirement for a safety pilot under these conditions? Our answer is "no" because the pilot is still able to "see and avoid" conflicting traffic. ANSWER 1: Ref. §61.51(g); The only definition in the rules is the definition on "instrument flight time" and that is addressed in §61.51(g) and is defined as: (g) Logging instrument flight time. (1) A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions. However, I understand your question to be that you're asking for a definition of "actual instrument time" as opposed to "simulated instrument time." I believe you're interchanging the terms "actual instrument time" where the rules only state "actual instrument conditions." And you state "simulated instrument time" but the rules only state "simulated instrument conditions." So there is no official FAA definition on "actual instrument time" or "simulated instrument time" in the FARs, FAA Orders, advisory circulars, FAA bulletins, etc. And the reason why the FAA has never officially defined "actual instrument time" or "simulated instrument time" is because in all of the aeronautical experience requirements for pilot certificate and/or ratings in Part 61, the rule does not differentiate between "actual instrument time" as opposed to "simulated instrument time." In fact, in Part 61 it only refers to the aeronautical experience for instrument time to be ". . . instrument flight time, in actual or simulated instrument conditions . . ." So it is irrelevant whether the instrument flight time is logged as "actual instrument time" or "simulated instrument time." Part 61 only refers to "actual instrument conditions" or "simulated instrument conditions." I agree with your statement that just because a person is flying ". . . by sole reference to instruments . . ." has nothing to do with whether the flight can be logged as "actual instrument time" or "simulated instrument time." Only the weather conditions establish whether the flight is in "actual instrument conditions." And that is dependent on the weather conditions where the aircraft is physically located and the pilot makes that determination as to whether the flight is in "actual instrument conditions" or he is performing instrument flight under "simulated instrument conditions." But for a "quick and easy" answer to your question, it was always my understanding if I were flying in weather conditions that were less than the VFR weather minimums defined in §91.155 and I was flying "solely by reference to instruments" then that was the determining factor for being able log instrument flight under "actual instrument conditions." Otherwise, if I were flying solely by reference to instruments in VMC conditions then I would log it as instrument flight in "simulated instrument conditions." In your example, the flight is clear of clouds and in good visibility conditions at night over the desert with an overcast above and no visible horizon. But other examples could include flight between sloping cloud layers or flight between layers of clouds at night. These could equally meet the requirement for operations that can only be accomplished solely by reference to instruments. But, the lack of sufficient visual reference to maintain aircraft control without using instruments does not eliminate the possibility of collision hazard with other aircraft or terrain. So, now to answer your other question "What about the requirement for a safety pilot under these conditions? Your question is answered by §91.109(b)(1) and it states: "(b) 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." Normally, in order to log instrument flight time under "simulated instrument conditions," the pilot needs to be utilizing a view limiting device. But, the only place in the rules requiring a view limiting device will be found under §61.45(d)(2) as part of the equipment for a practical test. Otherwise, no where else in the rules, orders, bulletins, or advisory circulars does it specifically state that pilots need to be utilizing a view limiting device. But, except for meteorological conditions as in our examples above, how else, could a pilot comply with §61.51(g) for logging instrument flight time [i.e., ". . . when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments . . ."] unless the pilot was utilizing a view limiting device when logging instrument flight time in simulated instrument conditions? QUESTION 2: Am I correct in understanding that a CFII may log approaches that a student flies when those approaches are conducted in actual instrument conditions? Is there a reference to this anywhere in the rules? ANSWER 2: Ref. §61.51(g)(2); Yes, a CFII may log approaches that a student flies when those approaches are conducted in actual instrument flight conditions. And this would also permit that instructor who is performing as an authorized instructor to ". . . log instrument time when conducting instrument flight instruction in actual instrument flight conditions" and this would count for instrument currency requirements under §61.57(c). QUESTION 3: I have not been able to find a definition of "actual" conditions in the FARs or the AIM, but I believe that the definition of actual is somewhat more restrictive than IMC. Please confirm that the following is correct: Is IMC is simply visibility's, clearances from clouds, and ceilings less than the minima for VMC (AIM - pilot controller/glossary) "Actual" requires that the pilot be flying the airplane solely by reference to instruments, which means he must be either completely in the soup (i.e. zero-zero) or in conditions which provide no horizon reference of any kind. Therefore, being in IMC conditions is not always adequate for logging actual. ANSWER 3: Ref. §61.51(g); As previously answered above in Answer 1 above, there is no official FAA definition on "actual instrument time" or "simulated instrument time" in the FARs, FAA Orders, advisory circulars, FAA bulletins, etc. Part 61 merely refers to the instrument time in reference to aeronautical experience to be ". . . instrument flight time, in actual or simulated instrument conditions . . ." Otherwise the reference is merely instrument flight time, in actual or simulated instrument conditions. Now the term "actual" in reference to instrument conditions that require operations to be performed solely by reference to the aircraft instruments are sometimes subjective. No question that "actual" instrument conditions exist with flight in clouds or other phenomena that restrict visibility to the extent that maintaining level flight or other desired flight attitude, can only be accomplished with reference to the aircraft instruments. This goes back to earlier statement in Answer 1 where I said the weather conditions establish whether the flight is in "actual instrument conditions." And that is dependent on the weather conditions where the aircraft is physically located and the pilot makes that determination as to whether the flight is in "actual instrument conditions" or he is performing instrument flight under "simulated instrument conditions." Your realization that "IMC" and "VMC" and also, in fact, "IFR" and "VFR" are not necessarily related to "actual" conditions is accurate. These terms are used with respect to airspace operating requirements. Per §91.155, a flight may be in IMC (requiring IFR operations) with four (4) miles visibility in Class E airspace above 10,000'MSL (more than 1,200'AGL), but still be in VMC (allowing VFR operations) with only one (1) mile visibility in Class G below 10,000'MSL during day time, . That is why none of these terms were used in §61.51(g) to describe when we may or may not log instrument flight time. IMC and VMC are used in association when describing airspace weather conditions. VFR or IFR are used to describe operating requirements [i.e., §91.173 requiring IFR flight plan for operating in controlled airspace under IFR, §691.169 information required for operating on an IFR flight plan; §91.155 basic VFR weather minimums, etc]. QUESTION 4: As far as logging an approach in actual, is there any requirement (i.e. must it be in actual conditions beyond the final approach fix)? Assume that the pilot was flying single-pilot IFR so he couldn't simply put on the hood if he broke out? ANSWER 4: §61.51(g)(1) and §61.57(c)(1)(i); Again the only place where it defines logging "instrument flight time" means ". . . a person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments . . . ." As for logging an "actual" approach, it would presume the approach to be to the conclusion of the approach which would mean the pilot go down to the decision height or to the minimum decent altitude, as appropriate. If what you're asking is whether it is okay to fly to the FAF and break it off and then log it as accomplishing an approach, the answer is NO. {q&a-291} QUESTION: Thank you for your letter dated April 20, 1999, to the Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), regarding the logging of pilot-in-command time. Specifically, whether a pilot needs to have the appropriate 14 CFR section 61.31 endorsements before he or she can properly log pilot-in-command time under 14 CFR section 61.51(e). In your letter you state that you are "concerned with the answers given by John Lynch, AFS-840, through his Frequently Asked Questions 14 CFR, PARTS 61 & 141 website," regarding the 14 CFR section 61.31 endorsements and the logging of pilot-in-command time under 14 CFR section 61.51(e). In this website, Mr. Lynch was given the following scenario: a person holds a private pilot certificate with a single-engine land rating. This pilot is obtaining training in a single-engine land airplane that is also a complex or high performance airplane. The question asked was whether this person could log the time he or she manipulated the controls as pilot-in-command time. Mr. Lynch stated that this person could not log pilot-in-command time under 14 CFR section 61.51(e) in a single-engine land airplane that is also a complex or high performance airplane, without having the appropriate endorsements required under 14 CFR section 61.31. This answer is incorrect. ANSWER: Ref. §61.51(e)(1)(i); Before discussing this issue, please note that Mr. Lynch's website is an informational website provided by the Flight Standards Service (AFS). It is not a legal site and the Office of the Chief Counsel does not review it. Accordingly, information provided on his website is not legally binding. 14 CFR section 61.51(e) governs the logging of pilot-in-command time. This section provides, in pertinent part, that a private pilot may log pilot-in-command time for that flight time during which that person is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated. (Emphasis added) The term "rated," as used under 14 CFR section 61.51(e), refers to the pilot holding the appropriate aircraft ratings (category, class, and type, if a type rating is required). These ratings are listed under 14 CFR section 61.5 and are placed on the pilot certificate. Therefore, based on the scenario given to Mr. Lynch, a private pilot may log pilot-in-command time, in a complex or high performance airplane, for those portions of the flight when he or she is the sole manipulator of the controls because the aircraft being operated is single-engine land and the private pilot holds a single-engine land rating. Note, while the private pilot may log this time as pilot-in-command time in accordance with 14 CFR section 61.51(e), he or she may not act as the pilot in command unless he or she has the appropriate endorsement as required under 14 CFR section 61.31. 14 CFR section 61.31 requires a person to have an endorsement from an authorized instructor before he or she may act as pilot in command of certain aircraft (a complex airplane, a high performance airplane, a pressurized airplane capable of operating at high altitudes, or a tailwheel airplane). These endorsements are not required to log pilot-in-command time under 14 CFR section 61.51(e). As you stated in your letter, there is a distinction between acting as pilot in command and logging pilot-in-command time. In order to act as pilot in command, the pilot who has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight, a person must be properly rated in the aircraft and be properly rated and authorized to conduct the flight. In order to log pilot-in-command time, a person who is the sole manipulator of the controls only needs to be properly rated in the aircraft. {q&a-288} [Replaces q&a-228] QUESTION: I'm looking at your FAQs regarding logging instruction and endorsements and both I and a supervisor from Salt Lake City need further clarification of §61.187(a). A school operates a CFI course under Part 61, and they don't want to keep records (logbooks, whatever) of what the applicant was taught on each lesson. §61.187(a) says that the applicant must receive AND LOG flight and ground training from an authorized instructor on the AREAS OF OPERATION LISTED IN THIS SECTION that apply to the flight instructor rating sought. It doesn't say that the CFI can make a one-time endorsement that the instruction has been done in lieu of the logging of flight and ground training. The regulation is clear that a required logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor certifying that the person is proficient to pass a practical test on those areas of operation must be made. If only an endorsement would suffice that the required training had been completed, why doesn't the regulation say so? Then only two endorsements would be required and logging of flight and ground time would not! ANSWER: Ref. §61.51(a), (b), and (h)(2), §61.187(a), and §61.189(a); The answer is ". . . . training time must be logged in a logbook . . ." [i.e., §61.51(h)(2)]. Section 61.51(h)(2) requires that ". . . training time must be logged in a logbook and §61.187(a) requires "The applicant's logbook must contain an endorsement . . ." Making a simple endorsement in a logbook does NOT relieve the applicant and the flight instructor from logging training time to comply §61.51(h)(2). I support this statement that the flight instructor must log all training time by the provisions contained in §61.51(a) and (b) and especially paragraph (h)(2). I believe §61.51(h)(2) makes it quite clear that: "(2) The training time must be logged in a logbook and must: (i) Be endorsed in a legible manner by the authorized instructor; and (ii) Include a description of the training given, the length of the training lesson, and the instructor's authorized signature, certificate number, and certificate expiration date." An equally important rule is §61.189(a) and I believe that rule further establishes the requirement to "must receive and log flight and ground training . . ." [i.e., §61.187(a)]. {q&a-285} QUESTION: I believe that questions Q&A 95 and 88 deal with a safety pilot logging PIC time. Our Regional Counsel says that if a private pilot logs flight time and uses it to meet the aeronautical certification requirements for an additional rating, that is compensation. As you might guess, there are a bunch of Private Pilots out here that are using that safety pilot PIC time to qualify for additional ratings. If a Private Pilot acts as a safety pilot in accordance with §91.109(b)(1), and that pilot logs that time as PIC in accordance with §61.51(e)(iii), are they now in violation of §61.113(a) since they have received compensation (free flight time) for acting as pilot in command [i.e., §61.51(e)(iii)]? ANSWER: Ref. §61.113(a) and §61.51(e)(iii); Yes, the Private Pilot who is serving as a safety pilot and is acting as the PIC may log the time as PIC time. And yes, that Private Pilot may use that PIC time for the furtherance of a pilot certificate and rating under Part 61. And no, that Private Pilot is NOT ". . . . carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire;" nor is that Private Pilot acting as a pilot in command ". . . for compensation or hire, . . . ." when he serves as a safety pilot. In accordance with §91.109(b)(1), it permits a person who holds a Private Pilot Certificate with a category and class rating appropriate to the aircraft being flown to serve as a safety pilot. And this answer has been reviewed by the FAA's Washington HQ Chief Counsel Office (AGC-240), and they have agreed with this answer. {q&a-273} QUESTION 1: Ref. §61.51(e)(1)(i); In accordance with §61.51(e)(1)(i), can a rated and qualified pilot [i.e., who holds a Commercial Pilot Certificate with a helicopter rating] log that time to meet the aeronautical experience, recency of experience, and currency requirements of Part 61 in the Baltimore County Police Department's OH-58's which are surplus former military helicopters? Otherwise, is this time logable while these police officers are flying these Baltimore County Police Department OH-58's during the performance of their assigned police functions and missions? Is this time logable for the purpose of meeting the requirements of §61.51(e)(1)(i)? ANSWER 1: Ref. Public Law 103-411 and FAA Order 8700.1, Volume 2, Chapter 1, page 1-46 and 1-47, paragraph 9.B; The answer is no, the time cannot be logged for the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience, recency of experience, and currency requirements of Part 61. Again read my words carefully, it cannot be logged for the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience, recency of experience, and currency requirements of Part 61. Now as long as the flight time is not being counted/logged for meeting the aeronautical experience, recency of experience, and currency requirements of Part 61, then a person may log flight time in these former military helicopters known as the OH-58. BUT NOT FOR THE PURPOSE of meeting the aeronautical experience, recency of experience, and currency requirements of Part 61 in their non-certificated OH-58s. For the record: These Baltimore County Police Department OH-58's are not type certificated as an aircraft, nor do they hold any kind of airworthiness certificate, and nor do they hold an FAA civilian type designation as an aircraft. The FAA's rationale on this issue is that pilots who fly these former military aircraft in real "public aircraft operations" are not even required to hold an FAA pilot certificate nor are they required to comply with the recency of experience requirements of Part 61. Therefore, the FAA does not find it in the public interest to permit pilot training for pilot certification purposes in these non-certificated aircraft. Now some police departments state that their employment requirements require all their pilots to hold Commercial Pilot Certificates with the appropriate aircraft category and class ratings and to also meet the recency of experience requirements of Part 61. If a local police department requires this of their pilots as an employment requirement, then that is the police's requirement, because the FAA does not have any such requirements for operating these former military aircraft for "public aircraft operations." Furthermore, if the FAA were to make an exception for the Baltimore County Police Department and their non-certificated OH-58s, then how would the FAA be expected to respond if another police department and some other government agency asks for permission for its pilots to meet Part 61 requirements in an ultralight vehicle, which is just another non-certificated aircraft. And then if the FAA permits the police departments to use non-certificated aircraft/vehicles for meeting Part 61 requirements, then why not allow private citizens who have contracts with a local government to also let their pilots log the flight time for meeting Part 61 requirements in these non-certificated aircraft/vehicles. Again, keep in mind these Baltimore County Police Department OH-58s are not certificated nor do not have any approved maintenance or airworthiness standards and nor are they required to do so when they're only being used for "public aircraft operations." If police departments want to use these non-certificated OH-58s for pilot training and certification, then its aircraft must comply with the applicable airworthiness and maintenance requirements of §91.203, Subpart E of Part 91, Parts 43 and 45, etc., etc., etc. As per Public Law 103-411, the law is very specific and very limiting as to defining what is a "public aircraft operation." In effect, this law only permits training and flights in "public aircraft" for performance of the following governmental functions: 1. Flights in response to fire fighting; 2. Flights in response to search and rescue; 3. Flights in response to law enforcement activities; and 4. Flights in support of aeronautical research or biological or geological resource management. As for example, Public Law 103-411 would say it's okay if the flight was for training SWAT team personnel in the Baltimore County Police Department's OH-58's for the purpose of training these personnel for a law enforcement activity. The flight would be considered an authorized governmental function and would be approved under Public Law 103-411. However, if a flight were for anything other than the flights described in 1 through 4 above, then the flight would be considered to be a "civil aircraft operation." And in accordance with §91.203(a)(1) for "civil aircraft operations" the aircraft would be required to have "An appropriate and current airworthiness certificate. . . ." Now FAA Order 8700.1, Volume 2, Chapter 1, page 1-46 and 1-47, paragraph 9.B. states, in its entirety, that: "B. Logging Time. Unless the vehicle is type certificated as an aircraft in a category listed in FAR §61.5(b)(1) or as an experimental aircraft, or otherwise holds an airworthiness certificate, flight time acquired in such a vehicle may not be used to meet requirements of FAR Part 61 for a certificate or rating or to meet the recency of experience requirements." Which means, in effect, in order for the flight time to be logable, the flight time must have been acquired in an aircraft that is identified as an aircraft category as listed in §61.5(b)(1), and is: (1) An aircraft of U.S. registry that has a civilian type designation and has a current standard, limited, or primary airworthiness certificate; (2) An aircraft of U.S. registry that has a civilian type designation and has a current airworthiness certificate other than standard, limited, or primary; (3) An aircraft of foreign registry that has a civilian type designation and is properly certificated by the country of registry; or (4) A military aircraft under the direct operational control of an armed force of the United States. The Baltimore County Police Department's OH-58's are neither type certificated as an aircraft, nor do the aircraft hold any kind of airworthiness certificate, nor do their OH-58s hold an FAA civilian type designation as an aircraft. So the answer is NO, the time CANNOT be logged for meeting the requirements for a certificate or rating or to meet the recency of experience requirements set forth in Part 61. {q&a-254} QUESTION: Ref. §61.51(e)(2); The scenario we have here, is a Part 135 certificate holder who is conducting operations in a multiengine airplane under IFR. The operator has approval to conduct operations without an SIC using an approved autopilot under the provisions of §135.105. For this flight, the operator has assigned a fully qualified pilot, who has a current Part 135 competency check to act as an SIC in an aircraft that does not require two pilots under the aircraft's type certification. Both pilots are PIC rated in the aircraft. Otherwise, both pilots hold either an ATP or Commercial Pilot Certificate with an Airplane Multiengine Land rating and Instrument-Airplane rating. Both pilots are current in accordance with Part 61 for PIC privileges and also for instrument flight operations. Although, §135.101 requires an SIC for IFR operations, the autopilot approval is an exception to that requirement. ANSWER: §61.51(e)(1)(i) and (2); In the scenario you've asked, the answer is NO. Both pilots may NOT log PIC time simultaneously, unless the operation is permitted by §61.51(e)(2). In the scenario you've described, per §61.51(e)(1)(i), only one pilot can log PIC time when that pilot ". . . Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated;" Now if the Part 135 operation requires the PIC to hold an ATP, then in accordance with §61.51(e)(2), "An airline transport pilot may log as pilot-in-command time all of the flight time while acting as pilot-in-command of an operation requiring an airline transport pilot certificate." So if this is the situation, then it would be permissible for the Part 1 PIC to log PIC time and the person who ". . . Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated . . ." to also log PIC time. But from what I can read from your question, the Part 135 operation is not the kind of operation that requires the PIC to hold an ATP. From reading your question, do not confuse "with being the legal Part 1 PIC" vs. "the logging of PIC time" under §61.51(e). In your scenario, the assigned PIC time would maintain his legal PIC status, as per §1.1, throughout the flight. However, for logging PIC time, as per §61.51(e)(1)(i), a pilot may log PIC time when that pilot ". . . Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated." Per §1.1: "Pilot in command means the pilot responsible for the operation and safety of an aircraft during flight time." And per §61.51(e)(1)(i): "(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A recreational, private, or commercial pilot may log pilot-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person-- (i) Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated;" {q&a-243} QUESTION: In §61.51(h)(2)(ii), there is a phrase that states "Include a description of the training given . . ." How descriptive does a flight instructor have to be in describing the content of a training session to meet the provisions of §61.51(h)(2)(ii) [i.e., "Include a description of the training given . . ."]? ANSWER: Ref. §61.51(h)(2)(ii). Many schools utilize a training record folder that lists the lesson numbers vertically on the folder and the tasks are listed horizontally. And these schools have a training course outline that describes the content of each lesson in detail. Therefore, as long as the applicant has those records available for review, it is permissible for the instructor to merely write in the applicant's logbook, as for example, "Lesson No. 36" for meeting the requirements of §61.51(h)(2)(ii) [i.e., "Include a description of the training given . . ."]. An examiner or ASI who wishes to see what was covered in Lesson No. 36 would have those records available on site to review what was covered during Lesson No. 36 or Lesson No. 10, etc. The essence of §61.51(h)(2)(ii) [i.e., "Include a description of the training given . . ."] is not to require flight instructors to have to write volumes of Encyclopedias for describing a lesson! However, if an applicant's school does not maintain or have such records, then yes the flight instructors will have to be more descriptive in describing the content of a lesson in an applicant's logbook. But even in this kind of situation, it is permissible and would be in accordance with §61.51(h)(2)(ii) [i.e., "Include a description of the training given . . ."] for a flight instructor to write a description in the applicant's logbook, as for example, that would state "Norm T/O & Ldgs, X-W T/O & Ldgs, Perf. Maneuvers-St. Turns, Chandelles, L8" or the flight instructor may merely contain a description "Comm-ASEL - AOA III, Tasks A and B; AOA VI. 8-Pylons" {q&a-236} QUESTION: Ref. §61.51(e)(1) and §61.73(d)(1): Situation is, we have a U.S. Naval Flight Officer (non-pilot type) who holds a Private Pilot Certificate, with an Airplane Single and Multiengine Land rating, Instrument Airplane rating. However, this Naval Flight Officer (non-pilot type) has never had an official U.S. military pilot checkout and instrument proficiency check in an S-3B Viking (or in any military aircraft) as a pilot in command during the 12 calendar months before the month of application [i.e., §61.73(d)(1)]. This person is a Naval Flight Officer (non-pilot) and does not hold any military pilot ratings of any kind. Nor has this person ever completed a U.S. military flight school. His position as a Naval Flight Officer (non-pilot type) is similar to a Weapons Officer in the Air Force. Is it permissible for this person to log that "hands-on the controls time" in a military S-3B Viking airplane as PIC time? ANSWER: Ref. §61.51(e)(1)(i): The answer is yes, it is permissible for this U.S. Naval Flight Officer (non-pilot type) to log that "hands-on-the-controls" time in an S-3B Viking military airplane as PIC time. The rationale behind this answer is because to pilot the S-3B Viking military airplane only requires the pilot to hold an airplane multiengine land rating. And this U.S. Naval Flight Officer (non-pilot type) does hold an airplane multiengine land rating on his FAA pilot certificate. There is no civilian equivalent to this military S-3B airplane and thus the qualifications to pilot this aircraft only requires the pilot to hold an airplane multiengine land rating on their FAA pilot certificate. No type rating is required to pilot the S-3B military airplane, nor is there a civilian equivalent for the S-3B. The reason I made the statement previously that "No type rating is required to pilot the S-3B . . ." is because if there had been a civilian equivalent to the S-3B military airplane [i.e., §61.5(b)(5)] then it would've required the pilot to hold that type rating. If a type rating is required, then in order to log the "hands-on-the-controls" time as PIC time in an S-3B Viking military airplane would've required the pilot to hold that type rating. Otherwise, an aircraft that requires a pilot to hold a type rating requires the pilot to be qualified in that ". . . aircraft for which the pilot is rated . . ." [i.e., §61.51(e)(1)(i)] to be able to log the time as PIC time. However, this is not the case in this situation, so this U.S. Naval Flight Officer (non-pilot type) can log the "hands-on-the-controls" time in an S-3B Viking military airplane as PIC time because he holds an airplane multiengine land rating on his FAA pilot certificate. Furthermore, he is able to show the time was when he was the ". . . sole manipulator of the controls . . ." and he holds an airplane multiengine land rating on his FAA pilot certificate which makes him qualified in ". . . an aircraft for which the pilot is rated . . ." [i.e., §61.51(e)(1)(i)]. So the answer is yes, this U.S. Naval Flight Officer (non-pilot type) can log the "hands-on-the-controls" time in an S-3B Viking military airplane as PIC time under §61.51(e)(1)(i). The rule, §61.73(d)(1), is not relevant here, because this U.S. Naval Flight Officer is not a military pilot. {q&a-221} QUESTION: Where, how, or in what manner is ground training to be logged? I am sure there are others with the same question. It seems the answer is contained in FAR 61.51. where it states that BOTH FLIGHT AND GROUND TRAINING MUST BE ENTERED IN A LOGBOOK. However, commercially produced pilot log books do not contain a column for ground training. Also, I have a copy of an e-mail message states, in reference to ground training, "It can be logged on a pre-printed training record etc. etc." Guidance please. ANSWER: I agree per §61.51(h)(2), that it says training time must be logged in a logbook. But also, read §61.51(a)(1) says "Each person must document and record the following time in a manner acceptable to the Administrator . . ." Historically, the FAA has accepted training records as a proper place to log training time. I guess it comes down to what is a "logbook." Can a logbook be a "training record tabulation sheet?" Yes it can be. Or is a logbook only a separate book that has rows of columns for recording times? Well I think we all would agree that is what we all envision when the term "logbook" is mentioned. However, a "training record tabulation sheet" is a ". . . document and record . . . acceptable to the Administrator . . ." We do not have a definition of a "logbook." A logbook can be a sheet or a number of sheets of computer generated log sheets like what airline pilots have issued to them by their companies. Or a logbook can be a number of DA Form 759-1's from the United States Army. Or a logbook can be a "training record tabulation sheet" like in the case with Part 141 approved school training records. Let's not get too hung up on the words, because I believe it is more important the time and endorsements are properly conducted and documented. As long as we can decipher the record to assure that the training, recency of experience, aeronautical experience times AND CONTENT, etc. have been met then I'm not that concerned with what we accept as a logbook. {q&a-186} QUESTION 4: What constitutes a flight in Lighter-Than-Air, Balloon? We have some of the sharpie pilots saying that it is a "takeoff and landing." Therefore, they intend to log several flights with only one set-up and inflation. ANSWER 4: Per §1.1, the definition of a "flight" in a balloon is no different than a "flight" in an airplane, helicopter, glider, etc. In accordance with the "flight" definition in §1.1, a balloon pilot would not need to de-inflate and break the balloon down and then re-setup and re-inflate the balloon to credit multiple "flights." Just like it says in §1.1: ". . . from the moment the aircraft first moves under its own power for the purpose of flight until the moment it comes to rest at the next point of landing. . ." {q&a-179} QUESTION: I have been getting numerous questions regarding the following scenario since Aug 4. Can you set me on the right track. Here is the scenario: An Applicant holds Private Pilot Airplane Singe Engine Land and Instrument Rating.. He intends on obtaining a Commercial Pilot Certificate Multi Engine Land. §61.129(b)(4) states he must have 10 hours of flight time performing the duties of pilot in command in a multiengine airplane with an authorized instructor on the areas of operation listed in 61.127(b)(2) of this part.. So, he must get pilot in command time but he isn't rated in the multiengine airplane, and it isn't instruction but an instructor is there. What and how do these guys log this situation? ANSWER: The preamble of the final rule correction document the was published in the Federal Register (78 FR 20284; April 23, 1998) concerning the revision to §61.129(b)(4) states as follows: "Section 61.129 Aeronautical experience. In Notice No. 95-11, proposed §61.129(b)(4) would have required an applicant to accomplish solo flight time in a multiengine airplane. During the rulemaking process, the FAA determined that the accomplishment of solo flight time in a multiengine airplane may be impracticable because of liability and insurance concerns. Therefore, in the final rule, the FAA replaced the requirement that an applicant accomplish solo flight time in a multiengine airplane with the requirement that the flight time required under §61.129(b)(4) be acquired while performing the duties of PIC in a multiengine airplane with an authorized instructor. However, in revising this requirement, the FAA did not consider the applicant who holds a private pilot certificate with a multiengine rating and, therefore, may already have solo flight time in a multiengine aircraft or may be able to accomplish solo flight time without the cost of acquiring the required flight time with an authorized instructor. Therefore, the FAA has revised §61.129(b)(4) to require an applicant to accomplish 10 hours of solo flight in a multiengine airplane or 10 hours of flight time performing the duties of PIC in a multiengine airplane with an authorized instructor. In addition, the FAA has revised §61.129(b)(4) to permit an applicant for a commercial pilot certificate with a multiengine rating to credit the 10 hours of flight time performing the duties of PIC in a multiengine airplane required by that paragraph toward the 100 hours of PIC flight time required under §61.129(b)(2). This revision is consistent with the provisions of §61.129(b) as proposed in Notice No. 95-11. As previously noted, proposed §61.129(b)(4) would have required an applicant to accomplish solo flight time in a multiengine airplane. The solo flight time would have constituted PIC flight time; therefore, the applicant would have been able to credit that flight time toward the requirements of §61.129(b)(2). However, under §61.129(b)(4) as adopted in the final rule, an applicant would be performing the duties of PIC rather than acting as PIC. Consequently, that flight time does not constitute PIC flight time. Therefore, the FAA has revised §61.129(b)(4) to permit the crediting of flight time accomplished under that paragraph toward the requirements of §61.129(b)(2). However, this revision does not permit an applicant to log the flight time required under §61.129(b)(4) as PIC flight time under §61.51(e) unless the applicant holds a private pilot certificate with a multiengine rating and chooses to accomplish the requirements with an authorized instructor. The FAA notes that if an applicant meets the requirements of §61.129(b)(4) by logging 10 hours of solo flight time in a multiengine airplane (as permitted in this final rule), that time would constitute PIC flight time. Therefore, the applicant may count that flight time toward the requirements of §61.129(b)(2) and log it as PIC time under §61.51(e)". {q&a-3} QUESTION: If a commercial pilot with single-engine land rating was to add a multiengine class rating, he or she would do so under FAR 61.63(c). FAR 61.31(d) prohibits a person from "serving" as the PIC of an aircraft unless that person... 1. Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating ...for the aircraft to be flown, or 2. [Is] receiving training for the purposes of obtaining an additional pilot certificate and rating that are appropriate to that aircraft, and be under the supervision of an authorized instructor, or 3. Have received training required by this part that is appropriate to the aircraft category, class, and type rating...for the aircraft to be flown, and have received the required endorsements from an instructor who is authorized to provide the required endorsements for solo flight in that aircraft. The implication is that a commercial pilot with a single-engine land rating, meeting the requirements of FAR 61.31(d)(2) could "serve" as PIC of a mulitengine airplane while under the supervision of a flight instructor. Could that person log this time as PIC under FAR 61.51(e)(4) even though they are not solo and have no current solo flight endorsement for the aircraft? Under paragraph (3) of FAR 61.31(d), could you log PIC time in a multiengine airplane under FAR 61.51(e)(4) while flying solo? If you can log PIC while flying under the supervision of a authorized instructor, is there anything that would prohibit going back in your logbook and recording dual instruction in a multiengine airplane as PIC, similar to what you said could be done in the case of student pilots previously logging solo time? ANSWER: Reference §61.51(e): Let's not mix "to serve as pilot in command" vs. logging PIC time. §61.51(e) is the rule that address LOGGING PIC time. Solo flight time in a multiengine airplane may be logged as PIC per FAR 61.51(e)(1)(ii) as amended 5/26/98 by amendment 61/104 as long as the appropriate training and endorsements required by FAR 61.31(d)(3) are met. For the time while serving as PIC of a mulitengine airplane while under the supervision of a flight instructor: FROM THE PREAMBLE OF THE FINAL RULE 61-104: "Reference §61.129(b)(4) as adopted in the final rule 61-104, 5/26/98, an applicant would be performing the duties of PIC rather than acting as PIC. Consequently, that flight time does not constitute PIC flight time. Therefore, the FAA has revised §61.129(b)(4) to permit the crediting of flight time accomplished under that paragraph toward the requirements of §61.129(b)(2). However, this revision does not permit an applicant to log the flight time required under §61.129(b)(4) as PIC flight time under §61.51(e) unless the applicant holds a private pilot certificate with a multiengine rating and chooses to accomplish the requirements with an authorized instructor." {q&a-110} QUESTION: Question regarding 61.51(e)(3) and 61.23(b)(5)-- Can a CFI who is exercising the privileges of a flight instructor certificate under 61.23(b)(5) log PIC even though he or she does not have a valid medical certificate. ANSWER: Ref. §61.51(e)(3): Yes, the CFI may log it as PIC time. As I have stated in the past the rules are different between "logging PIC time" under §1.1 vs "acting as the PIC" under §61.51(e)(3). The CFI cannot "act as the PIC" without a medical certificate, but he or she can certainly "log it as PIC time." { q&a-137} QUESTION 2: Situation is an applicant who holds a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane single land rating. The applicant is now seeking to add a helicopter rating onto his commercial pilot certificate. To show 35 hours of PIC time in helicopters as per §61.129(c)(2)(i) how can the applicant obtain and log that PIC time in a helicopter? ANSWER 2: Ref. per §61.51(e) or §61.31(d); The PIC time would have to be obtained: a. Already hold a helicopter rating at the private pilot level. Then PIC time can be logged while flying solo and/or while manipulating the control as per §61.51(e)(1)(i) when the flight instructor is on board; or b. Be the sole occupant of the aircraft and have a current solo endorsement in accordance with §61.31(d)(3). QUESTION 3: I am private pilot with an airplane single engine land rating. I am seeking to add a helicopter rating. Can I log the time as PIC while manipulating the controls with my instructor on board as in §61.31(d)(2)? ANSWER 3: No. You cannot log the time as PIC while his instructor is on board since you are not rated in the aircraft, see §6151(e)(1)(i). There is nothing wrong with the way §61.31(d)(2) has been written. To "serve" as the pilot in command while receiving training does not authorize logging PIC. There has always been a difference between logging PIC time vs. acting/serving as PIC. {q&a-146} QUESTION 1: May a current or former military pilot credit PIC or SIC time that meets FAR requirements EXCEPT for the requirement to be a recreational, private or commercially rated pilot? For example: a military pilot flies for 10 years then obtains a commercial rating. Can he credit flight time accomplished prior to receiving his commercial rating towards the PIC/SIC requirements for an ATP rating? ANSWER 1: Yes, a former or current military pilot may use any flight time that can be substantiated by personal logbook or military records and meets FAR requirements. This includes flight time accomplished prior to receiving the commercial rating. QUESTION 2: Can I count military First Pilot time (sole manipulator of the controls) logged while undergoing dual flight instruction for (and graduating from) initial military flight training as PIC? (It seems the FAA accepts this flight time as credible PIC because a Commercial rating can be issued based on graduating from this course and passing the required written exam.) ANSWER 2: It depends. Are you PIC qualified in that aircraft? If yes, then yes. Reference §61.51(e)(1)(i): ". . . Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated; or QUESTION 3: After completing military flight training and obtaining a Commercial ASEL and RH rating can I count First Pilot flight time logged in a C-130 (AMEL) as PIC? (I have less than 10 hours PIC in the aircraft and never completed a Natops check in the aircraft, but flew on a reciprocity basis while assigned to a composite fixed/rotary wing squadron. The military regulations under which the aircraft was operated required more than one pilot.) ANSWER 3: NO; You're not PIC qualified in a C-130. Reference §61.51(e)(1)(i): As per subparagraph (i) ". . . Is the sole manipulator of the controls OF AN AIRCRAFT FOR WHICH THE PILOT IS RATED; or QUESTION 4: Can I count military Second Pilot time as SIC time under the same circumstances? ANSWER 4: It depends. But we would have to say no based on the information you have provided, it appears you haven't completed a military checkout to serve as the SIC in the C-130. Reference §61.51(f), it states: (f) Logging second-in-command time. A person may log second-in-command flight time only for that flight time during which that person: (1) Is qualified in accordance with the second-in-command requirements of § 61.55 of this part, and occupies a crewmember station in an aircraft that requires more than one pilot by the aircraft's type certificate; or (2) Holds the appropriate category, class, and instrument rating (if an instrument rating is required for the flight) for the aircraft being flown, and more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted. QUESTION 5: As a rated commercial ASEL pilot undergoing the flight training required to add an AMEL rating can I log PIC time when I am the sole manipulator of the controls during the dual instruction required to obtain the CFI endorsement required to be eligible for the practical exam? (Two pilots required under 61.123 (c)) ANSWER 5: The answer is NO since §61.51(e)(i) applies which states ". . . Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated; " Your question indicates that you are not rated in a multiengine airplane and therefore, only SOLO flight time in a multiengine airplane may be logged as PIC per FAR 61.51(e)(1)(ii) as amended 5/26/98 by amendment 61/104 as long as the appropriate training and endorsements required by FAR 61.31(d)(3) are met. For the time while serving as PIC of a mulitengine airplane while under the supervision of a flight instructor: FROM THE PREAMBLE OF THE FINAL RULE 61-104: "Reference §61.129(b)(4) as adopted in the final rule 61-104, 5/26/98, an applicant would be performing the duties of PIC rather than acting as PIC. Consequently, that flight time does not constitute PIC flight time. Therefore, the FAA has revised §61.129(b)(4) to permit the crediting of flight time accomplished under that paragraph toward the requirements of §61.129(b)(2). However, this revision does not permit an applicant to log the flight time required under §61.129(b)(4) as PIC flight time under §61.51(e) unless the applicant holds a private pilot certificate with a multiengine rating and chooses to accomplish the requirements with an authorized instructor." QUESTION 6: Can the flight time as sole manipulator of the controls during the AMEL practical exam be counted as PIC time? (Two pilots required.) ANSWER 6: Reference §61.47(b): YES, provided you are the pilot-in-command and nobody else is claiming to be the PIC or has agreed to be PIC during the practical test as allowed under §61.47. {q&a-122} QUESTION: If you are acting as second-in command of an aircraft that requires two pilots\, and are the sole manipulator of the contols\, can you log PIC for that portion of the flight? ANSWER: Reference §61.51(e)(1)(i). The answer is yes the person may log it as PIC time, provided that person "Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated;" {q&a-120} QUESTION: What about a simulator instructor that was instructing from the console of a level D 747 simulator at an approved 142 center and a part 61 CFII that had an approved PC and was giving his friend instruction at home in the kitchen. Under 61.1(b)(12)(iii) can they both log pilot time? ANSWER: Reference §61.1(b)(12)(iii), YES, that time an authorized instructor gives training in an aircraft, flight simulator, or flight training device may be credited as pilot time. Note, "pilot time" and "flight time" are NOT synonymous. {q&a-108} QUESTION: In the December 1997 edition of "AOPA PILOT," specifically page 22, "AOPA ACCESS," the question was asked: "If I am flying as a safety pilot, can I log that time as pilot in command?" AOPA's answer is: "Yes. There had been talk during the rewrite process of changing this to specify only second-in-command time, but the final rule left logable safety pilot PIC time intact. Requirements remain being rated in category and class. You are allowed to log safety pilot PIC time because your eyes are required for aircraft safety and therefore you become a required crew member. The pilot under the hood can also log PIC time as 'sole' manipulator of the controls." §61.51(f)(2) seems pretty clear about safety pilots logging SIC rather than PIC time. What does AOPA know that we don't??? ANSWER: Yes, the time can be logged as PIC. Reference §61.51(e)(1)(ii): The safety pilot, who meets the qualifications set forth in §91.109(b) may log it as PIC time because §61.51(e)(1)(ii) states, in pertinent part, ". . . the regulations under which the flight is conducted. Note, we say "may" but he "may" prefer to log it as SIC time. Your understanding is probably based on the preamble discussion on page 16250, middle column, of the Federal Register (62 FR 16250; April 4, 1997). We would highly recommend that you also read the preamble discussion on page 16250, first column, of the Federal Register (62 FR 16250; April 4, 1997). Reference §61.51(e)(1)(i): The other pilot manipulating the controls, and who meets the qualifications set forth in §91.109(a)(2) and (b)(3)(ii) may log it as PIC time because §61.51(e)(1)(i) states, in pertinent part, "Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated;" {q&a-95} QUESTION: Is it true that a qualified pilot can log pilot-in-command time for all flight time during which he acts as a required safety pilot per 14 CFR §91.109? ANSWER: Yes, the safety pilot can log the time as PIC time in accordance with §61.51(e)(ii) which states ". . . regulations under which the flight is conducted." {q&a-88} QUESTION The question comes from the helicopter community applicants for the private pilot rating. Does the above statement now permit a person who gets only a solo flight endorsement (but doesn't exercise this due to insurance or other financial constraints) the ability to log time as PIC that time he spends with his Instructor (dual received time) and is the manipulator of the controls? And if so, is this time attributable to the ten hours solo requirement (61.109(a)(b)&(e)? I guess the bottom dollar question is.......can a student pilot qualify all of the solo pilot requirements for the aeronautical experience requirements of 61.109 flying with his instructor seated next to him? ANSWER No, the student cannot log PIC time with his instructor on board. §61.51(e)(4) states: (4) A student pilot may log pilot-in-command time when the student pilot - (i) Is the sole occupant of the aircraft; (ii) Has a current solo flight endorsement as required under § 61.87 of this part; and (iii) Is undergoing training for a pilot certificate or rating, is acting as pilot in command of an airship requiring more than one flight crewmember, or is logging pilot-in- command flight time to obtain the pilot-in-command flight experience requirements for a pilot certificate or aircraft rating. {q&a-23} QUESTION 5: What is the status of student solo time logged before 8/4/97? Now that students can log PIC (whereas they couldn't before), can they count the solo time they logged as PIC before 8/4/97 toward the PIC time requirements for higher ratings applied for after 8/4/97? In other words, is the experience they gained before 8/4/97 as valuable as that gained after 8/4/97? ANSWER 5: [§61,51(e)(4)] The new rule applies. Solo time can be logged as PIC time. {q&a-8} QUESTION 1: Can solo flight time, under the old 61/141, logged by the Student Pilot now be considered PIC flight time? ANSWER 1: Yes; All time logged as solo time prior to August 4, 1997 can now be also logged as PIC time. In fact, I have already gone into my logbook where I had logged solo time in 1968 and added the time into the PIC column of my logbook. It can be logged as both solo time and PIC time. {q&a-74} QUESTION We have a local operator that makes his living giving flight instruction to foreign and military pilots. He submits the following, which I include verbatim: [11.] "I...have a somewhat unique inquiry from an individual who holds a commercial pilot certificate issued by the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. He received his training at the Yugoslav Airlines Academy, and he never received a private pilot certificate. The only airman certificates he ever held were a student pilot certificate and, upon completion of his training, [a] commercial with instrument rating. This individual would like to obtain an unrestricted FAA commercial certificate. Under the 'old' FAR 61 he clearly would not meet the 100-hour PIC requirement, since he never held a private pilot certificate. Under the 'new' FAR 61 his solo hours (he has 103 hours of solo time) would meet that requirement. Depending upon the response to [Question 5, above], what do I tell him?' ANSWER 11: As stated in Q5 above, the new Part 61 applies. [§61,51(e)(4)] The new rule applies. Solo time can be logged as PIC time. {q&a-8} QUESTION: If two multiengine pilots, neither of which have an ATP or an MEI, flew together on a 3.0 hour one way trip, and pilot #1 flew the first half of the trip and pilot #2 flew the second half, is it legal for both pilots to log 3.0 hours of total ME time and each log 1.5 hours of PIC time? ANSWER: No, but each may log 1.5 hours of PIC time for that time that pilot was the sole manipulator of the controls. §61.51(e)(1) is the governing rule that applies to this situation and it states: (e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A recreational, private, or commercial pilot may log pilot-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person is - (i) The sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated; or (ii) Except for a recreational pilot, when acting as pilot in command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted. Furthermore, even if one or both had an ATP certificate, it still wouldn't make any difference to my answer because if one or both had an ATP certificate with multiengine airplane rating, §61.51(e))2) states: "(2) An airline transport pilot may log as pilot-in-command time all of the flight time while acting as pilot-in-command of an operation requiring an airline transport pilot certificate." {q&a-31} QUESTION: Under new Part 61, to add an additional aircraft category rating we need to meet the requirements of FAR 61.63. That regulation requires that we possess "...the aeronautical experience...that applies to the pilot certificate for the aircraft category..." Using the example of a Commercial Rotorcraft pilot adding an airplane category rating, the applicant would have to meet the requirements of FAR 61.129(a). Among those requirements is 50 hours of PIC time [61.129(a)(2)(i)]. The Question: How does a person with a commercial rotorcraft log PIC time in an airplane? FAR 61.51 (e)(1)(i) only allows you to log PIC time if you are the "...sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which [you are] rated..." Paragraph (4) allows a student pilot to log PIC, but in this example we are dealing with a rated pilot, not a student pilot. I guess you could claim that person is a student, but it's not clear from the regulation that's what you expect. ANSWER: You have raised an issue that is going in our next correction document that is scheduled for publication in December. On pages 16249 (bottom of 3rd column) and 16250 (top of 1st column) in the April 4, 1997 version of the Federal Register, the FAA stated, in pertinent part, "These pilot may properly log pilot-in-command time: . . . (2) when the pilot is the sole occupant of the aircraft; or . . ." Unfortunately, we failed to incorporate that statement in §61.51(e). Therefore, in the interim [until we get that statement in §61.51(e)] Permit applicants to log PIC time ". . . when the pilot is the sole occupant of the aircraft...." because those instructions are in the preamble of the final rule document. Yes, a person who is the sole occupant of the aircraft may log the time as PIC time, and yes that includes the PIC time in §61.129(a)(2)(i). {q&a-57} QUESTION: A CFII recently asked if the solo cross country time logged while an individual was a student pilot can be counted toward the 50 hour requirement for the instrument rating. The recent change to Part 61.65 no longer addresses student pilot time. ANSWER: Review §61.51(e)(4)(i). Yes, a student pilot may log PIC time for that time he or she is solo. And yes, even that solo flight time performed prior to August 4, 1997 can now be credited as PIC time. For example, ten years ago a student pilot logged solo flight time for a flight as the sole occupant. On August 4, 1997, that same person may go back into his or her logbook and credit the time as PIC time also. {q&a-26} And even though you didn't ask this question, we are providing this answer anyway. My most frequently asked question is now that student pilots may log PIC time under the new §61.51(e)(4), can former student pilots who are now rated pilots go back and update their logbooks by converting the solo time they earned while student pilots to PIC time. The answer is yes. {q&a-62} QUESTION 8: What is the status of instrument flight time logged in a simulator i/a/w 61.51(g)(4) when calculating total flight time for other purposes? Is it really "flight time" (ref. FAR 1), or something distinctly different? ANSWER 8: [§61.51(g)(4) It may be logged as instrument training. See §61.1(b)(10) which states "instrument training means that time in which instrument training is received from an authorized instructor under actual or simulated instrument conditions." {q&a-8} QUESTION 2: We have an example of logging PIC in our presentation that you and I previously discussed on the phone a week ago. We've been challenged on our interpretation and I want to reconfirm it with you. The example is: Two private pilots... Pilot A is manipulating the controls but has not made 3 takeoffs and landing within the 90 days. Pilot B is the PIC for the purposes of Part 1. Question: Which pilot logs PIC? ANSWER 2: Pilot A may log PIC time in accordance with 61.51(e)(1)(i). Pilot B would have to agree to be the PIC in accordance with Part 1 because Pilot A is not current. However, Pilot B may not log the time as PIC time because 61.51 doesn't provide for it. {q&a-10} 61.53 Prohibition on operations during medical deficiency QUESTION 1: Does the requirement, ". . . to certify that he has no known medical deficiency. . ." in the box W of the FAA Form 8710-1 application still exist for applicants of balloon or glider ratings? ANSWER 1: Ref. §§61.23; 61.53; No, the requirement no longer exists. On the new application form now being developed, this block will be deleted. In the interim, the rule applies. {q&a-136} 61.55 Second-in-command qualifications QUESTION 2: My second question is virtually the same as the first except that it applies to SIC qualifications. The SIC currency requirements of §61.55(b) "may be accomplished in a flight simulator that is used in accordance with a course conducted by a training center certificated under Part 142" per 61.55(g). Does the simulator have to be operating under a Part 142 approved course, so that it is sure to be a good device for the pilot, or does the pilot have to go through some sort of SIC 142 approved course to meet the 61.55(b) requirements? It is clear, again, that the rule allows a pilot to use an aircraft to meet the SIC requirements, without any prior training. Can a pilot use a simulator in the same way? I'm not sure what the intent was, when 61.55 was changed to include reference to 142. ANSWER 2: Ref. §61.55(g); As per §61.55(g), ". . . may be accomplished in a flight simulator that is used in accordance with an approved course conducted by a training center certificated under part 142 of this chapter. . ." Which means BOTH the §61.55 SIC check and the flight simulator must be under a part 142 approved training program. So the answer is no, a SIC cannot go out and free lance in renting a flight simulator and do a §61.55 SIC check. It has to be accomplished under and in accordance with a part 142 approved training program. {q&a-321} QUESTION: There does not appear to be a requirement for an instructor endorsement to verify the SIC training in §61.55. However, §61.55(d)(3) refers to "flight training required by this section." In this situation, the intended preparation of a SIC for a Citation is not for Part 121, 125 or 135 operations. QUESTION 1: Is a Part 61 certificated flight instructor with the appropriate type rating required to conduct the flight training? (Definition in §61.1 would appear to indicate yes.) ANSWER 1: §61.55; No, the SIC requirements of §61.55(b) does not necessarily need to be given with a CFI on board. It may be the preferred choice, but it certainly isn't a regulatory requirement. Even in the old §61.55 didn't require it to be given by a CFI. In no place in §61.55(b) does it state that the SIC qualification requirements be met with an authorized instructor on board. Now that I think about it, I wish I had changed the rule to read that way, but I didn't. This requirement can be met with a qualified PIC [e.g., §61.31(a)] for that type of airplane. Procedurally, the PIC would sign the applicant's logbook or training record as a basis for proving verification that the SIC applicant has met the SIC requirements of §61.55(b). The verification can be accomplished by simply logging these SIC ground and flight requirements of §61.55(b) and then the PIC signs the SIC applicant's logbook/training record. QUESTION 2: Is any documentation required to document the SIC qualification time? ANSWER 2: Ref. §61.51(a)(1); Yes, the SIC ground and flight qualification requirements of §61.55(b) must be logged. Per §61.51(a), it states, in pertinent part, "Each person must document and record the following time . . . aeronautical experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate, rating, or flight review of this part." And §61.55 (i.e., SIC qualifications and requirements) is ". . . of this part." And the SIC ground and flight qualification requirements of §61.55(b) is ". . . aeronautical experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate, rating . . . of this part." Yes, the SIC ground and flight qualification requirements of §61.55(b) must be logged. {q&a-225} QUESTION 1: Situation is the CE-525 is certificated under Part 23 and as such can be flown single pilot by those that have CE-525S type ratings if certain equipment on the airplane works. Should the pilot only have a CE-525 type rating OR certain equipment is inoperative where a copilot must be used, must the copilot meet §61.55 and secondly must the PIC be required to have accomplished a §61.58 check? ANSWER 1a: Ref. §91.531(a)(2) and §61.55(a): The answer is YES, the copilot would have to meet the SIC qualification requirements. Although, I am quite aware that the verbiage in §91.531(a)(2) states, in pertinent part, ". . . A turbojet-powered multiengine airplane for which two pilots are required under the type certification requirements for that airplane. . ." Now the question is whether we could get an NTSB Law Judge to rationalize the phrase "required under the type certification requirements for that airplane" means the same as saying "required under the operating certification requirements for that airplane." WHO KNOWS! Your guess is as good as mine. But until we're shot down by an NTSB Law Judge, the FAA's position on these rules [i.e., §91.531(a)(2) and §61.55(a)] require the SIC to be qualified in accordance with all requirements of §61.55. {q&a-211} QUESTION: A reading, please. 61.55(a)(1) says 'current' private pilot cert. What exactly does this mean? For instance, we have a pilot who has a current SIC check to fly right seat in a LRJET, but who doesn't have a current BFR, and who never gets one. Would the SIC check count for the 'current' in the reg? ANSWER: Reference §61.55(a)(1); It states "At least a current private pilot certificate . . ." The word "current" means the person meets the recency of experience requirements of Part 61 (i.e., BFR, 3 T/O's and landing, and instrument, if appropriate) and the person's medical certificate has not expired. In the near future, we will be issuing an update to Part 61, because we have gone through all of Part 61 and placed the words "valid," "current," and "valid and current" where appropriate. In that upcoming NPRM, we will define what the words "valid," "current," and "valid and current" means. The word "current" will be defined as having met all of the appropriate recency of experience of Part 61 and the person's medical certificate has not expired. The word "valid" will be defined as the person's pilot certificate has not been surrendered, suspended, revoked, or expired. The word "current and valid" will be defined as: 1. The person meets all of the appropriate recency of experience of Part 61 and the person's medical certificate has not expired; and. 2. The person's pilot certificate has not been surrendered, suspended, revoked, or expired. {q&a-92} 61.56 Flight review QUESTION: Can you clarify § 61.58 PIC check and using that check to satisfy the 61.56 flight review requirement. Does a § 61.58 PIC check satisfy the §61.56 flight review? ANSWER: Ref. §61.56(d); Yes, according to § 61.56 (d), a person who has passed a § 61.58 PIC check within the period specified in paragraph (c) [i.e., meaning within the 24th calendar months before the month in which that pilot acts as pilot in command] ". . .need not accomplish the flight review required by this section." So a person who holds a current § 61.58 PIC check need not accomplish the flight review required by § 61.56(a). {q&a-407} QUESTION: I have a question as it relates to biannual flight reviews. Does the receipt of a LOA (Letter of Authorization) satisfy the biannual flight review requirement? I believe that if a LOA was obtained with a flight check from the issuing check airman, then the BFR requirements are satisfied. However, if the LOA was obtained from a FSDO office based on a recommendation, then the BFR would not be satisfied. Is this correct? I appreciate your reply on my query. My CFI peers have had long discussions regarding this item. ANSWER: Ref. § 61.56(a) and (d); If the flight check for the LOA was ". . . a pilot proficiency check conducted by an examiner, an approved pilot check airman, or a U.S. Armed Force, for a pilot certificate, rating, or operating privilege . . ." then the flight review requirement of §61.56 is satisfied. However, if this is not the case, then that LOA flight check would not qualify. Normally, you find that flight checks for LOA are not conducted by an examiner, an approved pilot check airman, or a U.S. Armed Force. As for the second portion of your question, you indicated the FSDO merely issued the LOA based on a recommendation. And I am assuming by reading the essence of your question, the flight check for the LOA was not conducted by an examiner, an approved pilot check airman, or a U.S. Armed Force, so in this case the LOA flight check would meet the requirements of § 61.56(a) unless the person who conducted the LOA flight check was a CFI and even then, the CFI would have to have provided ". . . 1 hour of flight training and 1 hour of ground training . . ." and then make the endorsement of § 61.56(c). It is a good idea to have an examiner or inspector make some reference to the flight review of § 61.56(a) when making any endorsement for other purposes (like LOA issuance) in your log book following a proficiency evaluation, etc. This is not required in 61.56(d), but helps resolve later questions. {q&a-379} QUESTION: The question has arisen with respect to a foreign pilot who holds a Restricted US Private Pilot Certificate, issued on the bases of the ICAO member country. Specifically, is that person required to meet the Flight Review requirements of FAR Part 61.56 (c)? Review of the "Frequently Asked Questions 14CFR, Part 61 & 141", question 248, indicates that the flight review is required by a foreign pilot who wishes to operate a US registered aircraft on a Restricted US Pilot Certificate. The Preamble to Part 61 does not address the purpose of 61.56 with respect to a Restricted Pilot Certificate. FAA Order 8700.1, Chapter 29, paragraph 5D states; "A foreign pilot applicant should be advised that Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14CFR) part 61, i.e.. 61.3, allows foreign registered aircraft to be operated within the United States by a pilot holding a current license issued by the foreign country where the aircraft is registered. A U.S.-registered civil aircraft may be operated within a foreign country by a pilot holding a certificate issued by that foreign country. A person may not act as a pilot of a U.S.-registered civil aircraft in the United states unless that person holds a US. pilot certificate". Therefore, the restricted certificate must be issued under section 61.75 in order to comply with section 61.3. If the foreign pilot operates the U. S. registered aircraft in a foreign country he does not have to meet Part 61 requirements (including flight review). If he operates a foreign aircraft in the US. on his foreign license, he again does not have to meet the requirements of Part 61. The question then is why is it different for a foreign pilot, who is issued a restricted certificate based only on his foreign licenses, than for a person who operates a foreign registered aircraft in this country using his foreign licenses? The answer seems to be; there is no difference. The purpose of the restricted license is to meet the requirements of section 61.3 and that the flight review is not a requirement. In order to exercise that privilege the foreign pilot must always meet the requirements of his foreign license other wise the restricted certificate is no longer valid. Because of this and the fact that the individual does not hold a non-restricted U S pilot certificate, it appears that they are not required to meet any other section of Part 61, other than what is stated in 61.75. Further, FAA Order 8700.1, Chapter 29, section 2, paragraph 5J states; "Additional Requirements. Advise the applicant of the applicability of part 91 flight rules". It says nothing regarding the compliance of part 61 other than the chapter addresses meeting the requirement of section 61.75. In addition, §61.75 (b) states; "...A person who holds a current foreign pilot license issued by a contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation may be issued a private pilot certificate based on the foreign pilot license without any further showing of proficiency, provided the applicant: (1) Meets the requirements of this section;...". This being the case it appears there is some confusion with respect to the question of whether a pilot issued a restricted certificate base on a foreign licenses is indeed required to comply with the flight review requirements of section 61.56. Section 61.75 requires the foreign pilot issued a restricted pilot certificate must meet the requirement of that SECTION and that SECTION only. Therefore, we are requesting that your office and legal counsel re-review this issue in light of the current confusion and the intended purpose of issuing a restricted pilot certificate under section 61.75. This is an important issue since it appears that Part 61.56 is geared towards and intended for an individual who holds a non-restricted U S pilot certificate. However, there appears to be a question regarding the flight review when the Restricted US Certificate is issued to a pilot based on his foreign pilot licenses and its restrictions. It is a confusing matter in light of the purpose of issuing the restricted pilot certificate and a legal interpretation of the current rules is probably the only clear solution to the matter. ANSWER: Ref. §61.56(c) and §61.75(b)(1); Yes, the flight review requirement even applies to foreign pilots when exercising their U.S. pilot certificate. It makes no difference whether it was a U.S. pilot certificate that was issued in accordance with §61.75 or §61.103. It is still a U.S. pilot certificate. And when a person is exercising that U.S. pilot certificate then as per §61.56(c) it states, in pertinent part, ". . . no person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft unless, since the beginning of the 24th calendar month before the month in which that pilot acts as pilot in command, that person has- (1) Accomplished a flight review given in an aircraft for which that pilot is rated by an authorized instructor; and (2) A logbook endorsed from an authorized instructor who gave the review certifying that the person has satisfactorily completed the review." There is no difference. If a U.S. pilot is issued a foreign pilot license on the basis of holding a U.S. pilot certificate, that person is expected to comply with that foreign country's pilot certification rules when exercising that foreign pilot certificate. And so, there is no difference when the situation is reversed and a foreign pilot is exercising a U.S. pilot certificate. As for your comments about §61.75 (b)(1) which states, in pertinent part ". . . without any further showing of proficiency, provided the applicant: (1) Meets the requirements of this section;" What that rule [i.e., §61.75(b)(1)] is addressing is ONE of the prerequisite eligibility requirements that govern the issuance of that U.S. private pilot certificate. Once the certificate is issued, there are currency and operational requirements that the pilot must meet and comply with, just like any other pilot certificate that is issued by the FAA. And as I've said many times in the past, the FAA is a service organization, as well as a regulatory agency, and I agree and fully urge ASIs to take some time with a foreign pilot to explain our recency of experience, instrument currency, VFR rules, air traffic requirements, airspace requirements, etc. to foreign pilots when you all issue one of these §61.75 private pilot certificates. And this answer has been coordinated and approved by the FAA's Office of Chief Counsel. {q&a-326} QUESTION: The situation is a balloon rated pilot received a flight review in accordance with §61.56(a) that consisted ". . . of 1 hour of flight training and 1 hour of ground training . . ." As per §61.51(a)(1), it states ". . . must document and record the following time in a manner acceptable to the Administrator: (1) Training and aeronautical experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate, rating, or flight review of this part. So my question does the pilot need to have a §61.56(c) endorsement, but also per §61.51(a) is it required that the person's logbook require a record and instructor endorsement showing the ". . . 1 hour of flight training and 1 hour of ground training . . ." given? Or does the one single §61.56(c) endorsement suffice? ANSWER: §61.51(a)(1) and §61.56(a) and (c )(2); Only the one single §61.56(c) endorsement is required. If the pilot has an endorsement that reads similar to the following endorsement, then that is sufficient for meeting the regulatory requirements: I certify that (First name, MI, Last name), (pilot certificate), (certificate number), has satisfactorily completed a flight review of § 61.56(a) on (date). S/S [date] J.J. Jones 987654321CFI Exp. 12-31-00 This endorsement, by referencing §61.56(a), says in effect that the person did receive the ". . . 1 hour of flight training and 1 hour of ground training . . ." and so no other instructor endorsement is required. And historically, this one single endorsement is all that the FAA has ever required. However, let me make it perfectly clear to both the pilot and the flight instructor and the commercial pilot-balloon pilot also, when that endorsement is made, there better have been ". . . 1 HOUR OF FLIGHT TRAINING AND 1 HOUR OF GROUND TRAINING . . ." GIVEN. Because that is what §61.56(a) says! Not 15 minutes, BUT ". . . 1 HOUR OF FLIGHT TRAINING AND 1 HOUR OF GROUND TRAINING . . ." GIVEN. {q&a-319} QUESTION 1: My question involves prohibiting throw-over controls for "simulated or actual instrument flight" in the twins. Is it possible to give a private or commercial check ride without simulating instrument flight basics? ANSWER 1: Ref. Appropriate PTS; NO, instrument flight basics must be demonstrated in an initial private pilot practical test, single or multiengine, and also in a multiengine commercial practical test, except when the aircraft is incapable of instrument flight. (See Q&A-220). Ref. §61.45(e)(2); And NO, you CANNOT perform the portion of the private or commercial practical test where it requires simulating instrument flight basics in a throw-over control wheel multiengine airplane. As per §61.45(e)(2) ". . . (2) Test does not involve a demonstration of instrument skills; and" In fact, this prohibits the demonstration of instrument skills in a single-engine airplane with throw-over controls for a practical test. Ref. §61.45(c); However, the applicant may segment the practical test by performing those portions of the practical test that DO NOT INVOLVE INSTRUMENT SKILLS in a throw-over control wheel airplane, but only if the ". . . Examiner agrees to conduct the test . . ." [i.e., §61.45(e)(1)] in that throw-over control single or multiengine airplane. Then the instrument portion of the practical test would be required to be performed in a single or multiengine airplane that " . . . has fully functioning dual controls . . ." [i.e., §91.109(a)] and that means it cannot be a throw-over control wheeled multiengine airplane. QUESTION 2: How about performing a flight review with an aircraft with throw-over controls for a flight review?" Does this include the twins? If so, it appears to be in conflict with §91.109 unless there is a differentiation between "flight instruction" under §91.109 and "flight training" under §61.56. Although a person could probably be signed off in a twin under §61.56 without demonstrating basic instrument skills I don't think it would be prudent. ANSWER 2: Ref. §61.56(a)(2) and §91.109(a); As for whether an instrument review is required during the flight review, as per §61.56(a)(2), it states ". . . (2) A review of those maneuvers and procedures that, at the discretion of the person giving the review, are necessary for the pilot to demonstrate the safe exercise of the privileges of the pilot certificate." If the applicant holds an instrument rating on his or her pilot certificate, then an instrument review is required during the flight review. Per §91.109(a), you may conduct a flight review (flight training) in a single engine airplane with a throw-over control wheel for the instrument portion of the flight review, but you CANNOT conduct a flight review in a MULTIENGINE airplane with a throw-over control wheel as per §91.109(a) ". . . instrument flight instruction may be given in a single-engine airplane equipped with a single, functioning throw-over control wheel . . ." QUESTION 3: Also, on the §61.56 Flight Review, is there any difference in single/dual control requirements between a person who is still "current" and a person having in excess of 24 calendar months since his last flight review? ANSWER 3: Ref. §61.56(c); The rule does not differentiate between "single/dual control requirements." {q&a-295} QUESTION 1: Does a pilot who meets the requirements of 14 CFR 61.56(d) by taking an FAA check ride in an aircraft other than an R-22, still have to take a BFR every 24 months in an R-22 (or R-44), as required by SFAR No. 73-1, paragraph 2.(c) if he wishes to continue to be PIC of an R-22 (or R-44)? ANSWER 1: Ref. SFAR No. 73-1, paragraph 2.(c); Yes, the flight review must have been ". . . taken in an R-22 . . . or in the case of an R-44, the flight review must have been ". . . taken in the R-44." {q&a-259} QUESTION 10: The Pilot Proficiency Award Program covered by Advisory Circular 61-91H requires as stated in paragraph (7)(a)(3), one hour of instrument training in an airplane, FAA-approved aircraft simulator, or training device as stated in paragraph (7)(a)(3). Who is authorized to conduct that instrument training? Does it have to be a CFI-IA? Or can it be a CFI-A (no IA)? ANSWER 10: Ref. §61.56(e) and §61.195(c); A flight review required by §61.56(c) is different than the "Instrument Proficiency Check" of §61.57(d). They are two separate requirements. The flight instructor who administers the Instrument Proficiency Check of §61.57(d) must hold a CFII-Airplane rating AND as per §61.195(c), the flight instructor must ". . . hold an instrument rating on his or her flight instructor certificate and pilot certificate that is appropriate to the category and class of aircraft in which instrument training is being provided." {q&a-249} QUESTION 1: When a restricted pilot certificate is issued on the basis of a foreign pilot certificate, does that pilot need to comply with the requirements of FAR 61.56 (BFR or equivalent). ANSWER 1: §61.56(c); Yes, the BFR applies to foreign pilots who are exercising their U.S. pilot certificate. As per §61.56(c) states, in pertinent part, ". . . no person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft unless, since the beginning of the 24th calendar month before the month in which that pilot acts as pilot in command, that person has-- (1) Accomplished a flight review given in an aircraft for which that pilot is rated by an authorized instructor; and (2) A logbook endorsed from an authorized instructor who gave the review certifying that the person has satisfactorily completed the review." NOTE: A foreign pilot must meet the § 61.56 review requirement BEFORE exercising the privileges of a restricted certificate. QUESTION 2: If that same foreign pilot had just passed a test for a new privilege in that foreign country, and, it was a valid ICAO test, then is that acceptable as a BFR (even though the foreign inspector or instructor was not the holder of a US instructor or US examiner authorization)? ANSWER 2: §61.41(b); No, it is not acceptable for a foreign instructor to make the endorsement for a BFR [i.e., §61.56(c)(2)]. As per §61.41(b), "A flight instructor described in paragraph (a) of this section is only authorized to give endorsements to show training given." But a foreign instructor is not permitted to do the sign off for the BFR. That has to be done by an appropriately rated U.S. certificated flight instructor. {q&a-248} QUESTION: Ref. §61.56(c); What does the phrase ". . . since the beginning of the 24th calendar month before the month . . . ." mean in §61.56(c)? ANSWER: It means, in layman terms, go backwards 24 calendar months from the MONTH the person acts as pilot in command and sometime during those preceding 24 calendar months you have to had accomplished a flight review. §61.56(c) states as follows: Except as provided in paragraphs (d), (e), and (g) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft unless, since the beginning of the 24th calendar month before the month in which that pilot acts as pilot in command, that person has-- {q&a-216} QUESTION: The scenario is a rated pilot who is training for a new rating and is flying as a solo "PIC" with appropriate endorsements. In accordance with § 61.56(g), would this rated pilot still be required a current flight review, even to solo the glider while under instruction? ANSWER: Ref. §61.31(d)(3); No, the pilot would not need to have a current Flight Review to solo as PIC a glider while undergoing training for that rating in a glider, provided that pilot has received the appropriate training and has a current solo endorsement in a glider, as per §61.31(d)(3). Section 61.31(d)(3) was specifically written to address this situation. Section 61.31(d)(3), states, in pertinent part: (d) Aircraft category, class, and type ratings: Limitations on operating an aircraft as the pilot in command. To serve as the pilot in command of an aircraft, a person must- * * * * * (3) Have received training required by this part that is appropriate to the aircraft category, class, and type rating (if a class or type rating is required) for the aircraft to be flown, and have received the required endorsements from an instructor who is authorized to provide the required endorsements for solo flight in that aircraft. And even though the recent revision to §61.56(g) was for student pilots, in the preamble of that correction final rule (78 FR 20283) that was issued in the Federal Register on April 23, 1998, it stated: Section 61.56 Flight review. Section 61.56 provides that a person may act as PIC of an aircraft only if that person has accomplished a biennial flight review (BFR). Because §61.51 now permits student pilots, under certain circumstances, to log PIC flight time, there has been some concern as to whether the BFR requirement applies to student pilots. Before the adoption of the final rule, a student pilot was required to log solo flight time, rather than PIC flight time, when that student pilot was the sole occupant of the aircraft or when that student pilot was acting as PIC of an airship requiring more than one flight crewmember. To avoid confusion, the FAA has revised §61.56 to except a student pilot from the BFR requirement if that student pilot is undergoing training for a certificate and has a current solo flight endorsement as required under §61.87 of this part. This is the same line of thinking that goes along with §61.31(d)(3). {q&a-191} QUESTION: Does accomplishment of a Part 135 SIC proficiency check satisfy the BFR requirements of §61.56(a) or does it have to be a Part 135 PIC proficiency check? ANSWER: Per §61.56(d), it says ". . . passed a pilot proficiency check conducted by . . . approved check airmen . . . need not accomplish the flight review required by this section." So the answer is NO, it does not have to be a Part 135 PIC pilot proficiency check. It can merely be an SIC proficiency check conducted by a check airmen. However, to make sure the applicant gets credit for successful completion of the Flight Review, the examiner should record that the §61.56 Flight Review was satisfactorily completed in the applicant's logbook. {q&a-199} QUESTION: I had a CFI call yesterday afternoon who lives most of the year in Sweden. His 24 months for his Flight Review expires while he is in Sweden and he is wondering if a Flight Instructor with ICAO certificate can give him a flight review or if he must have a Flight instructor with U.S. certificate conduct the flight review? FAR 61.56 states the flight review should be conducted "...by an appropriately rated instructor under this part or other person designated by the administrator..." The way I read this is to indicate that the "other person designated by the administrator" is one of the individuals outlines in paragraph (d) of 61.56. Since more and more pilots are moving abroad this is becoming a question I get quite frequently. Can you shed some light on this one. ANSWER: Ref. §61.41(b). The foreign instructor may give training, but he can NOT endorse a person for satisfactory completion of a §61.56 Flight Review. {q&a-156} QUESTION 1: The particular question is whether a flight instructor who passes a flight instructor practical test (for initial issuance or a CFI rating addition or for a reinstatement) is or is not exempt from needing a §61.56 Flight Review for the next two years, since the reg. specifically says PILOT proficiency check." §6l.56 d - allows this exemption for a person who has"... passed a PILOT proficiency check.." not needing to accomplish a flight review for the next 2 years. ANSWER 1: Ref. §61.56(d); If the examiner also evaluates the applicant's piloting skills then YES, ". . . a flight instructor practical test (for initial issuance or a CFI rating addition or for a reinstatement) . . ." would meet the requirements of a §61.56 Flight Review. However, to make sure the applicant gets credit for successful completion of the Flight Review, the examiner should record that the §61.56 Flight Review was satisfactorily completed in the applicant's logbook. §61.56(d) states: (d) A person who has, within the period specified in paragraph (c) of this section, passed a pilot proficiency check conducted by an examiner, an approved pilot check airman, or a U.S. Armed Force, for a pilot certificate, rating, or operating privilege need not accomplish the flight review required by this section. QUESTION 2: Does a Part 141 annual check also count in lieu of a flight review? ANSWER 2: Ref. §61.56(d); As is the case in the Answer to Question 1 above, if the Chief Instructor, Assistant Chief Instructor, or Check Instructor evaluates the flight instructor's piloting skills then the answer is YES, a Part 141 annual check would count for a §61.56 Flight Review. However, to make sure the applicant gets credit for successful completion of the Flight Review, the Chief Instructor, Assistant Chief Instructor, or Check Instructor who conducts the check should record that the §61.56 Flight Review was satisfactorily completed in the applicant's logbook. {q&a-176} QUESTION: In §61.56(b) it states a glider pilot may substitute a minimum of three instructional flights in a glider, each of which includes a flight to traffic pattern altitude. . ." Could performing a rope break at 200' AGL qualify as ". . . a flight to traffic pattern altitude . . .?" ANSWER: YES; Reference §61.56(b) states: § 61.56 Flight review. * * * * * (b) Glider pilots may substitute a minimum of three instructional flights in a glider, each of which includes a flight to traffic pattern altitude, in lieu of the 1 hour of flight training required in paragraph (a) of this section. * * * * * We are silent in the rule on the height of traffic pattern altitude. We stated in the preamble of the final rule (62 FR 16252; April 4, 1997): "In response to the comment concerning the performance of 360 degree turns, the FAA has modified the language in paragraph (b) to permit three instructional flights in a glider, each of which requires flight to traffic pattern altitude. This modification should provide instructor with greater flexibility during the conduct of a flight review for glider pilots. The FAA expects that each instructional flight to traffic pattern altitude will consist of a launch, climb, level off, turn, descent, and landing to ensure that the pilot can demonstrate proficiency in each phase of flight." So in further answer to this question, the rule doesn't specify the height of traffic pattern altitude. So as long as during this rope break at 200' AGL, the pilot demonstrates ". . . launch, climb, level off, turn, descent, and landing to ensure that the pilot can demonstrate proficiency in each phase of flight," then yes the maneuver meets the rule requirements of §61.56(b). {q&a-126} QUESTION: Can BFR be accomplished in a single place aircraft (i.e., ag airplane)? ANSWER: No. §61.56(a) requires as a minimum 1 hour of flight training and 1 hour of ground training on a BFR. The definition of flight training in the new §61.1(b)(6) states: "(6) Flight training means that training, other than ground training, received from an authorized instructor in flight in an aircraft." and the new §61.195(g) states: (g) Position in aircraft and required pilot stations for providing flight training. (1) A flight instructor must perform all training from in an aircraft that complies with the requirements of § 91.109 of this chapter. (2) A flight instructor who provides flight training for a pilot certificate or rating issued under this part must provide that flight training in an aircraft that meets the following requirements - (i) The aircraft must have at least two pilot stations and be of the same category, class, and type, if appropriate, that applies to the pilot certificate or rating sought. (ii) For single-place aircraft, the pre-solo flight training must have been provided in an aircraft that has two pilot stations and is of the same category, class, and type, if appropriate. Thus, the BFR must be performed in at least a 2-place aircraft. {q&a-28} 61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot-in-command QUESTION: As a CFI, I'm frequently asked about the meaning of §61.57(c)(1)(ii), the requirement for a pilot, in order to act as PIC under IFR, to have performed and logged within the preceding 6 months, "holding procedures." The question is, what constitutes the minimum "holding procedures" needed to satisfy this requirement? Would a single hold entry, including getting established on the inbound course and crossing the holding fix, be enough? Or would a full turn in the hold be required? Multiple turns? Multiple separate hold entries? Of course I encourage instructors to be safely competent and not merely satisfy the minimum requirements. But the above question arises because in operational instrument flying -- as opposed to practice or instructional sessions -- one often executes a hold entry as part of an approach procedure, but it is rare these days to be given an actual hold. Therefore sometimes completely proficient instrument pilots wonder if they meet the currency requirements, or need to purposely do some additional holding maneuvers in order to satisfy §61.57(c). ANSWER: Ref. §61.57(c)(1)(ii); The recommended procedures that need to be performed in order for a pilot to remain current in "holding procedures" should be as a minimum those procedures listed under the paragraph "Objective" in the Instrument Rating Practical Test, FAA-S-8081-4C, area of operation III, task C as: 1. Exhibits adequate knowledge of the elements related to holding procedures. 2. Changes to the holding airspeed appropriate for the altitude or aircraft when 3 minutes or less from, but prior to arriving at, the holding fix. 3. Explains and uses an entry procedure that ensures the aircraft remains within the holding pattern airspace for a standard, nonstandard, published, or non-published holding pattern. 4. Recognizes arrival at the holding fix and initiates prompt entry into the holding pattern. 5. Complies with ATC reporting requirements. 6. Uses the proper timing criteria, where applicable, as required by altitude or ATC instructions. 7. Complies with pattern leg lengths when a DME distance is specified. 8. Uses proper wind correction procedures to maintain the desired pattern and to arrive over the fix as close as possible to a specified time. 9. Maintains the airspeed within 10 knots; altitude within 100 feet (30 meters); headings within 10°; and tracks a selected course, radial, or bearing. {q&a-396} QUESTION: Can an individual accomplish a "instrument proficiency check" under §61.57(d) for an aircraft for which he is type rated (for example - King Air or Aero Commander 500) using a simulator (for example - LR-35 level D) of an aircraft for which he is NOT type rated? This individual is enrolled in an "SIC" course, but would like to receive a §61.57(d) check to satisfy the requirement. ANSWER: Ref. § 61.57(d)(1)(ii); Yes, the individual can utilize a simulator (that is representative of a LR-35 level D) even when the individual only holds a rating in another aircraft of the same category, in this case: "AIRPLANE". Per 14 CFR § 61.57(d)(1)(ii) ". . . in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of the aircraft category . . ." (emphasis added ". . . that is representative of the aircraft CATEGORY . . ." {q&a-382} QUESTION 1: According to § 91.109(b), a safety pilot must possess at least a private certificate with appropriate category & class ratings. Is it necessary for that safety pilot to be "current" in the aircraft (landings, etc.)? Requirements of 61.55 specifically exempt safety pilots [§ 61.55(d)(4)], but where are the safety pilot criteria actually spelled out. Section 61.57 refers to pilot-in-command requirements, but a safety pilot is not PIC, only a required crew member. Further, has there ever been an interpretation that the safety pilot must be Instrument Rated for that type of VFR operation? ANSWER 1: Ref. § 61.31(d)(1); § 61.51(e)(1)(iii), § 61.51(f)(2), § 61.3(c); § 61.56(c), § 61.57(c); A safety pilot is a "required crewmember" and must hold at least a valid private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown per § 91.109(b) and a valid medical certificate per § 61.3(c). A valid pilot certificate is one which has not been revoked or under suspension. That person who is serving as a safety pilot may choose to act as the legal pilot-in-command (per 14 CFR part 1) and log the time as PIC [per § 61.51(e)(1)(iii)], or otherwise log the time as SIC time [per § 61.51(f)(2)], but is not even required to log the time at all. However, the safety pilot's name must be logged by the person practicing instrument flight [per § 61.51(g)(3)(ii)]. If the safety pilot is going to act as the legal PIC for the flight that person must ". . . Hold the appropriate category, class, and type rating (if a class rating and type rating are required) for the aircraft to be flown;" [per § 61.31(d)(1)]. ). And if the flight is conducted in a high performance, complex, tail wheel, etc. aircraft and the safety pilot is acting as the legal PIC that pilot must have the appropriate endorsements that are required by § 61.31(e), (f) and/or (i), as appropriate. This could be a reason why a safety pilot might only be able to serve as an SIC and log it as SIC time. And assuming the operation is a simulated instrument flight (as in the case the flight is performed in VMC conditions under VFR), the safety pilot would not need to hold an instrument rating. If any portion of the flight were conducted on an IFR flight plan (e.g., in and out of the clouds and/or even on an IFR flight plan) at least one of the pilots must have an instrument rating and the § 1.1 PIC must be instrument current in accordance with § 61.57(c) and be Flight Review current in accordance with § 61.56(c). QUESTION 2: Another scenario, two pilots are out flying with one of the pilots serving as a safety pilot and that person has agreed to act as the PIC (i.e., § 1.1) and log PIC while the other pilot uses a view limiting device. The other pilot is under the "hood" and is the sole manipulator of the controls while performing instrument tasks. No passengers are being carried. Which pilot has to be § 61.57(a)(1) takeoff and landing current? ANSWER 2: Ref. § 61.57(a)(1); and § 61.31(e), (f) and (i), as appropriate; I noticed you said no passengers are being carried. So the answer would be: at least one of the pilots has to be § 61.57(a)(1) takeoff and landing current. As per § 61.57(a)(1), it states, in pertinent part, ". . . no person may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers or of an aircraft certificated for more than one pilot flight crewmember unless that person has made at least three takeoffs and three landings within the preceding 90 days, and" Emphasis added ". . . of an aircraft carrying passengers . . ." In this scenario, you said no passengers are being carried. It is just two pilots out flying with one pilot under the "hood" performing instrument tasks and the other pilot is a crewmember acting as safety pilot. This safety pilot may act as the PIC and log PIC even if he does not have the § 61.57(a)(1) takeoff and landing currency. (This may or may not be prudent in today's litigation environment.) But, if a passenger were also on board, then the safety pilot must have the § 61.57(a)(1) takeoff and landing currency and also be Flight Review current in accordance with § 61.56(c) in order to be PIC and log PIC. {q&a-377} CORRECTION TO Q&A #255: QUESTION: Per the provisions of paragraphs (c) and (d) of § 61.57, Can I act/serve as PIC if I have not accomplished the instrument currency tasks of paragraph (c) of §61.57 within the prescribed time of 6 calendar months? Can you explain how to read §61.57(c) and (d)? ANSWER: Ref. §61.57(c) and (d); No, a person may not act/serve as PIC under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR if he has not accomplished the instrument currency tasks of paragraph (c) of § 61.57 within the preceding 6 calendar months. The way to read §61.57(c) and (d) is as follows: In order for a pilot to act/serve as PIC under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, that pilot a person must have ". . . performed and logged under actual or simulated instrument conditions, either in flight in the appropriate category of aircraft for the instrument privileges sought or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of the aircraft category for the instrument privileges sought-- (i) At least six instrument approaches; (ii) Holding procedures; and (iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation." Otherwise, the pilot should check their logbook to find that it shows the following instrument currency tasks performed within the preceding 6 calendar months: (i) At least six instrument approaches; (ii) Holding procedures; and (iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation systems. As an example: An IFR flight is proposed on the 15th of September. The pilot would check for the required instrument currency experience back as far as the first day of March [i.e., as per § 61.57(c) ". . . within the preceding 6 calendar months, that person has . . ."] emphasis added "calendar months." In this scenario, ". . . within the preceding 6 calendar months, that person has . . ." equates to experience for the requirements logged up to 204 days previous, rather than just 180 days, because as per § 61.57(c) ". . . within the preceding 6 calendar months, that person has . . .". However, if for instance only 5 approaches had been logged during this period and the first of the required 6 approached had been logged on February the 28th the pilot could not file the flight plan and be able to act/serve as the pilot-in-command under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR. His currency for this purpose would have ended on August 31. Now, in our example, if the first of the usable five approaches had been logged, lets say, on the 10th of June and the holding/intercepting requirements had been met since then, our pilot could not act as PIC, but he is "within 6 calendar months after the prescribed time" (the second six months). As soon as he makes at least one additional instrument approach (actual or simulated conditions) his currency for acting (serving) as PIC suddenly jumps to December 31st, representing 6 calendar months from June 10 through December 10 and actually to the end of December. If our pilot had logged all of the 5 approached in June and did not have the opportunity to do any further instrument flight on or before the last day of June the next year, our pilot would now be required to meet the instrument proficiency check requirements of §61.57(d). And then the clock starts all over again (i.e., first six calendar months, second six calendar months, and IPC). {q&a-255} QUESTION: I recently upgraded to captain and have a question regarding the logging of flight time. My question is: As the PIC, when I'm not the flying pilot, should I be logging night and/or instrument flight time? Obviously the approaches can't be logged, but I'm wondering if the actual instrument time can be logged. Same goes for the night time. ANSWER: Ref. §61.51(e)(2) and §61.57; If you're a holder of an ATP certificate, and provided you're ". . . acting as pilot-in-command of an operation requiring an airline transport pilot certificate" then yes you may log actual instrument time and night time while acting as pilot-in-command. But don't read into that answer, that you can count the time toward meeting the recent flight experience of §61.57. Because you can't. Those requirements are "hands-on-the-controls" requirements. {q&a-340} QUESTION: I have a question about Part 61 related to the landings a CFI can use to maintain currency for carrying passengers. FAR 61.57 (a)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(i) stating that the person must be the sole manipulator of the controls seems pretty straight forward to me. However, we've had some discussions about whether FAR 61.51(e)(3) - an authorized instructor may log as PIC time all flight time while acting as an authorized instructor. For example, during the previous 90 days a CFI has one night flight and oversees his student doing 3 landings to a full stop. The CFI never touches the controls. However, the instructor is allowed to log the entire flight as PIC. Does this allow a CFI to count landings by the individual they're instructing toward his/her currency requirements for carrying passengers? ANSWER: Ref. §61.57(a)(1)(i); No, an instructor cannot maintain/attain the §61.57 recent experience for takeoffs and landings while monitoring and critiquing takeoff and landings performed by another pilot/student. The application of the terminology "must be the sole manipulator of the controls" does apply to your question. Certainly, an instructor could use a takeoff or landing for currency if it is being demonstrated and the instructor is the SOLE MANIPULATOR OF THE CONTROLS. The rule [i.e., §61.51(e)(3)] allowing the instructor to log pilot-in-command does not suffice. {q&a-329} QUESTION: Is it true that a CFI giving an endorsement for an Instrument Proficiency Check must have an instrument rating (CFII) on his/her flight instructor certificate? I can't seem to find anything in the current Part 61 that states that an Instrument Proficiency Check endorsement requires a CFII. The §61.57(d)(2)(iv) requires an "authorized instructor". The definition of "authorized instructor" now seems to come from FAR 61.193 (Flight Instructor Privileges) and FAR 61.195 (Flight Instructor Limitations). The only reference to a requirement for a CFII that I can find is in FAR 61.195(c). ANSWER: Ref. §61.57(d)(2)(iv) and §61.193; A flight instructor who performs an instrument proficiency check, as required by §61.57(d), must hold the appropriate instrument rating for the category and class of aircraft that the instrument proficiency check is being conducted in. As per §61.193, it states in pertinent part, ". . . A person who holds a flight instructor certificate is authorized within the limitations of that person's flight instructor certificate and ratings to give training and endorsements that are required for, and relate to: * * * * * (f) An instrument rating; A flight instructor who does not hold an instrument rating on their flight instructor certificate that is appropriate to the category and class of aircraft that the instrument proficiency check is being conducted in is NOT authorized to conduct the instrument proficiency check. The term "authorized instructor" was intentionally used in §61.57(d) because authorization to conduct an instrument proficiency check is not limited to a CFII. A Ground Instructor Certificate - Instrument Rating is also an "authorized instructor" and is authorized to give the instrument proficiency check in an approved flight training device. Also, a Part 142 training center instructor, who may or may not hold any certificate or ratings, can be an "authorized instructor" who may give the instrument proficiency check that is performed under an approved Part 142 training program in an approved flight simulator, in accordance with a Part 142 approved training program. Another example, a pilot who holds a Letter of Operational Authority (LOOA) may give the endorsements for the instrument proficiency check to a holder of a Letter of Authorization (LOA).) Holders of an LOOA give training for the endorsement for the Letter of Authorization (LOA) allowing a pilot to act as pilot in command in surplus military turbine or piston powered airplane, in accordance with FAA Order 8700.1, Chapter 32. However, in this case, the holder's Letter of Operational Authority (LOOA) must specifically state this authority to give the endorsements for the instrument proficiency check. And so the rulemaking team that drafted the new Part 61 decided on merely stating . . . An authorized flight instructor . . ." But notice in §61.57(d)(2)(v), we also included ". . . A person approved by the Administrator to conduct instrument practical tests." {q&a-315} QUESTION: FAR 61.56, requires an endorsement for a flight review. How come an endorsement is not required for an instrument proficiency check IAW FAR 61.57? Just asking. Question was brought up at recent DPE meeting. ANSWER: §61.51(a)(2) and §61.57(d); Yes, an endorsement from an instructor is required for completion of an instrument proficiency check. Note the words in §61.51(a)(2): "(a) Training time and aeronautical experience. Each person must document and record the following time in a manner acceptable to the Administrator: * * * * * (2) The aeronautical experience required for meeting the recent flight experience requirements of this part." And §61.57 is titled "§ 61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in command." Emphasis added "Recent flight experience" {q&a-311} QUESTION 1: Situation is a company that operates only one type of an airplane that is type certificated for more than one pilot flight crewmember, but the pilot in command holds multiple type ratings in airplanes that are type certificated for more than one pilot flight crewmember. Does the alternative night takeoff and landing currency requirement in §61.57(e)(3) [i.e., ". . . who operates more than one type of an airplane that is type certificated for more than one pilot flight crewmember . . ."] apply to the pilot in command or the operator? ANSWER 1: Ref. §61.57(e)(3); It applies to the PIC. The phrase ". . . who operates more than one type of an airplane that is type certificated for more than one pilot flight crewmember . . ." applies to the pilot in command. So even if the company only operates one airplane that is type certificated for more than one pilot flight crewmember but the PIC holds multiple type ratings in airplanes that are type certificated for more than one pilot flight crewmember then the night takeoff and landing currency alternative of §61.57(e)(3) applies to that PIC. QUESTION 2: What is the meaning of the words ". . . who operates . . ." in §61.57(e)(3) where its states ". . . who operates more than one type of an airplane that is type certificated for more than one pilot flight crewmember . . ."? How often does a PIC have to operate these airplanes in order to qualify under the alternative night takeoff and landing currency provisions of §61.57(e)(3)? ANSWER 2: Ref. §61.57(e)(3)(iii); Per §61.57(e)(3)(iii), it requires that the PIC have ". . . accomplished at least 15 hours of flight time in the type of airplane that the pilot seeks to operate under this alternative within the preceding 90 days prior to the operation of that airplane . . ." QUESTION 3: A follow-on to question 2, the situation is this PIC holds multiple type ratings (e.g., Lear 60 and Cessna 750) on his pilot certificate. But the company only operates a Lear 60. And the PIC does not fly the Cessna 750 at all. Does the PIC have to show 15 hours of flight time in the Cessna 750 in the preceding 90 days in order to be afforded to qualify for the night takeoff and landing currency alternative of §61.57(e)(3) in the Lear 60? ANSWER 3: Ref. §61.57(e)(3)(iii); No, he does not need to show 15 hours of flight time in the Cessna 750 in the preceding 90 days in order to be afforded to qualify for the night takeoff and landing currency alternative of §61.57(e)(3) in the Lear 60. Per §61.57(e)(3)(iii), the PIC needs to have ". . . accomplished at least 15 hours of flight time in the type of airplane that the pilot seeks to operate under this alternative within the preceding 90 days prior to the operation of that airplane . . ." So he needs to show at least 15 hours of flight time in the preceding 90 days in the Lear 60 to be afforded the night takeoff and landing currency alternative of §61.57(e)(3) for the Lear 60. But if he intends to operate the Cessna 750 under the night takeoff and landing currency alternative of §61.57(e)(3), then he also must have ". . . accomplished at least 15 hours of flight time in the type of airplane that the pilot seeks to operate under this alternative within the preceding 90 days prior to the operation of that airplane . . ." in the Cessna 750. But if he is only operating the Lear 60, then he only must show 15 hours of flight time in the preceding 90 days in the Lear 60. QUESTION 4: Situation is a PIC operates and holds type ratings in the Cessna 501, Cessna 551, and a Lear 60, is this pilot afforded the night takeoff and landing currency alternative of §61.57(e)(3)? ANSWER 4: Ref. §61.57(e)(3); No, this PIC is not afforded the night takeoff and landing currency alternative of §61.57(e)(3). As per §61.57(e)(3), it states the ". . . pilot in command who operates more than one type of an airplane that is type certificated for more than one pilot flight crewmember . . ." The Cessna 501 and the Cessna 551 are not type certificated for more than one pilot flight crewmember. This pilot only holds one type of airplane that is type certificated for more than one pilot flight crewmember and that airplane is the Lear 60. QUESTION 5: A follow on to question 4 is the PIC who operates and holds type ratings in the Cessna 501, Cessna 551, and a Lear 60. It is his company's policy that a PIC and SIC be assigned for all flights involving the Cessna 501 and Cessna 551. So now is it possible for this PIC to be afforded the night currency alternative of §61.57(e)(3)? ANSWER 5: Ref. §61.57(e)(3); Again the answer is no. Per §61.57(e)(3), it states the ". . . pilot in command who operates more than one type of an airplane that is type certificated for more than one pilot flight crewmember . . ." The Cessna 501 and Cessna 551 are not type certificated for more than one pilot flight crewmember. QUESTION 6: A follow on to question 5 is the PIC who operates and holds type ratings in the Cessna 501, Cessna 551, and a Lear 60. In both the type ratings in the Cessna 501 and Cessna 551, the PIC has a limitation "Second in Command Required" on his pilot certificate for these type ratings. So, now is it possible for this PIC to be afforded the night currency alternative of §61.57(e)(3) in the Lear 60? ANSWER 6: Ref. §61.57(e)(3); Again the answer is no. Per §61.57(e)(3), it states the ". . . pilot in command who operates more than one type of an airplane that is type certificated for more than one pilot flight crewmember . . ." Granted the PIC's pilot certificate has the limitation "Second in Command Required" for the Cessna 501 and Cessna 551 type ratings, but neither of these airplanes' type certificates require more than one pilot flight crewmember. QUESTION 7: In reading §61.57(e)(3)(iv)(B), it appears this alternative night takeoff and landing currency requirement provides that a PIC ". . . who operates more than one type of an airplane that is type certificated for more than one pilot flight crewmember . . ." has only a yearly night takeoff and landing currency instead of the every "90 days" night takeoff and landing currency of §61.57(b)(1)? Is this correct? ANSWER 7: Ref. §61.57(e)(3)(iv)(B); Yes, provided the PIC meets the requirements of §61.57(e)(3) and complies with the requirements of §61.57(e)(3)(iv)(B), then as per §61.57(e)(3)(iv)(B) the PIC need only accomplish ". . . within the preceding 12 calendar months prior to the month of the flight, which requires the performance of at least 6 takeoffs and 6 landings to a full stop as the sole manipulator of the controls in a flight simulator that is representative of at least one of the types of airplanes that the pilot seeks to operate under this alternative . . ." QUESTION 8: Situation is a PIC who works for a company that operates a Gulfstream III and IV and Cessna 750. This PIC holds type ratings in the Gulfstream III and IV and Cessna 750. In the previous 90 days, this PIC has logged one takeoff and landing to a full stop at night in the Gulfstream III, and two takeoffs and landings to a full stop at night in the Cessna 750. Since all the takeoffs and landings were not performed in just one of the types but was performed in combination in the Gulfstream III and the Cessna 750, does this satisfy the requirements of §61.57(e)(3)(iv)(A)? ANSWER 8: Ref. §61.57(e)(3)(iv)(A): Yes, performing the three takeoffs and landings to a full stop in different airplanes still meets the intent of ". . . in at least one of the types of airplanes that the pilot seeks to operate under this alternative, within the preceding 90 days prior to the operation of any of the types of airplanes that the pilot seeks to operate under this alternative. . . .", as per §61.57(e)(3)(iv)(A). Otherwise, all three takeoffs and landings to a full stop do not have to be performed in just one of the types, but may be spread out amongst the airplanes that the pilot seeks to operate under this night takeoff and landing currency alternative of §61.57(e)(3). But I will say to you all by just meeting this requirement is just meeting the MINIMUM requirements for remaining night takeoff and landing current. Each pilot knows his or her limitations, and if he or she believes that this requirement is not sufficient for their own personal currency, then it would behoove that pilot to accomplish more than just these minimum night takeoff and landing currency requirements. Only the individual pilot really knows the amount of recurrent training and practice that keeps he or she proficient and competent. QUESTION 9: Is §61.57(e)(3) meant to apply to 135 operators who operate more than one type of aircraft requiring a type rating? Section 61.57(e)(2) states, "This section does not apply....air carrier 135....if the pilot is in compliance with 135.247....as appropriate." What if a pilot is not in compliance with §135.247, but the Part 135 company he works for is approved for training with a 142 Training Center, and is trained under a program that meets §61.57 (e)(3)(iv)(B) [i.e., performs 6 takeoffs and landings to a full stop under dark sky conditions]. Essentially, is §61.57(e)(3) intended to work just for corporate pilots, or can it be applied to 135 carriers as well? ANSWER 9: Per §61.57(e)(2); Yes, it may apply to Part 135 PICs if the PIC hasn't complied with §§ 135.243 and 135.247 of this chapter. However, if the Part 135 PIC has complied with §§ 135.243 and 135.247 of this chapter then §61.57(e)(3) wouldn't be appropriate. As per 61.57(e)(2): "(2) This section does not apply to a pilot in command who is employed by an air carrier certificated under part 121 or 135 and is engaged in a flight operation under part 91, 121, or 135 for that air carrier if he pilot is in compliance with Secs. 121.437 and 121.439, or Secs. 135.243 and 135.247 of this chapter, as appropriate." So the answer is §61.57(e)(3) does not apply to Part 135 PICs, provided the PIC is in compliance with §§ 135.243 and 135.247 of this chapter. However, if the PIC is NOT in compliance with §§ 135.243 and 135.247 of this chapter then the answer is Part 135 PICs could comply with the alternative night takeoff and landing currency of §61.57(e)(3). {q&a-292} QUESTION 4: As far as logging an approach in actual, is there any requirement (i.e. must it be in actual conditions beyond the final approach fix)? Assume that the pilot was flying single-pilot IFR so he couldn't simply put on the hood if he broke out? ANSWER 4: §61.51(g)(1) and §61.57(c)(1)(i); Again the only place where it defines logging "instrument flight time" means ". . . a person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments . . . ." As for logging an "actual" approach, it would presume the approach to be to the conclusion of the approach which would mean the pilot go down to the decision height or to the minimum decent altitude, as appropriate. If what you're asking is whether it is okay to fly to the FAF and break it off and then log it as accomplishing an approach, the answer is NO. {q&a-291} QUESTION: §61.57(d) indicates that the only exceptions to the requirement for an instrument proficiency check are allowed by 61.57(e). In (e) it basically allows a person who is employed as a pilot by an air carrier and who maintains currency under FAR 121 or 135 to not have to comply with the recency requirements of §61.57. My question is this: since the requirements of 61.58 also require a demonstration of the same skills required for the initial issuance of the ATP certificate or a type rating, does the §61.58 check also meet the requirements of §61.57(c) and/or (d)? ANSWER: Ref. §61.57(e); NO, a §61.58 PIC check does not meet the requirements of a §61.57(d) instrument proficiency check.. Just as it states in §61.57(e)(1), ". . . this section do not apply to a pilot in command who is employed by a certificate holder under part 125. . ." and just as it states in §61.57(e)(2), "This section does not apply to a pilot in command who is employed by an air carrier certificated under part 121 or 135 and is engaged in a flight operation under part 91, 121, or 135. . ." {q&a-289} QUESTION 1: Reference §61.57(d): Request guidance on the meaning/intent of the wording ". . . a representative number of tasks. . ." ANSWER 1: First of all, neither the regulation nor the preamble of the regulation covers what you're asking. The answer is to be found in the Instrument Rating Practical Test Standards, FAA-S-8081-4C on page 15 of the Introduction (effective with change 2 as of 03/11/99). The right hand column of the Rating Task Table indicates the required Tasks for the Areas of Operation. Historically, the wording ". . .a representative number of tasks . . ." requires an objective decision to be made by the CFII/examiner that is dependent on the applicant's ability. If it becomes obvious during the conduct of the instrument proficiency check that a pilot who has not flown instruments in over a year or more is extremely weak, then the check may need to be more extensive than the required list. The CFII/examiner needs to be able to say at the conclusion of the check, YES THIS PILOT CAN OPERATE SAFELY IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM. QUESTION 2: Can an PC ATD device be used for the instrument proficiency check? ANSWER 2: Reference §61.57(d)(1): No. {q&a-94} QUESTION 9: The flight review requirements of FAR 61.56(a) requires 1 hour of flight training and 1 hour of ground training which includes a review of the current general operating and flight rules of part 91 and a review of those maneuvers and procedures that, at the discretion of the person giving the review, are necessary for the pilot to demonstrate the safe exercise of the privileges of the pilot certificate. If the person getting the flight review holds an Instrument-Airplane rating on his certificate does the review have to be given by a CFI-IA and include instrument procedures such as radial intercepts, approaches, etc.? Can a CFI-A (but no Instrument-Airplane rating on his CFI) give the flight review to the instrument rated pilot and can that CFI cover any instrument maneuvers such as those that might be given to a Private pilot under 61.107? ANSWER 9: Ref. §61.193 and §61.195(c); You're incorrectly mixing up the flight review requirements of §61.56(c) with the Instrument Proficiency Check of §61.57(d). They are two separate requirements. But if you're asking whether a CFI-ASE only can administer the Instrument Proficiency Check of §61.57(d), the answer is no. The flight instructor must hold a CFII-Airplane rating to administer the Instrument Proficiency Check of §61.57(d). {q&a-249} QUESTION 2: In the section on paragraph 61.57 of the "Frequently Asked Questions of parts 61& 141" the question is asked whether an IGI can conduct the proficiency check required in an approved ground training device. The answer given is yes. However, I have a letter AFS 840 signed by Michael Sacrey stating that "Only a certificated instrument flight instructor may conduct the instrument competency check, regardless of whether given in a ground training device, an aircraft simulator, or in an aircraft." Which interpretation is the correct one? ANSWER 2: Ref. §61.215(c)(2). Yes, an IGI can perform training in a flight simulator or flight training device ". . . for an instrument proficiency check." It has been brought to my attention that my earlier answer on Question 2 may have confused training vs. checking. Only those persons identified in §61.57(d)(2) can GIVE the instrument proficiency check. {q&a-104} QUESTION: Would a pilot using an approved flight simulator or flight training device to meet the instrument currency requirements of paragraph 61.57(c)(1) or (2) need to have an instructor present? ANSWER: Reference §61.1(b)(10); Yes, if using a flight simulator (FS) or a flight training device (FTD), it MUST be accompanied and monitored by a: 1. Certificated Flight Instructor-Instrument (CFII) who is appropriately rated and qualified; 2. Instrument Ground Instructor (IGI); 3. Advanced Ground Instructor (AGI); 4. Part 142 training center instructor who is appropriately rated and qualified; 5. Persons cited in §61.57(d)(2) and who are appropriately rated and qualified; 6. An ATP in accordance with §61.167 and who is appropriately rated and qualified; and 7. An authorized instructor, as defined in §61.1(b)(2), and who is appropriately rated and qualified. And for those of you who will argue that currency is not the same as training, the answer is still yes. We here in AFS-840 write the rules and we also write the policy and we say that currency is training. So, the answer is yes. To use a FS or FTD you have to have an authorized instructor there to monitor the training. {q&a-103} QUESTION 2: What are the instrument recency requirements and are there hour requirements? ANSWER 2: The hour requirements are only for the glider pilots and nothing has changed in the new rule for glider pilots in this new rule. For the remainder of the pilots, the instrument recency of experience are covered in § 61.57(c) which states: (c) Recent instrument experience. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless within the preceding 6 calendar months, that person has: (1) For the purpose of obtaining instrument experience in an aircraft (other than a glider), performed and logged under actual or simulated instrument conditions, either in flight appropriate to the appropriate category of aircraft for the instrument privileges sought or in an approved flight simulator or approved flight training device that is representative of the aircraft category for the instrument privileges sought - (i) At least six instrument approaches; (ii) Holding procedures; and (iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation systems. (2) For the purpose of obtaining instrument experience in a glider, performed and logged under actual or simulated instrument conditions - (i) At least 3 hours of instrument time in flight, of which 1 1/2 hours may be acquired in an airplane or a glider if no passengers are to be carried; or (ii) 3 hours of instrument time in flight in a glider if a passenger is to be carried. {q&a-1} QUESTION: In your cc mail message of September 24, 1997 you asked whether an Instrument Ground Instructor may give training in an approved flight training device or approved flight simulator for the instrument experience required by §61.57(c) and can they also conduct the instrument proficiency check required by §61.57(d) in an approved flight simulator or approved flight training device. ANSWER: As long as the flight training devices (FTD) and flight simulators (FS) are "approved" for such training and the proficiency check, then the answer is yes on both accounts. My answer is based on the policy interpretation of §61.57(d)(2)(iv), §61.215((c)(1) and (2), and the definition of ground training in §61.1(b)(8). Yes, a IGI may give the training in FS or FTD, but cannot conduct the instrument proficiency check. {q&a-68} 61.58 PIC proficiency check QUESTION 2: (During recurrent training) do air carrier clients need to comply with the requirements of § 61.58 (§61.58 really means, conduct a type check using the PTS - the PTS says you must conduct a GPS approach if the equipment is installed in the simulator and/or aircraft) if the operator does not have GPS authorized in their operation specifications? ANSWER 2: Ref. §61.58(b) and (c); A person whose part 121 check is up to date need not accomplish a §61.58 PIC check for that particular type of aircraft. This answer also applies to persons conducting operations under part 125, 133, 135, or 137 of this chapter, or persons maintaining continuing qualification under an Advanced Qualification Program approved under SFAR 58. Answered by: John Lynch, AFS-840 and Hop Potter, AFS-210 {q&a-441} QUESTION: I have situation where a pilot holds an ATP certificate, ASEL, ASES, AMEL, and AMES ratings, and a DC-2 type rating, but the pilot is not § 61.58 PIC current in the DC-2 airplane. To practice for the § 61.58 PIC proficiency check, is it legal for the pilot to be the PIC? Meaning can the pilot perform practice (training) with a lapsed § 61.58 PIC proficiency qualification to prepare for the § 61.58 PIC proficiency check? Or must the pilot obtain a temporary letter of authorization from the FAA to act as the PIC in order to practice for the § 61.58 PIC proficiency check? Or must the pilot have a PIC aboard who is § 61.58 PIC qualified in the DC-2 while he is practicing for the § 61.58 PIC proficiency check? ANSWER: Ref. §61.58(f); The pilot is permitted to practice for the § 61.58 PIC proficiency check with a lapsed § 61.58 PIC proficiency qualification. That is what paragraph (f) of § 61.58 provides for, which states, ". . . a person may act as pilot in command of a flight under day VFR conditions or day IFR conditions if no person or property is carried, other than as necessary to demonstrate compliance with this part." So in answer to your specific questions: QUESTION 1: "To practice for the § 61.58 PIC proficiency check, is it legal for the pilot to be the PIC? Meaning can the pilot perform practice (training) with a lapsed § 61.58 PIC proficiency qualification to prepare for the § 61.58 PIC proficiency check?" ANSWER 1: The PIC can practice with a lapsed § 61.58 PIC proficiency qualification in accordance with the provisions of § 61.58(f). Because per § 61.31(a)(1) and (d)(1) the pilot does hold a type rating for the DC-2 airplane and pilot does hold the appropriate category, class, and type rating. You said the pilot holds the AMEL rating and the DC-2 type rating. Your situation is, the pilot is not § 61.58 PIC current in the DC-2, but the pilot does hold a DC-2 type rating and the AMEL rating, so the pilot is in compliance with the requirements of § 61.31(a)(1) and (d)(1). QUESTION 2: "Or must the pilot obtain a temporary letter of authorization from the FAA to act as the PIC in order to practice for the § 61.58 PIC proficiency check?" ANSWER 2: The pilot does not need a temporary letter of authorization. Per § 61.31(a)(1) and (d)(1) the pilot is PIC qualified in the DC-2, but not § 61.58 PIC current in the DC-2 airplane. As long as the pilot complies with § 61.58(f), is practicing for the § 61.58 PIC proficiency check in the DC-2, that is legal. And no temporary letter of authorization is required. QUESTION 3: "Or must the pilot have a PIC aboard who is § 61.58 PIC qualified in the DC-2 while he is practicing for the § 61.58 PIC proficiency check?" ANSWER 3: The pilot must have the required minimum pilot crewmember to operate the DC-2 airplane to conduct the flight, but in accordance with § 61.31(a)(1) and (d)(1) the pilot is PIC qualified provided the purpose of the flight is in accordance with § 61.58(f). Meaning the purpose of the flight is to practice for the § 61.58 PIC proficiency check. And per § 61.58(f), the flight is ". . . under day VFR conditions or day IFR conditions if no person or property is carried, other than as necessary to demonstrate compliance with this part." Now as a matter of reasonableness and common sense, the pilot who has not operated a certain type of airplane for some time (i.e., is not current/proficient) may (emphasis added MAY) want to bring along somebody who is current and proficient! But that is individual pilot decision, because each pilot must evaluate himself/herself as to their competency and proficiency to act as a PIC. {q&a-431} QUESTION: We have two Sikorsky SK76B helicopters that are single pilot equipped and certified. The aircraft flight manual states for the required minimum flight crew requirements on page 1, section I, Operating Limitations, page I-9 states "Instrument Flight Rules - 2 pilots." The aircraft flight manual supplement for the Honeywell SPZ-7000 Digital Control System (STC No. SH3200NM) which is fitted in both Sikorsky S76B helicopters states under Part 1, Section 1 "Minimum Flight Crew: VFR or IFR - One pilot in right hand seat." Therefore, the basic S76B helicopter requires a minimum crew of 2 pilots for IFR and the Honeywell SPZ-7000 Digital Control System supplement in the AFM amends the basic certification to allow single pilot operations (providing all of the Honeywell SPZ-7000 Digital Control System is operational and working). If a piece of equipment of the Honeywell SPZ-7000 Digital Control System becomes inoperative (and is appropriately deactivated and placarded I.A.W. § 91.213 or the appropriate M.E.L.), but does not render the helicopter unusable for a "2-pilot IFR" operation, the PIC would thereafter require a § 61.58 PIC check and an additionally appropriately rated, certified, and IFR current copilot to thereafter initiate flight into "2-pilot IFR" under the basis 2-pilot IFR operation AFM requirements. ANSWER: §61.58(a); Technically, if the Honeywell SPZ-7000 Digital Control System (STC No. SH3200NM) fails and is inoperative, the Sikorsky S76B helicopter reverts back to the requirement for a minimum flightcrew of 2 pilots for IFR operations or the aircraft is authorized for VFR operations only with a single pilot. And thus for IFR operations (emphasis added IFR operations], the PIC would be required to be current in accordance with § 61.58. Or the PIC would be restricted to VFR operations only and therefore would not need to be § 61.58 current. The M.E.L. for the Sikorsky S76B helicopter requires two pilots for IFR operations, and also the Sikorsky S76B helicopter's type certificate requires two pilots for IFR operations unless the helicopter is equipped with the appropriate autopilot system [i.e., Honeywell SPZ-7000 Digital Control System (STC No. SH3200NM)]. Per the M.E.L. for the Sikorsky S76B helicopter, it states that if an item of equipment on the Honeywell SPZ-7000 Digital Control System (STC No. SH3200NM) fails: 2) Digital (DAFCS) SPZ-7000: May be inoperative for: a) VFR operations orb) Two pilot IFR operations when Autopilot 2 is operative {q&a-430} QUESTION: I understand that if an individual is serving as PIC in two different types of aircraft that require type ratings (both jets) he must satisfy the requirement of the PIC check for each aircraft in alternating years, fulfilling the 24 month requirement. So, if you took a 61.58 proficiency check in a DA-20 in April, 1999 and a DA-50 §61.58 proficiency check in April 2000, that person would be qualified as PIC in he DA-20 through the end of April 2001. I also understand that if the check is performed within 30 days after the month it was due that the "anniversary date" for the check remains unchanged. Does that mean that in the above example the individual would be qualified to act as PIC in the DA-20 in May, 2001 provided they completed a 61.58 check by the end of May 2001 (30 day period)? Is it true that the time acting as PIC in a DA-20 in May 2001 would also be legal if the §61.58 check had intended to be taken in May 2001, but was not, due to sickness, equipment problems, etc.? What would be the crewmembers status to act as a required crewmember (PIC or SIC) in May, 2001 (30 day "extension period") if he was not scheduled to take a 61.58 check until June 2001, for whatever reason? (after the 30 days) when would their next §61.58 check be due in that aircraft? ANSWER: Ref. § 61.58(g); A pilot's § 61.58 PIC proficiency check remains current for 1 calendar month after the month the check was due. Therefore, in your scenario the pilot's § 61.58 PIC proficiency check was due during the month of April. The pilot has until May 31 to accomplish the § 61.58 PIC proficiency check and during the month of May his § 61.58 PIC proficiency check remains current for both the DA-20 and DA-50. The purpose for the issuance of paragraph (g) in § 61.58 was to give a pilot a 30-day grace period either side of the "due date month" for accomplishing the § 61.58 PIC proficiency check. And yes, I fully understand the essence of your question where you stated the pilot last completed a § 61.58 PIC proficiency check in the DA-20 in April of 1999. You are saying that if the pilot doesn't get around to accomplishing the § 61.58 PIC proficiency check in the DA-20 until May 31, 2001, that means the pilot last completed a § 61.58 PIC proficiency check in that airplane 25 months ago. But, my answer is still the same, the pilot has until May 31 to accomplish § 61.58 PIC proficiency check and during the month of May his § 61.58 PIC proficiency check remains current for both the DA-20 and DA-50. {q&a-422} QUESTION 1: Situation, I have a designated pilot examiner (DPE) who is qualified in 10 different types of turbine powered airplanes and performs pilot examiner duties in those 10 different types of turbine powered airplanes. How many "demonstrations of competency" must that DPE perform annually to retain his/her DPE authority in those 10 different types of turbine powered airplanes? ANSWER 1: Ref. § 61.58(a)(1) and (2); I assume you're asking about the § 61.58(a)(1) and (2) PIC proficiency checks, so the answer would be that DPE must: "(1) Within the preceding 12 calendar months, complete a pilot-in-command proficiency check in an aircraft that is type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember; and" Which means the DPE must take ONE § 61.58 PIC proficiency check in one of the types of turbine powered airplanes within the preceding 12 calendar months. "(2) Within the preceding 24 calendar months, complete a pilot-in-command proficiency check in the particular type of aircraft in which that person will serve as pilot in command." Which means the DPE must take § 61.58 PIC proficiency checks in the other 9 types of turbine powered airplanes within the preceding 24 calendar months. And additionally, FAA Order 8700.1, chapter 15, page 15-10, paragraph 23.C.(2) which the pertinent portion for this question is printed in bold print and states: "(2) If an examiner hold multiple authorizations in turbine-powered aircraft requiring a pilot type rating, the annual demonstration should be alternated between those aircraft that require a type rating. The examiner may not conduct a practical test in any turbine-powered aircraft that requires a pilot type rating unless that examiner has demonstrated competency in that aircraft within the preceding the preceding 24 months." So what this means is the DPE must take a § 61.58 pilot-in-command proficiency check in other 9 types of turbine powered airplanes that DPE performs pilot examiner duties in if he/she wants to continue to perform practical tests in those other 9 types of turbine powered airplanes. But that § 61.58 pilot-in-command proficiency check need not necessarily have been performed with that DPE's assigned FAA Aviation Safety Inspector.. QUESTION 2: Same situation, I have a designated pilot examiner (DPE) who is qualified in 10 different types of turbine powered airplanes and performs pilot examiner duties in those 10 different types of turbine powered airplanes. How many "demonstrations of competency" must that DPE perform with the FAA [i.e., FAA Aviation Safety Inspector assigned to supervise that DPE] to retain his/her DPE authority in those 10 different types of turbine powered airplanes? ANSWER 2: Ref. FAA Order 8700.1, chapter 15, page 15-10, paragraph 23.C.(2); and § 61.58(a)(1) and (2). This specific question is really answered by the provision contained in FAA Order 8700.1, chapter 15, page 15-10, paragraph 23.C.(2) which the pertinent portion for this question is printed in bold print and states:: "(2) If an examiner hold multiple authorizations in turbine-powered aircraft requiring a pilot type rating, the annual demonstration should be alternated between those aircraft that require a type rating. The examiner may not conduct a practical test in any turbine-powered aircraft that requires a pilot type rating unless that examiner has demonstrated competency in that aircraft within the preceding the preceding 24 months." So what this means is that the DPE must demonstrate pilot examiner competency annually to his/her assigned FAA Aviation Safety Inspector in only ONE of the types of turbine powered airplanes that DPE performs pilot examiner duties in. And then each year after that, ONE annual demonstration of pilot examiner competency demonstration to his/her assigned FAA Aviation Safety Inspector should be alternated between the other 9 types of turbine powered airplanes (e.g., CE-500 first year, CE-560 the second year, the CE-650 the third year, the CE-750 the fourth year, CE-525 the fifth year, etc., etc., etc.). The emphasis in your question (i.e., "with the FAA Aviation Safety Inspector who supervises the DPE'], this is the only requirement where the pilot examiner competency demonstration must be performed with that DPE's assigned FAA Aviation Safety Inspector. The other provision contained in this paragraph of FAA Order 8700.1 [i.e., paragraph 23.C.(2) "The examiner may not conduct a practical test in any turbine-powered aircraft that requires a pilot type rating unless that examiner has demonstrated competency in that aircraft within the preceding the preceding 24 months"] means the DPE must be current in accordance with § 61.58(a)(2) but it doesn't necessarily mean that DPE must have accomplished that § 61.58 PIC proficiency check with his/her assigned FAA Aviation Safety Inspector. These additional § 61.58 PIC proficiency checks could have been performed with another DPE, pilot proficiency examiner, or at a Part 142 training center. Only the annual demonstration of pilot examiner competency must be performed with the DPE's assigned FAA Aviation Safety Inspector. Only the ONE annual demonstration of pilot examiner competency must be performed with the DPE's assigned FAA Aviation Safety Inspector. {q&a-412} QUESTION: Per our conversation, the situation is in regard to the requirement for a §61.58 check for a pilot type rated in the BE-1900, which under SFAR 41 was type certificated for one crewmember and the pilot's type rating has the limitation: Second in Command Required. Since the BE-1900 is not type certificated for more than one crewmember, would the "Second in Command" limitation on the pilot's type rating require that pilot to have a §61.58 PIC check? ANSWER: Ref. §61.58(a)(1) or (2); Yes, the limitation "Second in Command Required" on the person's BE-1900 type rating would require that person to complete a §61.58 pilot-in-command proficiency check if that person intends to serve as pilot in command in a BE-1900. The "Second in Command Required" limitation on the person's type rating for the BE-1900 type rating does, in effect, mean that the aircraft ". . . is type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember . . ." This same rationale, also applies to the person who holds a CE-501 or CE-551 type rating where a person's CE-501 or CE-551 type rating contains the limitation "Second in Command Required." In these type ratings where the person's pilot certificate contains the limitation "Second in Command Required" on the CE-501 or CE-551 type rating would require that person to complete a §61.58 pilot-in-command proficiency check if that person intends to serve as pilot in command in a CE-501 or CE-551 where the type rating(s) contains the limitation "Second in Command Required.". For the type ratings BE-1900, CE-501, CE-551, and similar kinds of aircraft, the "Second in Command Required" limitation is authorized because of the provision contained in paragraph (b) of §61.43. In the "Pilot, Flight Instructor, Ground Instructor, and Pilot School Certification Rules" Final Rule (62 FR 16220-16367; April 4, 1997), the FAA stated: "With regard to the demonstration of single-pilot competence listed in proposed paragraph (a)(5), most aircraft that are type certificated for one pilot are currently operated by one pilot. However, some aircraft (e.g., the Cessna Citation 501 and 551) are type certificated for one pilot, but are operated by either one- or two-pilot crews. The FAA realized that some pilots may desire to operate an aircraft type certificated for one pilot with a two-pilot crew. In this situation, the applicant would have the option, contained in proposed paragraph (b), not to demonstrate single-pilot competence, but a limitation would be placed on the applicant's airman certificate that states a second in command is required. This limitation could later be removed if the pilot demonstrates single-pilot competence. This proposal was consistent with FAA Order 8700.1 regarding aircraft that are type certificated for one pilot, but operated with one- and two-pilot crews. The proposal did not change regulations for applicants that apply for a certificate or rating in aircraft that are usually operated by one pilot. These applicants currently are required to demonstrate single-pilot competence during the practical test." {q&a-403} QUESTION: Here's a §61.58 PIC question. Mr. Smith is an A-320 captain for United Airlines under Part 121. He also flies a CE-500 part time under Part 91 as a PIC. Section 61.58(a)(2) says he needs to have a §61.58 PIC check in each type aircraft, but §61.58(b) says he's covered since he flies for a Part 121 carrier (i.e., United Airlines), and therefore, wouldn't need a §61.58 PIC check in the CE-500. Which part of § 61.58 is correct in his case? ANSWER: Ref. §61.58(a)(1) and (2) and (b); Mr. Smith is flying the A-320 under Part 121 and has accomplished a ". . . pilot in command proficiency check . . ." in the A-320. So he meets the requirements of §61.58(a)(1) within the preceding 12 calendar months. But to serve as a PIC in the CE-500 under Part 91, Mr. Smith will have to accomplish a ". . . pilot in command proficiency check . . ." in the CE-500 within the preceding 24 calendar months [i.e., §61.58(a)(2)]. Mr. Smith is not ". . . conducting operations under part 121, 125, 133, 135, or 137 of this chapter, or . . . maintaining continuing qualification under an Advanced Qualification Program . . ." [i.e., § 61.58(b)] when operating the CE-500 as a PIC. He conducting operations under Part 91 when serving as a PIC in the CE-500. {q&a-381} QUESTION: Under §61.58(c), it provides that completion of a pilot-in-command proficiency check given in accordance with the provisions of part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter as satisfying the requirements for the §61.58 PIC check. What is intended where it states in §61.58(c) ". . . pilot-in-command proficiency check given in accordance with the provisions of part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter . . ." Does it mean just the §135. 293 check? Or does it also include the §135.297 and §135.299 checks for it to meet the requirements of §61.58(c)? ANSWER: Ref. §61.58(c); In the case of part 135, it means the §135.293 check (i.e., initial and recurrent pilot testing requirements), and the §135.297 check (i.e., pilot in command instrument proficiency check requirements). It does not include the §135.299 check (i.e., pilot in command line check). In the case of part 121, it means the §121.441 check (i.e., proficiency check). It does not include the §121.440 check (i.e., line check). And in the case of part 125, it means the §125.287 check (i.e., initial and recurrent pilot testing requirements) and the §125.291 check (i.e., pilot in command instrument proficiency requirements). {q&a-362} QUESTION 1: Can a pilot take a 61.58(a) proficiency check (conducted by an FAA Inspector or Designated Pilot Examiner) in a simulator if he(she) has not completed a training course under Part 142? The scenario would be an individual who has been flying regularly as an aircraft manufacturer's test pilot, corpporate pilot, or FAA pilot and wants to take a 61.58 check in a simulator. He then goes to FlightSafety and asks to rent a simulator from them to take the check. The simulator is qualified by the NSP and is operating under a Part 142 approved training program, however, the pilot has not completed any classroom or simulator training conducted by FlightSafety under Part 142. He has obtained proficiency and prepared for the check through his regular flying duties, either as an aircraft manufacturer test pilot, corporate pilot, or FAA pilot. Section 61.58(e) says that a PIC proficiency check "may be accomplished in a flight simulator under Part 142 of this chapter". The question really is what "under Part 142" means. Does the simulator have to be operating under a Part 142 approved course, so that it is sure to be a good device for the check, or does a pilot have to pay FlightSafety to go through some sort of PIC Part 142 approved course? It is clear that the rule allows a pilot to use an aircraft to meet the PIC checking requirements, without any prior training. Can a pilot use a simulator in the same way? I'm not sure what the intent was, when §61.58 was changed to include reference to Part 142. ANSWER 1: Ref. §61.58(e); As per §61.58(e), ". . . may be accomplished in a flight simulator under part 142 of this chapter, subject to the following. . ." Which means BOTH the §61.58 PIC check and the flight simulator must be under a part 142 approved training program. So the answer is no, a PIC cannot go out and free lance in renting a flight simulator and do a §61.58 PIC check. It has to be accomplished under and in accordance with a part 142 approved training program. {q&a-321} QUESTION 1: Situation is the CE-525 is certificated under Part 23 and as such can be flown single pilot by those that have CE-525S type ratings if certain equipment on the airplane works. Should the pilot only have a CE-525 type rating OR certain equipment is inoperative where a copilot must be used, must the copilot meet §61.55 and secondly must the PIC be required to have accomplished a §61.58 check? ANSWER 1b: Ref. §91.5 and §61.58(a); The answer is yes, the PIC would have to meet the PIC §61.58 qualification requirements. Although I'm quite aware that the verbage in §91.5 only states: "No person may operate an aircraft that is type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember unless the pilot in command meets the requirements of §61.58 of this chapter." Now the question is whether we could get an NTSB Law Judge to rationalize the phrase "that is type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember" means the same as saying "that is operationally type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember." WHO KNOWS! Your guess is as good as mine. But until we're shot down by an NTSB Law Judge, the FAA's position on these rules [i.e., §91.5 and §61.58(a)] require the PIC to be qualified in accordance with all requirements of §61.58. QUESTION 2: The question that arises is does the pilot that gets his or her type rating single pilot (CE525S) then meet the §61.58 requirement for having accomplished a proficiency check in accordance with §61.58(d)(2)? ANSWER 2: Ref. §61.58(d)(2); Yes, provided the practical test was accomplished with an SIC. But no, if the applicant only demonstrated single pilot proficiency on the practical test. QUESTION 3: Additionally, if a pilot comes through FlightSafety's approved §61.58 recurrent course as a single pilot, does that person or should that person get a §61.58 sign off in accordance with §61.58(a)(1) or (2)? Some concerns on this is that if the recurrent training will not meet the requirements for the §61.58 check some or many pilots will forgo the training. Additionally, if we require a copilot during recurrent to issue the §61.58 sign off then most pilots will opt for that, train as a crew and then go fly single pilot. While at first look these appear to be financial concerns raised by FSI which would have no bearing on our decision a closer investigation reveals them to be real safety issues that could impact training decisions of many pilots. ANSWER 3: Ref. §61.58(a); Yes, provided the §61.58 PIC check was accomplished with an SIC. But no, if the applicant only demonstrated single pilot proficiency. And no, a checkride accomplished where the applicant only demonstrated single pilot proficiency cannot count for a §61.58 PIC check.. {q&a-211} QUESTION: Under §61.58(d)(3) it provides that a ". . . initial or periodic practical test required for the issuance of a pilot examiner. . ." may be, in effect, substituted for the pilot-in-command proficiency check required by paragraph (a) of §61.58. Are pilot proficiency examiners also included (i.e., ". . . initial or periodic practical test required for the issuance of a pilot examiner. . . "? ANSWER: Yes; An initial or periodic practical test required for the issuance of a pilot proficiency examiner (PPE) designation may be substituted for the PIC proficiency check required by §61.58(a). Per §61.58(d)(3), it states: (d) The pilot-in-command proficiency check required by paragraph (a) of this section may be accomplished by satisfactory completion of one of the following: * * * * * (3) The initial or periodic practical test required for the issuance of a pilot examiner or check airman designation, in an aircraft type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember; or * * * * * However, as in the case of §61.58(d)(3) that allows the accomplishment of an initial or periodic practical test required for the issuance of a designated pilot examiner (DPE) authorization to count for the PIC proficiency check required by §61.58(a), the pilot proficiency examiner (PPE) must also demonstrate PIC proficiency to ATP standards and a FAA Form 8410-1 must be completed. This requirement to require demonstration of PIC proficiency to ATP standards and a FAA Form 8410-1 be completed also applies to DPEs. Otherwise, what I'm saying it is not permissible to just allow a DPE or PPE to sit in the right seat evaluating an applicant and never touch the controls. That is not adequate for meeting the requirements of §61.58(d)(3). Now I am not suggesting that a DPE or PPE would need to show PIC proficiency on all the maneuvers and procedures required for the PIC proficiency check required by §61.58(a). But certainly it would require the DPE and PPE to at least demonstrate a combination of PIC proficiency and examiner competency on all the maneuvers and procedures required for the pilot-in-command proficiency check required by §61.58(a). An example of what I mean by ". . . a combination of PIC proficiency and examiner competency on all the maneuvers and procedures . . ." would be on the §61.58 PIC proficiency check requires a PIC to demonstrate proficiency the maneuvers "Holding," "Steep Turns," "Approach to stalls," "Landings from an ILS," etc. So what I am saying, it is permissible to observe the DPE or PPE demonstrate PIC proficiency on certain of those maneuvers and then the other maneuvers you may evaluate the DPE or PPE serving as an examiner conducting a practical test of an applicant. {q&a-185} 61.59 Falsification, reproduction or alteration QUESTION: Is the lamination of a certificate issued by the FAA considered an alteration? ANSWER: Ref. §61.59(a)4); No. The lamination of a certificate issued under part 61 (14 CFR part 61) is not considered an alteration. Letter of legal interpretation from the FAA's Office of Chief Counsel addressing this question is as follows: Mr. James R. Knight II Aviation Technical Specialist Aviation Services Department Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 421 Aviation Way Frederick, MD 21701-4798 Dear Mr. Knight: This is in response to your letter dated November 8, 1999, to the Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), regarding section 61.59(a)(4) (14 CFR section 61.59(a)(4)). Specifically, you ask whether the lamination of a certificate issued by the FAA would be considered an alteration. Section 61.59(a)(4) states, in pertinent part, that a person may not make or cause to be made any alteration of any certificate, rating, or authorization under this part. The lamination of a certificate issued under part 61 (14 CFR part 61) is not considered an alteration. A person may laminate his or her pilot certificate, after he or she signs the pilot certificate, without violating section 61.59(a)(4). I hope this satisfactorily answers your question. Sincerely, Donald P. Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel. Regulation Division {q&a-369} 61.60 Change of address QUESTION: Per §61.60 a change in permanent mailing address requires written notification of the new permanent mailing address within 30 days to the FAA, Airman Certification Branch. May a person notify the FAA's Airman Certification Branch by e-mail via the Internet and, if so, does that meet the requirements of §61.60 for notification made "in writing?" ANSWER: Ref. §61.60; Yes. Airman Certification Branch management agrees that notifying the FAA by e-mail via the Internet meets the requirements of §61.60. The Internet address to notify the FAA's Airman Certification Branch about a change in their permanent mailing address is: http://registry.faa.gov/ At that site, you'll find a form that may be completed to notify the FAA of a change in permanent mailing address. Other customer services and information may be found at this site. {q&a-363} QUESTION 5: Why is the wording in §61.35(a)(2)(iv) worded like: "(iv) Actual residential address, if different from the applicant's mailing address," but §61.29(d)(2) is worded like: "(2) The permanent mailing address (including zip code), or if the permanent mailing address includes a post office box number, then the person's current residential address;" and §61.60 is worded like: § 61.60 Change of address. The holder of a pilot, flight instructor, or ground instructor certificate who has made a change in permanent mailing address may not, after 30 days from that date, exercise the privileges of the certificate unless the holder has notified in writing the FAA, Airman Certification Branch, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125, of the new permanent mailing address, or if the permanent mailing address includes a post office box number, then the holder's current residential address. The reason the questions was asked is because some flight instructors are police officers, DEA Agents, or FBI who do not give out there resident address. ANSWER: We will reword §61.35(a)(2)(iv) to read as follows: (iv) The permanent mailing address (including zip code), or if the permanent mailing address includes a post office box number, then the person's current residential address; {q&a-33} 61.63 Additional aircraft ratings (other than ATP level) QUESTION: I have a DPE who is seeking to add a commercial Airship rating to his ATP with an existing commercial lighter-than-air rating and in FAR 61.63 (c) (4) it appears that if you already hold a lighter than air category you are penalized by having to meet all the training time requirements. The paragraph reads" need not meet the specified training time requirements prescribed by this part that apply to the pilot certificate for the aircraft class rating sought, unless the person holds a lighter-than-air category rating with a balloon class rating and is seeking an airship class rating- This appears to say that if you do not hold the balloon class rating you do not have to meet the training, but if you do hold the balloon rating certificate you do have to complete all the training. I think the last part should have read "unless the person holds (only) a lighter-than-air category rating..... ANSWER: Ref. §61.63(c)(4); What is really intended by §61.63(c)(4) [i.e., the phrase ". . . unless the person holds a lighter-than-air category rating with a balloon class rating and is seeking an airship class rating;"] is the rule is preventing an applicant who only (emphasis added ONLY) holds a LTA-Balloon rating from applying for an airship class rating without meeting the specified training time requirements prescribed by this part that apply to the pilot certificate and airship class rating. So for example, if the applicant only holds LTA-Balloon rating on his/her private pilot certificate and is seeking to apply for a LTA-Airship rating at the private pilot certification level, that applicant MUST accomplish all of the aeronautical experience as specified in § 61.109(g). However, if the applicant holds a Private Pilot Certificate-ASEL and is seeking an AMEL rating at the private pilot certification level, then as per §61.63(c)(4) that person " Need not meet the specified solo or dual training time requirements prescribed by this part that apply to the pilot certificate for the aircraft class rating sought." Otherwise, the instructor trains the applicant to pass the practical test and there is no specific solo or dual time requirements in the multiengine airplane for the AMEL rating. {q&a-436} QUESTION: I have a person who holds a Commercial Pilot Certificate with a CE-500 type rating with the following limitation "This certificate is subject to pilot-in-command limitations for the additional rating" per § 61.63(e)(8) for 25 hours of supervised operating experience. The person does not want to take the time to accomplish the 25 hours of supervised operating experience and now wants to take a full 100% practical test in the actual airplane. Previously, he took a practical test in a flight simulator through an approved course at a Part 142 training center. The instances of this have been rare but it has happened. While the reasons for this are probably not salient to this discussion, I will mention that this has usually occurred because of new aircraft delivery date fluctuations verses flight simulator course available dates. Specifically, can this person take a practical test in the actual airplane (CE-500) to get the limitation removed or must he accomplish the 25 hours of supervised operating experience? I would submit that the person that takes the long road of using § 61.63 (e) procedures for accomplishing an additional type rating and then again accomplishes that same type rating under § 61.63(d) to obtain a clean type rating has undergone far more training and testing than someone that has simply used the procedures of § 61.63(d) avenue to the rating. Another argument for allowing an applicant to have the supervised operating experience limitation removed by taking the practical test in the actual aircraft and re-applying for a clean type rating is that per § 61.63(e)(9) [or as appropriate the parallel rule for the type rating at the ATP level of certification is § 61.157(g)(7)], it is possible for an applicant to use a flight simulator for most of the practical test and accomplish only the preflight inspection, normal takeoff, normal ILS approach, missed approach, and the normal landing in the actual aircraft. I do not believe safety is being compromised here if we allow an applicant to remove the supervised operating experience limitation by re-applying for a clean type rating by accomplishing the practical test in the actual aircraft. Please let me know the outcome so that we will all be standard. ANSWER: Ref. § 61.63(e)(12)(ii) [or as appropriate the parallel rule for the type rating at the ATP level of certification is § 61.157(g)(9)(ii)]; As per § 61.63(e)(12)(ii) [or as appropriate the parallel rule for the type rating at the ATP level of certification is § 61.157(g)(9)(ii)], the person must accomplish ". . . 25 hours of supervised operating experience as pilot in command under the supervision of a qualified and current pilot in command, in the seat normally occupied by the pilot in command, in an airplane of the same type for which the limitation applies . . ." to get the limitation removed. Per § 61.63(e)(12)(ii) [or as appropriate the parallel rule for the type rating at the ATP level of certification is § 61.157(g)(9)(ii)], that is the only way the limitation may be removed. The rule does not provide for the person to now merely take a practical test in accordance with the procedures set forth in § 61.63(d)(5) [or as appropriate the parallel rule for the type rating at the ATP level of certification is § 61.157(b)(3)] to remove the limitation. The rationale for Part 142 and the 25 hours of supervised operating experience (or the 15 hours of supervised operating experience, as appropriate) was that the FAA would approve training and testing to be performed in a flight simulator/flight training device, in lieu of the actual aircraft, for persons with specified amounts of aeronautical experience and qualifications. However, the rule requires there be additional supervised operating experience applied to the rating. Even prior to the adoption of Part 142, the FAA applied these same requirements through grants of exemption. The rule, nor the FAA, never intended to allow the "picking-and-choosing" of how to train and test when using flight simulators/flight training devices. {q&a-416} QUESTION: A pilot comes to FlightSafety and does not qualify for a 100% simulator ride, which would result in a clean certificate under 14 CFR §§ 61.63(e)(4)(ii) and 61.157(g)(3)(ii). Therefore he or she completes the 100% ride in a simulator and receives the rating or certificate with rating, with the 15 or 25 hour SOE limitation. Let's say it is in a CE-500. The person in question then does not fly the required 15 or 25 hours of SOE to remove the restrictions but rather goes through another 100% simulator turbojet type rating course. Let's say a CE-650. Again the person does not meet the requirements for the 100% check except this time he or she produces the CE-500 type rating with the SOE limitation and suggests that he now qualifies for the 100% check under 14 CFR § 61.63(e)(4)(ii)(A). The question is, does the applicant actually qualify to take the 100% check in a simulator, and then receive a clean CE-650 type rating (meaning without any S.O.E limitations)? If the answer is yes, they could then go back and take a CE-500 recurrent or if all of this was done within 60 days of completion of the original CE-500 training course just take another CE-500 checkride and have both types clean (meaning without any S.O.E limitations). I know I have asked this question before and the answer was no. This is circumventing the intent of the regulation. The question has reappeared and I cannot put my hands on anything in writing. Can you help? An additional fact is that AFS 200 has ruled that because of the wording in 14 CFR §135.338(c) a person with a type rating with SOE limitation may not instruct in Part 135. This is creating a problem for FSI since they are having a problem getting the SOE removed. It is easier, (and I think cheaper) for them to just send a person through the second type rating course. I have looked in the bulletins but if I missed it forgive me. I don't think there is anything written on it and if not I would suggest it might qualify for a bulletin in FAA Order 8700. ANSWER: Ref. §§ 61.63(e)(4)(ii)(A) and 61.157(g)(3)(ii)(A). The intent of ". . . Hold a type rating for a turbojet airplane of the same class of airplane for which the type rating is sought . . ." in subparagraph (A) in §§61.63(e)(4)(ii) and subparagraph (A) in 61.157(g)(3)(ii) requires that the type rating be clean (meaning without any S.O.E limitations). The applicant does not qualify under §§ 61.63(e)(4)(ii)(A) or under 61.157(g)(3)(ii)(A) to take a 100% practical test in a simulator for the CE-650 type rating. {q&a-399} QUESTION: I'm a CFII who has been approached by a prospective student...he presently holds a commercial pilot certificate with helicopter, instrument helicopter, and ASEL, (private pilot privileges) ratings. He wants to add an instrument-airplane and commercial single engine land ratings to the certificate. I know that regarding the instrument rating he does not have to take another written exam. However does he have to take a written exam for the addition of the commercial ASEL rating. Also does he have to complete all of the required aeronautical experience requirements (i.e. cross country, etc.) that would be required if he only held a private pilot certificate and was preparing for these ratings? ANSWER: Ref. §61.63(b) and §61.65(a); Your answer is addressed in §61.63(b) and §61.65(a). The person is merely seeking to add an additional aircraft category rating to his pilot certificate and an additional instrument rating. No, he does not have to take the Commercial Pilot-Airplane knowledge test [i.e., §61.63(b)(5)]. No, he does not have to take the Instrument-Airplane knowledge test [i.e., §61.65(a)(7)]. Yes, he has to complete the aeronautical experience requirements of §61.129(a). Specifically, these are the required aeronautical experience requirements that must be met: An additional Airplane category rating for the Single Engine class rating at the Commercial Pilot Level: Total time: At least 250 hours of flight time as a pilot that consists of at least: A) 100 hours in powered aircraft, of which 50 hours must be in airplanes. B) 100 hours of pilot-in-command flight time, that includes at least-- 1) 50 hours in airplanes; and 2) 50 hours in X-C flying of which at least 10 hours must be in airplanes. C) Dual: 20 hours of flight training on the Commercial Pilot areas of operation that includes at least-- 1) 10 hours of instrument training of which at least 5 hours must be in a single engine airplane; 2) 10 hours of training in a complex airplane; 3) 1 X-C of at least 2 hours in a single engine airplane in day VFR conditions; 4) 1 X-C of at least 2 hours in a single engine airplane in night VFR conditions; and 5) 3 hours of flight training in a single engine airplane within the <60 days prior to the practical test. D) Solo: 10 hours of solo flight in a single engine airplane on the Comm. Pilot areas of operation, that includes-- 1) At least 1 X-C flight; and 2) At least 5 hours in night VFR conditions with 10 T/O's and Ldgs at a controlled airport. {q&a-328} QUESTION: I have a situation where a foreign pilot who holds the following U.S. restricted Commercial Pilot Certificate and ratings has completed a Part 142 training center's HS-125 type rating course. Commercial Pilot Airplane Single Engine Land Airplane Multiengine Land Issued on the basis of and valid only when accompanied by, Canadian pilot license number 1234567. All limitations and restriction on the Canadian pilot license apply. Not valid for the carriage of persons or property for compensation or hire or for agricultural aircraft operations. Additional information is this foreign pilot holds a Canadian ATP certificate with an airplane single engine and multiengine land rating and instrument airplane privileges. This training center's HS-125 type rating course has the required instrument training in it, and the applicant did complete the instrument portion of this HS-125 type rating course and did complete the type rating practical test and all the instrument tasks were administered and passed by the applicant. However, the applicant did not have an instrument rating on his U.S. restricted Commercial Pilot Certificate nor had he taken the Instrument-Airplane knowledge test or the Instrument Foreign Pilot knowledge test. The certificate that was re-issued along with HS-125 type rating to read as follows: Commercial Pilot Airplane Single Engine Land Airplane Multiengine Land (VFR Only and U.S. Test Passed) HS-125 (VFR Only and U.S. Test Passed) Issued on the basis of and valid only when accompanied by, Canadian pilot license number 1234567. All limitations and restriction on the Canadian pilot license apply. Not valid for the carriage of persons or property for compensation or hire or for agricultural aircraft operations. Is it permissible to have issued the pilot certificate that way (i.e., VFR only) since doesn't §61.63(d)(1) require that the applicant to ". . . . hold or concurrently obtain an instrument rating that is appropriate to the aircraft category, class, or type rating sought . . . ?" ANSWER: Ref. §61.63(d)(1); No, it was not permissible to have issued the pilot certificate that way. The applicant would have had to hold or concurrently obtain an instrument rating that is appropriate to the aircraft category, class, or type rating sought, as per §61.63(d)(1). And secondly, since the applicant elected to have the rating placed on his US restricted Commercial Pilot Certificate, the HS-125 type rating should have only been issued for PRIVATE PILOT PRIVILEGES [i.e., §61.75(a)]. Since the applicant elected to have the rating placed on his US restricted Commercial Pilot Certificate, then as per §61.63(d)(1) the applicant should have been required to ". . . . hold or concurrently obtain an instrument rating that is appropriate to the aircraft category, class, or type rating sought . . . ." The applicant should have been required to take the Instrument-Airplane knowledge test and completed all requirements of the Instrument Rating PTS or take the Instrument Foreign Pilot knowledge test and have the Restricted Certificate reissued with the instrument rating (based on his foreign instrument rating) prior to making application for the HS-125 type rating. However, because this applicant held a Canadian ATP certificate and instrument privileges he was eligible to take the ATP-Airplane knowledge test and then to have made application for an unrestricted US ATP certificate per §61.153(d)(3) and take the practical test for the ATP-Airplane-Multiengine Land and HS-125 type rating. I believe this mistake was more the responsibility of the training center and the FAA than it was the applicant's fault. In order to fix the situation now, I recommend that you or the training center contact the applicant, have him take the ATP-Airplane knowledge test and, since the HS-125 type rating practical test is the same as the ATP practical test, don't make him retake the practical test. I will talk to AFS-760 to insure the applicant's file gets handled properly. {q&a-312} QUESTION 1: I have reviewed §61.39(c)(2), and I do not see where there is prerequisite requirement that an applicant for a type rating must FIRST hold an Airplane Multiengine Land class rating before he/she is eligible to take the type rating practical test in a CE500 (i.e., airplane that requires a type rating)? There appears to be some disagreement on this requirement with our folks here. Is this new PTS change now correct? Here is the situation and question from an examiner who conducts type rating practical tests. "An applicant who holds a Commercial Pilot Certificate, Airplane-Single-Engine Land Rating, Instrument-Airplane Rating. The applicant wants to make application for an add-on Cessna Citation type rating at the Commercial Pilot Level. Must the applicant FIRST hold an Airplane Multiengine Land class rating before he is eligible to take the type rating practical test in a Cessna Citation?" The examiner said, he was told by the FSDO that the applicant must FIRST hold an Airplane Multiengine Land class rating before he can be eligible for the type rating practical test. This was because the reference in the ATP/Type Rating PTS, dated August 1998, page 7, item #3 (before the change), indicates so. The examiner now has a copy of the change #1 to the PTS. ANSWER: §61.63(d) and §61.39(a); The answer is no, the applicant does not need to hold an Airplane Multiengine Land class rating to be eligible for the CE500 type rating practical test. The reference made in the ATP/Type Rating PTS, dated August 1998 on page 7, item No. 3 is wrong. Item No. 3 should be deleted entirely. The way we revised §61.129(b), it is permissible for an applicant to receive their initial Commercial Pilot Certificate for an Airplane category rating and Multiengine Land class rating in a CE-500. {q&a-263} QUESTION: There is a situation where an applicant is applying for SK61 (Sikorsky S-61 helicopter) type rating for VFR privileges only? This particular SK-61 helicopter is not capable of performing instrument maneuvers and procedures. The applicant only holds a Commercial Pilot Certificate with Rotorcraft-Helicopter rating. The applicant does not hold an instrument rating. In reading §61.63(d)(1), it states "Must hold or concurrently obtain an instrument rating that is appropriate to the aircraft category, class, or type rating sought." Does this mean the applicant must obtain a Instrument-Helicopter rating prior to making application for the SK-61 type rating? ANSWER: Ref. §61.63(h); No, the applicant need not comply with §61.63(d)(1) because as it states in §61.63(h)(1) an applicant may obtain a type rating limited to "VFR only" provided the aircraft is not capable of instrument maneuvers and procedures. And as per §61.63(h), it states: (h) Aircraft not capable of instrument maneuvers and procedures. An applicant for a type rating who provides an aircraft not capable of the instrument maneuvers and procedures required by the appropriate requirements contained in §61.157 of this part for the practical test may-- (1) Obtain a type rating limited to "VFR only"; and The rationale in the change in policy on this matter is that this kind of question has been asked on several occasions where it was argued that the FAA's policy on this matter did not make sense because it was not reasonable to require the applicant to obtain an Instrument-Helicopter rating in a R-22, then make the applicant go obtain a type rating in a VFR only SK-61 when the applicant is only seeking a SK-61 (VFR Only) type rating in the first place. The FAA's Certification Branch, AFS-840, that establishes the policy on such matters of Part 61 has determined that a change in policy is justified. AFS-840 further justifies its change in policy on this matter in that the way paragraph (h) of §61.63 is structured in the overall structure of §61.63. It's a separate paragraph all in itself. The FAA is currently drafting some additional revisions to Part 61 to further refine the rules that were revised on August 4, 1997. Section 61.63(d)(1) is being revised to clarify that §61.63(h) permits the issuance of a VFR only type rating in an aircraft that is not capable of performing instrument flight and the applicant would not need to hold or concurrently obtain an instrument rating that is appropriate to the aircraft category, class, or type rating sought first before seeking a VFR only type rating. However, this same rationale is not being considered for the initial application for the ATP certificate where an applicant is concurrently applying for a type rating. The current requirement, as required by §61.157(b)(3) only permits the issuance of a VFR only type rating at the ATP level if ". . . THE AIRCRAFT'S TYPE CERTIFICATE makes the aircraft incapable of operating under instrument flight rules. . ." This is different than how §61.63(h) is worded [i.e., ". . . who provides an aircraft not capable of the instrument maneuvers and procedures]. Per §61.153(d), the prerequisite eligibility requirements for applying for an ATP certificate requires: (d) Meet at least one of the following requirements: (1) Hold at least a commercial pilot certificate and an instrument rating; (2) Meet the military experience requirements under §61.73 of this part to qualify for a commercial pilot certificate, and an instrument rating if the person is a rated military pilot or former rated military pilot of an Armed Force of the United States; or (3) Hold either a foreign airline transport pilot or foreign commercial pilot license and an instrument rating, without limitations issued by a contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. So §61.153(d) requires that the person who applies for the ATP certificate initially would be required to hold ". . . an instrument rating . . . or ". . . an instrument rating if the person is a rated military pilot or former rated military pilot . . ." or ". . . foreign airline transport pilot or foreign commercial pilot license and an instrument rating . . ." Otherwise, the provision of §61.157(b)(3) [i.e., ". . . Must perform the practical test in actual or simulated instrument conditions, unless the aircraft's type certificate makes the aircraft incapable of operating under instrument flight rules. If the practical test cannot be accomplished for this reason, the person may obtain a type rating limited to "VFR only."] only provides for an additional type rating at the ATP certificate level. {q&a-152} [Replacement of original q&a-152] I would appreciate your thoughts on the following conclusions that I have drawn regarding the conduct of training and checking in FTD/Simulators. ASSUMPTION: The FTD/Simulator in question is approved by the FAA for all maneuvers. §61.63(e)(3) stipulates that in order to use a simulator or FTD it must be in accordance with an approved course at a training center under Part 142. §61.63(e)(4) goes on to say that if you want to complete "ALL" training and testing in a simulator/FTD the simulator must be level C or D. Basically, as I read §61.63 (additional rating other than ATP), a simulator/FTD cannot be used at all (for any part) of training or testing unless it is in a Part 142 program. (I know that Parts 121 and 141 stand alone and are not discussed here). Conversely, §61.157(g) stipulates that in order to use a simulator/FTD to accomplish "ALL" training and tests it must be used under, and be a part of, a Part 142 training center. QUESTION: An applicant wants to get a B737 type rating added to his ATP certificate. He wants to use a B737 simulator fully approved by the National Sim Team (FAA) and only use this simulator for the maneuvers allowed by the ATP practical test standards (FAA-S-8081-5C). According to the practical test standards this person would only have to use an actual B737 airplane for the maneuvers in section VI A,B,C,D,F of the appendix. So, how come if a pilot is adding a type rating (B737) to his commercial certificate and wants to use a simulator, the simulator must be part of, and used under, a Part 142 course? I ask this question because the language of §61.157 only requires that the simulator be part of a Part 142 course if the applicant wants to use the simulator for "ALL" training and testing. It seems as if the standards/requirements for adding a type rating to an ATP are less than those of adding a type rating to a commercial certificate. One last comment. If the applicant has to go to the airplane for part of the training and testing because he does not meet certain requirements specified in §61.157, he must complete those maneuvers identified in §61.157 (g)(7)(i). This course of action results in a limitation on his certificate. However, if this same applicant just uses the practical test standards he can complete all but those few maneuvers, listed in VI of the PTS, in a Level B simulator (approved by the FAA). {Interestingly, the maneuvers he must do in the airplane (listed in section VI of the PTS) are different than those specified in §61.157(g)(7)(i)}. But, more importantly, since this applicant did not participate in a Part 142 course he would not have any limitation on his certificate. Again, all this stems from the language construction differences between §61.63 and §61.157 with respect to the word "ALL" and whether or not using a simulator/FTD requires that its use be part of a Part 142 program. What I have just said above, is somewhat complex. I don't blame you if it is hard to follow. Perhaps it was intended that for the purposes of simulator/FTD use, §61.63 and §61.157 are the same. However, a close reading of the language points out the issues I have described above. Also, the PTS seemingly allows an individual to rent a simulator (e.g. level B) from an airline or training center, have an "authorized instructor" provide some training, comply with the endorsement requirements of §61.157 (b), and then accomplish all of the type rating check (except those maneuvers listed in section VI of the PTS appendix) in the simulator. When this is done, the same applicant would take this same instructor and rent a B737 airplane to finish the training and checking on those few items identified in Section VI of the PTS appendix. I know its hard to rent a B737, but the same principles would apply with a citation, for example. ANSWER: Ref. §61.63(e)(4) or §61.157(g)(3)(i), as appropriate; First of all in regards to your assumptions, §61.63(e)(4), states, in pertinent part, ". . . To complete all training and testing . . ." Otherwise, this means if you're intending to use a flight simulator to conduct ". . . ALL training and testing . . ." then it must be in a Level C or D flight simulator. If the applicant is not intending to conduct ". . . ALL training and testing . . ." in a flight simulator, then the applicant may perform some of the training and testing in other than a Level C or D flight simulator and some in the aircraft. However, in this situation, the tasks required to be performed in the aircraft are at least preflight inspection, normal takeoff, normal ILS approach, missed approach, and normal landing [i.e., in accordance with §61.63(e)(9)(i) or §61.157(g)(7)(i), as appropriate]. Additionally, what training tasks and testing tasks can be performed in a flight simulator or flight training device will be so stated in a letter of qualification from the National Simulator Team, AFS-205. And then the Training Center Program Manager, in accordance with the National Simulator Team's letter of qualification, approves the individual maneuvers that can be performed in the Part 142-approved training program. Second assumption, in accordance with §142.1(c), the answer is no, your statement ". . . an individual rents a simulator (e.g. level B) from an airline or training center . . ." is not permissible. If an individual wants to utilize a flight simulator or flight training device for training and testing, it must be accordance with a Part 142-approved training program. Or in the case of a Part 121 or Part 135 air carrier training program, that person must be pilot employee of that air carrier. Third assumption, "The FTD/Simulator in question is approved by the FAA for all maneuvers" is not correct. In accordance with §61.63(e)(4)(i) [or §61.157(g)(3)(i), as appropriate], ". . . The flight simulator must be qualified and approved as Level C or Level D . . ." and the applicant would have to meet the aeronautical experience requirements §61.63(e)(4)(ii) [or §61.157(g)(3)(ii), as appropriate]. An FTD cannot be approved for all maneuvers. Fourth assumption, your statement "He wants to use a B737 simulator fully approved by the National Sim Team (FAA) and only use this simulator for the maneuvers allowed by the ATP practical test standards (FAA-S-8081-5C)" is not entirely correct. The way its works is the National Simulator Team, AFS-205 qualifies what training tasks and testing tasks can be performed in a flight simulator or flight training device. And then the Training Center Program Manager, in accordance with the National Simulator Team's letter of qualification, approves the individual maneuvers that can be performed in the Part 142-approved training program. Fifth assumption, your statement "I ask this question because the language of §61.157 only requires that the simulator be part of a Part 142 course if the applicant wants to use the simulator for "ALL" training and testing" is correct if ". . . The flight simulator must be qualified and approved as Level C or Level D . . ." [i.e., §61.63(e)(4)(i) or §61.157(g)(3)(i), as appropriate]. As for your statement, "Interestingly, the maneuvers he must do in the airplane (listed in section VI of the PTS) are different than those specified in §61.157(g)(7)(i)", the rule §61.157(g)(7)(i) ALWAYS prevails. Whenever there is a difference between the verbiage in the PTS and the Federal Regulations, the Federal Regulation will always prevail. AFS-840 is working with AFS-630 to change the PTS. {q&a-233} QUESTION 2: Ref. §61.63(c)(4); Situation is I have an application that has been returned from Airmen Records on an applicant who is seeking an additional class rating (airplane multiengine land) onto the applicant's existing Private Pilot certificate. The examiner stated the person's application failed to show the required solo cross country time. I thought §61.63(c)(4) only required that the amount of training and kind of training was determined by the instructor and the aeronautical experience/training was whatever was needed to prepare the applicant for the practical test. The Airmen Records examiner indicated that the applicant had to meet the training requirements of §61.109(b)(3) and (4). Is this true? ANSWER 2: No, the applicant does not need to meet the aeronautical experience requirements of §61.109(b)(3) and (4). The person already holds a Private Pilot Certificate with an airplane single land rating. Section 61.63(c)(4) states: "(4) Need not meet the specified training time requirements prescribed by this part that apply to the pilot certificate for the aircraft class rating sought unless the person holds a lighter-than-air category rating with a balloon class rating and is seeking an airship class rating and The key phrase here is "Need not meet the specified training time requirements . . ." Otherwise, the only aeronautical experience/training required is determined by the instructor. And, the aeronautical experience/training required is that what the instructor has determined is needed to prepare the applicant for the practical test. The rationale behind this, besides §61.63(c)(4) provides for it, is this person already holds a Private Pilot Certificate with an airplane single engine land rating and is only seeking an airplane multiengine land class rating which is in the same aircraft category as the single engine land airplane. {q&a-218} QUESTIONS: ADDING CLASS RATING - WHEN IS A §61.31(d)(2) ENDORSEMENT IS REQUIRED? The situation is, I have an applicant who is applying for an add-on airplane multiengine land rating (add-on aircraft class rating) at the commercial pilot level. The applicant holds a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane single engine land rating and an instrument-airplane rating. The applicant is going to have to fly solo from the airport where the airplane is located to another airport to meet the examiner who will conduct the practical test. REFERENCE FOR ANSWERS: §61.31(d)(3) states: (d) Aircraft category, class, and type ratings: Limitations on operating an aircraft as the pilot in command. To serve as the pilot in command of an aircraft, a person must-- * * * * * (3) Have received training required by this part that is appropriate to the aircraft category, class, and type rating (if a class or type rating is required) for the aircraft to be flown, and have received the required endorsements from an instructor who is authorized to provide the required endorsements for solo flight in that aircraft. QUESTION 1: As per §61.31(d)(3), does the applicant have to ". . . have received the required endorsements from an instructor who is authorized to provide the required endorsements for solo flight in that aircraft. . . . " even if during the training the applicant always had the instructor on board? ANSWER 1: Yes; and the endorsement required would cite §61.31(d)(3). The instructor must make an endorsement in the applicant's logbook similar to the following: I certify that I have given Mr./Ms. (First name, MI, last name) flight training in the area of operations required to serve as pilot in command in a (category and class of aircraft) and find him/her proficient to act as pilot-in-command in solo flight per §61.31(d)(3) in that category/class of aircraft. S/S [date] J.J. Jones 987654321CFI Exp. 12-31-99 NOTE: The endorsement does not have to read exactly like this. This is merely an example. QUESTION 2: Does the applicant need to have received the required solo training and endorsements, as per §61.87, even if during the training the applicant always had the instructor on board? ANSWER 2: No to citing §61.87 (it does not apply) but yes an endorsement is required. The endorsement required would cite §61.31(d)(3) as in Answer 1 above. Section 61.87 is the solo endorsement for student pilot operations only. Section 61.87 has nothing to do with applicants seeking additional aircraft category and class ratings. This applicant holds a Commercial Pilot Certificate. QUESTION 3: If the flight to where the examiner is located is more than 25nm, does the applicant have to have received the required solo cross country training and endorsements, as per §61.93, even if during the training the applicant always had the instructor on board? ANSWER 3: No to citing §61.93 (it does not apply) but yes an endorsement is required. The endorsement required would cite §61.31(d)(3) as in Answer 1 above. Section 61.93 is the solo cross country endorsement for student pilot operations only. Section 61.93 has nothing to do with applicants seeking additional aircraft category and class ratings. This applicant holds a Commercial Pilot Certificate. QUESTION 4: Per §61.47(b), it says the examiner is not the PIC. Does the applicant have to have received the required solo training and endorsements, as per §61.87, even if during the training the applicant always had the instructor on board? ANSWER 4: Again, §61.87 does not apply. For your scenario requiring a solo flight from one to another airport the endorsement cited in my Answer 1 above would be required. If no solo flight were involved to get to the examiner, the endorsement would not really be required since §61.31(k)(2)(i) exempts applicants from the requirements of section §61.31 when taking a practical test given by an examiner. This allows the applicant to act as pilot-in-command during the practical test. QUESTION 5: Now I know you all are going to ask me one more WHAT IF question. WHAT IF, an instructor wants to authorize his applicant for an airplane multiengine land additional rating to fly solo during the person's training. In this WHAT IF scenario, what kind of an endorsement and training is needed to permit a certificated pilot who does not hold a class rating in a specific aircraft to perform a solo flight? As an example, an applicant is seeking an add-on airplane multiengine land rating (add-on aircraft class rating) at the commercial pilot level. The applicant holds a Commercial Pilot certificate with an airplane single engine land rating and an instrument-airplane rating. In this WHAT IF scenario, the instructor wants to authorize his applicant to fly solo during the training. ANSWER 5: Reference §61.63(c), in pertinent part, it states: (c) Additional class rating. Any person who applies for an additional class rating to be added on a pilot certificate: * * * * * (2) Must have an endorsement in his or her logbook or training record from an authorized instructor, and that endorsement must attest that the applicant has been found proficient in the areas of operation appropriate to the pilot certificate for the aircraft class rating sought; * * * * * Plus, of course, our reference to §61.31(d)(3) as shown above. Therefore, the training needed would be training on whatever area(s) of operation and task(s) the instructor intends to permit the applicant to perform during the solo flight. As an example, the instructor wants to authorize his applicant to perform a solo cross country flight in a Cessna 310 from the Nashville International Airport (BNA) in Nashville, TN to the General Dewitt Spain (M01) Airport in Memphis, TN and return. The training needed is the training on the Areas of Operation (e.g., III. Airport Operations; IV. Takeoffs, Landings, and Go Arounds; and VI. Navigation, etc.). As a minimum per §61.31(d)(3), the only endorsement required is the solo endorsement for answer 1: I certify that I have given Mr./Ms. (First name, MI, last name) flight training in the area of operations required to serve as pilot in command in a (category and class of aircraft) and find him/her proficient to act as pilot-in-command in solo flight per §61.31(d)(3) in that category/class of aircraft. S/S [date] J.J. Jones 987654321CFI Exp. 12-31-99 However, a prudent flight instructor MAY WANT to place operating limitations on their applicant to read as follows: I certify that I have given Mr./Ms. (First name, MI, last name) flight training in the area of operations required to serve as pilot in command in a (category and class of aircraft) and find him/her proficient to act as pilot in command in that category/class of aircraft on a solo cross country flight from BNA to M01 on June 30, 1998 provided the weather conditions are not less than a 3000' ceiling and 5 miles visibility for daytime operating conditions only. S/S [date] J.J. Jones 987654321CFI Exp. 12-31-99 NOTE: The endorsement does not have to read exactly like this. This is merely an example. The reason the instructor MAY WANT to place such operating limitations on their applicant in this WHAT IF scenario is because once that person has received a PIC endorsement, that person is legal to fly anywhere on that PIC endorsement. Does the FARs require the applicant to receive training to and from the airports before permitting the applicant to fly solo from the Nashville International Airport (BNA) in Nashville, TN to the General Dewitt Spain (M01) Airport in Memphis, TN? The answer is no, the FARs do not. However, a more appropriate answer would be to say if I were that applicant's instructor I would require it. But there are no regulatory requirements that require it. And as an FAA Aviation Safety Inspector, I certainly would advise an instructor on my views on the question of permitting a non-rated applicant to fly solo without first being given specific training to and from the airports. But I realize my answer is only one opinion and each situation is different and unique! {q&a-188} QUESTION 1: Given an applicant for Lighter-Than-Air, Balloon (LTA-B) who is rated, as a Commercial Pilot, in Airplanes, Helicopters, or Gliders. §61.129(h)(4) requires - "10 hours of flight training that includes at least 10 training flights in balloons on the areas of operation listed in §61.127(b)(8) of this part,...." Does an applicant for a Commercial LTA-B have to be tested on the applicable portions of the Private LTA-B during the Practical Test? ANSWER 1: No; Per §61.123(h), the person only needs to hold a private pilot certificate. The rule doesn't require the applicant to have it in a balloon rating. It just has to hold a private pilot certificate. But in your example, you indicate your applicant is already a commercial pilot. So all the applicant is doing is adding an additional aircraft category rating to his commercial pilot certificate. In that case, §61.63(b) applies. Additionally, per §61.127(b)(8), the training given will be at the commercial pilot level only. Therefore, the applicant will be tested at the commercial pilot level only. {q&a-179} QUESTION: We were asked the following questions by a person who has a commercial pilot certificate with ASEL, AMEL, and Instrument Rating. Reference §61.31(e)(2)(iii). (1) I am building a gyrocopter. What kind of authorization do I need to fly it? (2) How can I get a gyrocopter rating added to my pilot certificate? I talked to a Ben Owens at EAA Headquarters. He indicated that the above referenced regulation would allow the person building the gyrocopter (I believe they are called gyroplanes) to fly it with only an authorization from this office. However, he pointed out AC 20-27D, Append 9, Para 9, Sample List of Operating Limitations which require a Category/Class Rating OR a letter of authorization from this office. He felt that most FSDOs were requiring the individual to have the category/class rating before flying it. How do you folks feel??? As regards question (2), I discovered an organization called the "Popular Rotorcraft Association" which apparently has several gyroplane instructors and pilot examiners around the states that could give training and a checkride in a gyroplane. Is this the best way to go for this person building this "gyrocopter??" ANSWER: Ref. §61.31(k)(2)(iii) and §61.63(b); In accordance with §61.31(k)(2)(iii), I assume this gyrocopter is " . . operating an aircraft under the authority of an experimental or provisional aircraft type certificate . . ." If so, this person already has the authority to operate the aircraft as far as having the required pilot certificate, because you said the person holds a commercial pilot certificate. But additionally, the person must comply with the conditions and limitations that are contained on his aircraft's experimental or provisional aircraft type certificate. Now, if the person seeks to add a rotorcraft-gyroplane rating onto his pilot certificate, the rule that applies here is §61.63(b). {q&a-159} QUESTION 1: Ref. §61.63(b)(1) and §61.129(c)(2)(i); Situation is an applicant holds a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane single land rating. The applicant is now seeking to add a helicopter rating onto his commercial pilot certificate. Does the applicant have to show 35 hours of PIC time in helicopters as per §61.129(c)(2)(i)? ANSWER 1: Ref. §61.129(c)(2)(i); Yes, the applicant must show 35 hours of PIC time in helicopters to be eligible for a helicopter rating at the commercial pilot level. §61.129(c)(2)(i) states: (c) For a helicopter rating. Except as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, a person who applies for a commercial pilot certificate with a rotorcraft category and helicopter class rating must log at least 150 hours of flight time as a pilot that consists of at least: * * * * * (2) 100 hours of pilot-in-command flight time, which includes at least-- (i) 35 hours in helicopters; and * * * * * §61.63(b)(1) states: (b) Additional category rating. An applicant who holds a pilot certificate and applies to add a category rating to that pilot certificate: (1) Must have received the required training and possess the aeronautical experience prescribed by this part that applies to the pilot certificate for the aircraft category and, if applicable, class rating sought; {q&a-146} QUESTION 1: The situation is our organization has a DC-3 that is instrument flight capable. However, we have customers who want to use our airplane to get a DC-3 type rating, but they only want a VFR limited type rating. Is this possible? ANSWER 1: Reference §61.63(h). No, if the aircraft is ". . . capable of the instrument maneuvers and procedures required by the appropriate requirements contained in § 61.157 of this part . . ." then the applicant must be tested. Now, if the aircraft is NOT capable of performing the instrument maneuvers and procedures required by the appropriate requirements contained in § 61.157 of this part then the applicant may obtain a type rating limited to VFR. Per §61.63(h) it states, in pertinent part, "(h) Aircraft not capable of instrument maneuvers and procedures. An applicant for a type rating who provides an aircraft not capable of the instrument maneuvers and procedures required by the appropriate requirements contained in § 61.157 of this part for the practical test may-- (1) Obtain a type rating limited to "VFR only"; and" QUESTION 2: Similar situation but slightly different. The situation is our organization has a DC-3 that is NOT instrument capable because the airplane's slip-skid indicator and gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (artificial horizon) is inoperative. But the aircraft's type certificate does permit instrument flight. May the airplane be used to get a DC-3 type rating limited to VFR? ANSWER 2: Reference §61.63(h). Yes; In this situation, the applicant could take the practical test and receive a DC-3 type rating with a VFR limitation. {q&a-105} QUESTION: The situation is an applicant holds a Commercial Pilot Certificate with an airplane single engine rating. The applicant is now applying for a rotorcraft-helicopter rating, but only at the private pilot certificate level. Does the applicant have to take the Private Pilot-Rotorcraft Helicopter knowledge test since he is only going for a helicopter rating at the private pilot certificate level? ANSWER: No; But we agree we should have worded §61.63(b)(5) better. We should have put the words ". . .or lower" at the end of §61.63(b)(5). Per §61.63(b)(5), it states: "Need not take an additional knowledge test, provided the applicant holds an airplane, rotorcraft, powered-lift, or airship rating at that pilot certificate level." {q&a-99} QUESTION 10: §61.63 does not require an applicant for an additional rating to be able to "read, speak, write, and understand the English language." Which means a person who cannot read, speak, write, and understand the English language could obtain additional ratings on their existing certificate. ANSWER 10: We agree that we should have put that requirement in the §61.63. However, common sense would say that a person who cannot continue to read, speak, write, and understand the English language does not meet the original certification requirements for their certificate and thus would no longer qualify for the pilot certificate. {q&a-30} QUESTION: Does an applicant for an added class rating have to meet the cross-country requirements etc., in 61.129(b)? ANSWER: Review §61.63(c)(4) which states: (4) Need not meet the specified training time requirements prescribed by this part that apply to the pilot certificate for the aircraft class rating sought unless the person holds a lighter-than-air category rating with a balloon class rating and is seeking an airship class rating; and For example, let's take a holder of a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane single engine class rating and that applicant seeks to add an airplane multiengine class rating. Therefore, "simply put" the student is given training on the areas of operation of §61.127(b)(2) and given an endorsement and then goes before an examiner. So, "simply put" and as the rule states, the applicant "Need not meet the specified training time requirements prescribed by this part that apply to the pilot certificate for the aircraft class rating sought . . " So, for example the applicant does not even have to look at §61.129 nor does the examiner have to look at §61.129 nor does the FSDO even have to look at §61.129 nor does AFS-700 have to look at §61.129. {q&a-49} QUESTION 2: RE: 61.63(c)(4) -- Does "need not meet the specified training time requirements" mean the only that portion of the experience requirements involving dual instruction? Must an applicant for an additional class rating also meet the provisions of 61.109(a)(5) or (b)(5), or 61.129(a)(4) or (b)(4), regardless? For instance, if I hold a COM'L AMEL only (many military pilots do) and apply for a COM'L ASEL, must I comply with the single engine solo provisions of 61.129(a)(4)? Must I take a solo 300 NM X/C in a single? ANSWER 2: [§61.63(c)(4) says "Need not meet the specified training time requirements prescribed by this part that apply to the pilot certificate for the aircraft class rating sought; and" Otherwise, the instructor trains the applicant to pass the practical test. So no the applicant does not have meet the provisions of §§61.109(a)(5), or (b)(5), or 61.129(a)(4) or (b)(4), etc., etc., etc {q&a-8} QUESTION: They operate BV-107s and BV-234s in external load operations only. Jim is also a pilot examiner. He was questioning 61.63(d)(1) that requires an applicant hold or concurrently obtain an instrument rating that is appropriate to the aircraft category, class or type rating sought; and (5) that a 'VFR only' restriction be applied only to those aircraft incapable of IFR flight, due to their type certificate restrictions. Their applicants already hold commercial-rotorcraft and instrument-rotorcraft ratings. He told me that his company could not afford to equip these helicopters for IFR flight @ $200K each, nor to train their pilots for IFR flight @ $100K each. I told him that it looked like that the type rating applied to the aircraft itself, not to the specific operation it was being used in. He asked why 61.64 was deleted, which gave them more leeway. Looked in the preamble, but couldn't find anything on this. He said they had pilots currently in training, and needed to know answers. I told him that a quick answer was probably not going to be forthcoming and gave him some options, namely; to contact HAI to see if this subject has surfaced there; applying for an exemption to the reg. on their own or through HAI; petitioning for a reg. change. I promised him I would send you a note with his questions and concerns. He may contact you, and I wouldn't be surprised if he went higher. I don't know if there are other BV-107s/BV-234s in the country that are equipped for IFR flight, and if so, if the owners/operators would allow training in them for Columbia. I'm sure that Columbia would not accept the idea of outside training, due to the cost involved and the way they operate their helicopters, strictly for external-load operations. Therefore, Columbia is very task-specific oriented and doesn't seem to understand the larger scope of regulatory language. I'd appreciate any help you can give me on this. Of course, they're looking for relief, and, at first glance, it looks like to me that the only way they'll be able to do this would be by the exemption process. One more thing, I personally have a question regarding the language in 61.63(d)(1). What was meant by 'an instrument rating that is appropriate to the aircraft category, class, or type rating sought?' Because type rating checks are now given to ATP practical test standards? I guess what's confusing me is that, according to 61.65, there is no breakdown in instrument ratings beyond categories. ANSWER: In answer to your question, Columbia Helicopter's BV-107 and BV-234 are VFR only aircraft. They only need to accomplish a VFR only type rating practical test. The new §61.63(d)(5) would apply in this situation. And if the applicant is seeking a BV-107 or BV-234 type rating at the ATP level then §61.157(b)(3) would apply. They only need to accomplish a VFR only type rating practical test in either case. A review of the old §61.64 [specifically old §61.64(d)(2)], we don't see any difference on what it provided vs. what the new §61.63(d) provides. Do you? Mary, in answer to your questioning the wording of the new §61.63(d)(1), whenever you see the word "appropriate" it is there for a purpose. And in your own statement you stated "there is no breakdown in instrument ratings beyond categories." We agree and the rule agrees, that is why we inserted the word "appropriate" in §61.63(d)(1). So, sometimes an instrument rating that is "appropriate" to the aircraft category is appropriate and sometimes it is not. An sometimes an instrument rating that is "appropriate" to the aircraft class is NOT appropriate and sometimes it is (i.e., an instrument-helicopter rating is an instrument rating associated to the aircraft class). {q&a-20} QUESTION 3: Given an applicant that holds a Commercial - rotorcraft, helicopter with Private - Airplane, SEL. The applicant wishes to obtain Commercial in the ASEL. Dose 61.63(b) apply? Then for 61.63(b)(1) we go to 61.129(a) for such things as: 50 hours in airplanes, 10 hours x/c in airplanes, 5 hours instrument training in airplanes, etc? ANSWER 3: YES, 61.63(b) does apply, and YES the category requirements of 61.129 apply. {q&a-60} QUESTION 11: Conceding the lack of any statement of requirements in 61.63 regarding RSR&U English requirements, suppose a foreign airman who has acquired a standard US certificate (per part 61) with no English restriction comes back several years later from his home country to get an additional class added to his standard certificate, but has obviously lost his English capability. Should the examiner conduct the practical test an issue the additional class as though there was no problem, or what?? ANSWER 11: NO. The pilot is not eligible for issuance of a certificate if the English requirements can not be met. {q&a-60} 61.65 Instrument rating requirements QUESTION 1: Situation is, I have an applicant who holds a Private Pilot Certificate with an Airplane Single Engine Land and Airplane Multiengine Land ratings. The applicant is seeking an Instrument Airplane rating and the airplane being utilized for the practical test is a Cessna 310 multiengine airplane. If the applicant passes the Instrument Airplane practical test in a multiengine airplane, does the Instrument privileges convey over to the Airplane - Single Engine Land rating? ANSWER 1: Ref. FAA Order 8710.3C, page 11-2, paragraph 13 and § 61.65(a)(8)(i); Yes, the instrument privileges convey over to the Airplane - Single Engine Land rating. QUESTION 2: Situation is, I have an applicant who holds a Private Pilot Certificate with an Airplane Single Engine Land and Airplane Multiengine Land ratings. The applicant is seeking an Instrument Airplane rating and the airplane being utilized for the practical test is a Cessna 172 single engine airplane. If the applicant passes the Instrument Airplane practical test in a single engine airplane, does the Instrument privileges convey over to the Airplane - Multiengine Land rating? ANSWER 2: Ref. Instrument Rating PTS, page 6; FAA Order 8710.3C, page 11-2, paragraph 13; and § 61.65(a)(8)(i) - No, the instrument privileges do not convey over to the Airplane - Multiengine Land rating. The Airplane - Multiengine Land rating will have the "VFR Only" limitation attached to it. QUESTION 3: Situation is I have an applicant who holds a Commercial Pilot Certificate with an Airplane Single Engine Land rating and Private Pilot Privileges Airplane Multiengine Land rating with the limitation "The carriage of passengers for hire in airplanes on cross-country flights in excess of 50 nautical miles or at night is prohibited." The applicant is seeking an Instrument Airplane rating and the airplane being utilized for the practical test is a Cessna 172 single engine airplane. If the applicant passes the Instrument Airplane practical test in a single engine airplane, does the Instrument privileges convey over to the Airplane - Multiengine Land rating? ANSWER 3: Ref. Instrument Rating PTS, page 6; FAA Order 8710.3C, page 11-2, paragraph 13; and § 61.65(a)(8)(i) - No, the instrument privileges do not convey over to the Airplane - Multiengine Land rating. The Private Pilot Privileges Airplane - Multiengine Land rating will have the "VFR Only" limitation attached to it. {q&a-373} QUESTION 6: An applicant holds a Commercial certificate (ASEL) and is now working towards an Instrument-Airplane rating which requires at least 40 hours of actual or simulated instrument time as required by 61.65(d)(2). QUESTION 6a: If the applicant has already obtained some actual or simulated instrument time on the areas of operation of covered in §61.65 but did so in the course of obtaining his Private/Commercial certificate, do those hours count in meeting the requirements of §61.65(d)(2)? ANSWER 6a: Ref. §61.65(d)(2); I can't give you a yes or no straight answer to your question. It depends. The flight instructor is going to have to review the applicant's training records and see whether the training received is equivalent and creditable to the training required by §61.65(c). But again, it has to have been accomplished after the applicant received his or her Private Pilot Certificate. Because the training required for the Private Pilot applicant by §61.109(a)(3) is not "instrument training." QUESTION 6b: Can some of those 40 hours be in simulated or actual instrument conditions with a non-CFI safety pilot qualified under §91.109? ANSWER 6b: Ref. §61.65(d)(2); Yes, some of the 40 hours of aeronautical experience required by §61.65(d)(2) can be performed with safety pilot on board. Per §61.65(d)(2)(i), only 15 hours of the 40 hours of §61.65(d)(2) has to be given by a CFII. However, if any of the training is performed in a flight simulator or flight training device, that training must be given by a CFII [i.e., §61.65(e)] or given by an IGI or AGI [i.e., §61.215(b) or (c)]. {q&a-249} QUESTION: §61.65(a)(7); I have a situation where an applicant who holds a Commercial Pilot Certificate with an Airplane Single Engine Land rating, a Rotorcraft-Helicopter rating, and an Instrument-Airplane rating. The applicant is seeking an Instrument-Helicopter rating. Does this applicant have to take the Instrument-Helicopter knowledge test? ANSWER: No, this applicant is not required to take the Instrument-Helicopter knowledge test. As per §61.65(a)(7), it states in pertinent part, ". . . however, an applicant is not required to take another knowledge test when that person already holds an instrument rating;" Now I know FAA Orders 8700.1 and 8710.3C have not been updated with the new Part 61. But these revisions are in progress. So as always, if there is a conflict between a Federal Regulation and a procedure in an FAA Order, the Federal Regulation ALWAYS wins out. {q&a-227} QUESTION 1: Ref. §61.65(a)(8)(i); The situation is we have an applicant for an Instrument Rating-Airplane in a Cessna 337 who holds a Commercial Pilot Certificate with an airplane single engine and a multiengine land ratings. The person's pilot certificate reads as follows: COMMERCIAL PILOT AIRPLANE SINGLE & MULTIENGINE LAND The carriage of passengers for hire in airplanes on cross country flights in excess of 50 nautical miles or at night is prohibited. The applicant previously qualified for an Airplane-Multiengine Rating in a Cessna 310. The applicant is now applying for an Instrument Rating-Airplane and intends to use a Cessna 337. Is this permissible without having the "Limited to Center Thrust" statement on the applicant's pilot certificate? ANSWER 1: It is permissible for the Cessna 337 to be utilized for the Instrument Rating-Airplane practical test and no "Limited to Center Thrust" statement will need to be placed on the applicant's pilot certificate. The rationale for not requiring the "Limited to Center Thrust" statement is because the applicant has already demonstrated the Area of Operation VIII Emergency Operations [Commercial Pilot Practical Test Standards - FAA-S-8081-12A] during the practical for the Airplane Multiengine Rating. And this practical test is for an Instrument-Airplane Rating and no place in the Instrument Rating Practical Test Standards does it require the person to demonstrate loss of directional control (Vmc) as is the case in the Commercial Pilot Practical Test Standards - FAA-S-8081-12A. Therefore, since the applicant already demonstrated the capability to pilot a conventional multiengine airplane (Cessna 310) performing the tasks in the Area of Operation VIII Emergency Operations [Commercial Pilot Practical Test Standards - FAA-S-8081-12A], further testing of these tasks are not necessary. Additional rationalization: Prior to the applicant accomplishing the Instrument-Airplane practical test in the Cessna 337, that applicant satisfactorily completed the Commercial Pilot-AMEL practical test in a Cessna 310. I REPEAT, THAT APPLICANT COMPLETED THE COMMERCIAL PILOT-AMEL PRACTICAL TEST IN A CESSNA 310. During that practical test, the applicant demonstrated satisfactory skills in Area of Operation VIII, Emergency Operations: Task B - Maneuvering with one engine inoperative Task C - Loss of Directional Control Demonstration Task D - Engine Failure During Takeoff before Vmc (Simulated) Task E - Engine Failure After Lift-Off (Simulated) Task F - Approach and Landing with an Inoperative Engine (Simulated) Now during the Instrument-Airplane rating practical test IN THE CESSNA 337, the applicant will be required to perform Area of Operation VII Emergency Operations: Task B - Engine Failure During Straight-and-Level Fight and Turns (Multiengine) Can this task be performed in a Cessna 337 and meet all the objectives of Task B. The answer is YES IT CAN. And no place does it require the applicant to demonstrate Vmc on this task. Task C - Instrument Approach-One Engine Inoperative (Multiengine) Can this task be performed in a Cessna 337 and meet all the objectives of Task C. The answer is YES IT CAN. And no place does it require the applicant to demonstrate Vmc on this task. Now for an explanation to the statement in the Instrument Airplane PTS on page viii (i.e., "To obtain an instrument rating with multiengine privileges, an applicant must demonstrate competency in a multiengine airplane not limited to center thrust . . . The multiengine airplane that is used to obtain multiengine privileges must have a Vmc speed established by the manufacturer and produce an asymmetrical thrust configuration with the loss of one or more engines"). This applicant has demonstrated competency in a multiengine airplane that has a ". . . Vmc speed established by the manufacturer and produce an asymmetrical thrust configuration with the loss of one or more engines." This applicant has previously demonstrated competency in a CESSNA 310 that has a ". . . Vmc speed established by the manufacturer . . ." during the Commercial Pilot-AMEL practical test. Furthermore, this statement in the Instrument Airplane PTS on page viii is for an applicant who only holds an Airplane Multiengine Land rating that is limited to center thrust. This is not the case here. This applicant holds the Airplane Multiengine Land without that limited to center thrust limitation. Therefore, upon completion of the practical test for the Instrument-Airplane Rating in the Cessna 337, the applicant's pilot certificate would read as follows: COMMERCIAL PILOT AIRPLANE SINGLE & MULTIENGINE LAND INSTRUMENT - AIRPLANE QUESTION 2: Ref. §61.65(a)(8)(i); The situation is we have an applicant for an Instrument Rating-Airplane in a Cessna 337 who holds a Private Pilot Certificate with an Airplane Single Engine and a Multiengine Land ratings. The person's pilot certificate reads as follows: PRIVATE PILOT AIRPLANE SINGLE & MULTIENGINE LAND The applicant previously qualified for an Airplane-Multiengine Rating in a Cessna 310. The applicant is now applying for an Instrument Rating-Airplane and intends to use a Cessna 337. Is this permissible without having the "Limited to Center Thrust" statement on the applicant's pilot certificate? ANSWER 2: Yes, it is permissible for the Cessna 337 to be utilized for the Instrument Rating-Airplane practical test and no "Limited to Center Thrust" statement will need to be placed on the applicant's pilot certificate. The rationale for not requiring the "Limited to Center Thrust" statement is because the applicant has already demonstrated the Area of Operation VIII Emergency Operations [Commercial Pilot Practical Test Standards - FAA-S-8081-12A] during the practical for the Airplane Multiengine Rating. And this practical test is for an Instrument-Airplane Rating and no place in the Instrument Rating Practical Test Standards (FAA-S-8081-4B) does it require the person to demonstrate loss of directional control (Vmc) as is the case in the Commercial Pilot Practical Test Standards - FAA-S-8081-12A. Therefore, since the applicant already demonstrated the capability to pilot a conventional multiengine airplane (Cessna 310) performing the tasks in the Area of Operation VIII Emergency Operations [Commercial Pilot Practical Test Standards - FAA-S-8081-12A], further testing of these tasks are not necessary. During the Instrument-Airplane rating practical test IN THE CESSNA 337, the applicant will be required to perform Area of Operation VII Emergency Operations: Task B - Engine Failure During Straight-and-Level Fight and Turns (Multiengine) This task can be performed in a Cessna 337, and since this task does not require the applicant to demonstrate Vmc, all the objectives of Task B can be met. Task C - Instrument Approach-One Engine Inoperative (Multiengine) Again, this task can be performed in a Cessna 337 and meet all the objectives of Task C since this task does not require the applicant to demonstrate Vmc. Upon completion of the practical test for the Instrument-Airplane Rating, the applicant's pilot certificate would read as follows: COMMERCIAL PILOT AIRPLANE SINGLE & MULTIENGINE LAND INSTRUMENT - AIRPLANE There is the statement in the Instrument Airplane PTS on page viii that "To obtain an instrument rating with multiengine privileges, an applicant must demonstrate competency in a multiengine airplane not limited to center thrust . . . The multiengine airplane that is used to obtain multiengine privileges must have a Vmc speed established by the manufacturer and produce an asymmetrical thrust configuration with the loss of one or more engines." This statement is for an applicant who only holds an airplane multiengine land rating that is limited to center thrust. This is not the case here. This applicant holds the Airplane Multiengine Land rating without that limited to center thrust limitation. {q&a-215} QUESTION: Under ideal minimal time conditions, is it true that of the 40 hours required in preparation for an instrument rating, only 15 hours must be with the CFII and the remaining 25 hours could be with a buddy non instructor acting as safety pilot. One pilot examiner believes that all 40 hours must be with a CFII. ANSWER: Ref. §61.65(d)(2); Per §61.65(d)(2) which states, in pertinent part, An applicant ". . . must have logged . . . A total of 40 hours of actual or simulated instrument time on the areas of operation of this section, to include . . . At least 15 hours of instrument flight training from an authorized instructor in the aircraft category for which the instrument rating is sought . . . ." Therefore, you are correct in your understanding that only the ". . . 15 hours of instrument flight training . . . ." of §61.65(d)(2)(i) must be with an authorized instructor. The other 25 hours can be with a safety pilot. However, if any of the ". . . 40 hours of actual or simulated instrument time on the areas of operation of this section . . ." of §61.65(d)(2) are performed in a flight simulator or flight training device then that time must also be received from authorized instructor (i.e., CFII or an IGI). {q&a-197} QUESTION: Ref. the English language eligibility requirements for pilot certificates and rating [i.e., §§61.65(a)(2), 61.83(c), 61.96(b)(2), 61.103(c), 61.123(b), 61.153(b), 61.183(b), and 61.213(a)(2)] requires an applicant to ". . . Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language. . . ." To what standards must applicants ". . . Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language. . .?" To college level standards? Must the applicant be able to fully understand the English language even to the level of conversation English? As an example, does the applicant need to be able to understand conversation English to include even "slang terms" or must the applicant only be required to ". . . Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language. . ." as the kind of English language phraseology that relate to ATC instructions or an ATC clearance? ANSWER: The intent of the English language eligibility rules that require an applicant to ". . . Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language. . . ." was only intended to be the kind of English language that relate to ATC instructions, or an ATC clearance, etc. The soon to be published revision to FAA Order No. 8700.1 where this issue is discussed, we stated the following: "D. English Language Requirement. (1) Several questions have been raised concerning the standards and the testing to determine whether an applicant can read, speak, write, and understand the English language. While there are no practical test standards established to ascertain the applicant's English language ability, the following examples may be used as guidelines in this evaluation: (a) An examiner or inspector may ask the applicant to listen to a tape recording of an ATC clearance or instructions, then ask the applicant to speak and explain the clearance or instructions back to the examiner in the English language. (b) An applicant may be asked to write down in English the meaning of an ATC clearance, instructions, or a weather report, then asked to speak and explain the clearance, instructions, or weather report back to the examiner in the English language. (c) The intent is not to require the applicant to read, speak, write, and understand the English language at college level standards. A common sense approach should be used in evaluating an applicant for this requirement." {q&a-198} THIS IS A REPLACEMENT OF THE PREVIOUS Q&A #118 QUESTION: Reference §61.65(d)(2)(i); Does all 15 hours have to be performed in the actual aircraft category or can some of that 15 hours be performed in a flight simulator or flight training device? §61.65(d)(2)(i) states: (d) Aeronautical experience. A person who applies for an instrument rating must have logged the following: * * * * * (2) A total of 40 hours of actual or simulated instrument time on the areas of operation of this section, to include-- (i) At least 15 hours of instrument flight training from an authorized instructor in the aircraft category for which the instrument rating is sought; ANSWER: Ref. §61.65(e), it states: Use of flight simulators or flight training devices. If the instrument training was provided by an authorized instructor in a flight simulator or flight training device-- (1) A maximum of 30 hours may be performed in that flight simulator or flight training device if the training was accomplished in accordance with part 142 of this chapter; or (2) A maximum of 20 hours may be performed in that flight simulator or flight training device if the training was not accomplished in accordance with part 142 of this chapter. Therefore, any or all of the 15 hours of the instrument training may be performed in a flight simulator or flight training device as is addressed in §61.65(e) and provided the flight simulator/flight training device has been approved for that task. However, reference §61.65 (a)(8)(ii), even if the flight simulator or flight training device is approved for the practical test, the instrument approach procedures are limited to one precision and one nonprecision approach. At least one nonprecision approach must be made in the actual aircraft category for which the instrument rating is sought. So, is it possible to expect an applicant to be able to pass certain tasks in the actual aircraft after having never been given 1 minute of training in the actual aircraft? Possible, but NOT PROBABLE! But I do admit §61.65(e)(1) and (2) provides for 30 hours of instrument training and 20 hours of instrument training, respectively, to be performed in a flight simulator or flight training device. In further answer to this question, the amount of instrument training that can be performed in a flight simulator or flight training device is predicated FIRST on the tasks the flight simulator/flight training device have been approved for and then SECOND the instructor's determination, or if an approved course of training is involved then the amount and kinds of instrument training that has been approved in that flight simulator/flight training device. {q&a-118} QUESTION: Reference: FAR 61.65 (d), the Practical Test Standards (FAA-S-8081-4B) and the October AFS-600 DESIGNEE UPDATE considered. Can an applicant going for an initial instrument rating use a VOR as one of the non-precision approaches and then use a VOR/DME or TACAN WITH AN ARC as the second non-precision approach. It seems that one could do that based on the following reasoning: We require an ILS. "That is a given." However, we then say that an applicant can use a localizer as one of the non-precision approaches. ANSWER: Ref. §61.65(a)(8); An applicant for an instrument rating (i.e., Instrument-Airplane rating for example), the Instrument Rating PTS, FAA-S-8081-4B, Area of Operation VI "Instrument Approach Procedures" requires an applicant to be tested on 3 different kinds of approaches consisting of one precision approach and two non-precision approaches. Therefore, the precision approach has to be an ILS navigation system. We don't want an examiner to use a Radar PAR approach at an Air Force base. The two non-precision approaches you pick from the following kinds of instrument approaches using DIFFERENT KINDS of navigation systems: 1. NDB 2. LDA 3. VOR 4. GPS 5. SDF 6. LOC As an example, it means the examiner picks an NBB approach and LDA approach. Or, the examiner can pick a GPS approach and a VOR approach. Or, the examiner can pick a SDF approach and a LOC approach. Or, the examiner can pick a VOR approach and a LOC approach. ETC. {q&a-160} QUESTION 1: Re: 61.65(d)(2)(i) can a CFI-Helicopter (not instrument rated) give any of the fifteen hours required by this section? ANSWER 1: Ref. §61.195(c); NO. It has to be given by a flight instructor who holds flight instructor helicopter and instrument-helicopter on their flight instructor certificate. QUESTION 2: Re: 61.65(d)(2)(iv) if I read this section correctly, the flight must be conducted under IFR conditions etc. filed IFR flight plan, not necessary in IFR conditions. ANSWER 2: Ref. §61.65(d)(2)(iv); RIGHT. It says ". . . that is performed under IFR . . ." IFR means instrument flight rules. IFR does not mean instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). QUESTION 3: Re: 61.65(d)(2)(iv)(A) Regarding the 100 nautical mile requirement, can that be a flight out on the airway 50 mile then back? ANSWER 3: Ref. §61.65(d)(2)(iv)(A) and §61.1(b)(3)(iii); Yes, provided, as in accordance with §61.1(b)(3)(iii), the flight. "That includes a point of landing that was at least a straight line distance of more than 25 nautical miles from the original point of departure." {q&a-164} QUESTION 1: A person is undergoing training for an instrument-helicopter rating. The helicopter the student will be receiving training in is a VFR certificated Robinson R-22 (e.g., non-IFR certificated). 1-a. Does the helicopter have to be IFR certified in accordance with Appendix B of Part 27? ANSWER 1-a: No; Section 61.65 does not require the helicopter to be IFR certificated. However, a VFR certificated helicopter shall not operate under IFR in flight conditions that are less than VMC without the helicopter meeting the certification requirements of Appendix B of Part 27 and §91.205(d). You can not operate a VFR certificated Robinson R-22 (e.g., non-IFR certificated) in flight conditions that are less than VMC nor may you accept an IFR clearance into flight conditions that are less than VMC. Otherwise, the aircraft always has to be in a position to be in VMC conditions and remain in VMC conditions. Additionally, FAA Order 8700.1 (page 8-2, para 17) states: "17. USE OF AIRCRAFT NOT APPROVED FOR IFR OPERATIONS UNDER ITS TYPE CERTIFICATE FOR INSTRUMENT TRAINING AND/OR AIRMAN CERTIFICATION TESTING. The following paragraphs are intended to clarify the use of an aircraft not approved for IFR operations under its type certificate for instrument flight training and/or airman certification testing. A. IFR Training in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC). Instrument flight training may be conducted during VMC in any aircraft that meets the equipment requirements of §§91.109, 91.205, and, for an airplane operated in controlled airspace under the IFR system, §§91.411 and 91.413. An aircraft may be operated on an IFR flight plan under IFR in VMC, provided the pilot in command (PIC) is properly certificated to operate the aircraft under IFR. However, if the aircraft is not approved for IFR operations under its type certificate, or if the appropriate instruments and equipment are not installed or are not operative, operations in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) are prohibited. The PIC of such an aircraft must cancel the IFR flight plan in use and avoid flight into IMC. B. Type Certificate Data. Appropriate type certificate data will indicate whether the aircraft meets the requirements for IFR operations. (1) Section 91.9(a) prohibits aircraft operations without compliance with the operating limitations for that aircraft prescribed by the certificating authority. (2) Section 91.9(b) prohibits operation of a U.S. registered aircraft requiring an airplane an airplane or rotorcraft flight manual unless it has on board a current and approved airplane or rotorcraft flight manual or approved manual material, markings, and placards containing each operating limitation prescribed for that aircraft." QUESTION 1-b: Does this Robinson R-22 helicopter's flight and navigation instruments have to be IFR certified in accordance with Appendix B of Part 27? ANSWER 1-b: No; Section 61.65 does not require the helicopter's flight and navigation instruments to be IFR certificated. However, VFR certificated helicopters shall not operate under IFR in flight conditions that are less than VMC without meeting the certification requirements of Appendix B of Part 27 and §91.205(d). QUESTION 1-c: Can the aeronautical experience required by §61.65(d) be performed in this VFR certificated Robinson R-22 (e.g., non-IFR certificated)? ANSWER 1-c: Yes; Per §61.65(d). QUESTION 1-d: Can the training required by Appendix C of Part 141be performed in a VFR certificated Robinson R-22 (e.g., non-IFR certificated)? ANSWER 1-d: Yes; §141.39(e) and additionally §91.205(d) applies. Section 141.39(e) does not prevent the use of a VFR certificated Robinson R-22 from being used for performing the training requirements of Appendix C of Part 141. QUESTION 1-e: Can the practical test for the Instrument-Helicopter rating be performed in a VFR certificated Robinson R-22 (e.g., non-IFR certificated)? ANSWER 1-e: Yes; Section 61.45(b) and (d) and additionally §91.205(d) applies. Section 61.45(b) and (d) does not prevent the use of a VFR certificated Robinson R-22 for being used for performing the practical test for an Instrument-Helicopter rating. QUESTION 1-f: Can a hand-held GPS receiver or portable VOR receiver be used during the instrument training or for the practical test for the Instrument-Helicopter rating? Can a portable VOR be Velcroed to the instrument panel? ANSWER 1-f: Section 61.45(b) and (d) apply and additionally §91.205(d) applies. However, since you have to file an IFR flight plan to meet the instrument aeronautical experience requirements [e.g., §§61.65(d)(2)(iv)] §§91.171, 91.411, and 91.413 will also apply. Otherwise, for the aircraft to be operated under IFR the aircraft's -- - VOR has to have been inspected or operationally checked; [e.g. §91.171] - Static pressure system, each altimeter instrument, and each automatic pressure altitude reporting system has to have been tested and inspected; [e.g. §91.411] and - ATC transponder has to have been tested and inspected. [e.g. §91.413] Additionally, FAA Order 8700.1 [page 222-7, paragraph 13.D. states, in pertinent part: ". . . Portable GPS units which are attached by Velcro tape or hard yoke mount that require an antenna (internally or externally mounted) are considered to be portable electronic devices and are subject to the provisions of §91.21. All portable GPS equipment attached to the aircraft by a mounting device must be installed in an approved manner and in accordance with 14 CFR Part 43. . ." Section 61.45(b) and (d) does not prevent the use of a hand-held GPS receiver for being used during the practical test for an Instrument-Helicopter rating. But you cannot operate the aircraft in flight conditions that are less than VMC nor may you accept an IFR clearance into flight conditions that are less than VMC. Otherwise, the aircraft always has to be in a position to be in VMC conditions and remain in VMC conditions. Now from a practical use of these hand-held GPS receivers, it is not possible to use them for executing GPS approaches. Because the hand-held GPS receivers on the market today, none are pre-programmed with GPS approaches. So a hand-held GPS receiver cannot be used for executing a GPS approach [§91.175(a)]. Now I realize the GPS radio manufacturing industry are constantly making improvements to these hand-held GPS receivers, and maybe someday hand-held GPS receivers will contain GPS approaches. But to date, there are no hand-held GPS receivers that are pre-programmed with GPS approaches that meet TSO C-129 (or its equivalent installation requirements) equipment approval for IFR use. So the answer is no, you cannot use a hand-held GPS receiver to execute a GPS approach under IFR in flight conditions that are less than VMC. And the answer is no, you cannot use a portable VOR receiver to execute a non-precision approach under IFR in flight conditions that are less than VMC. But the answer is yes, a hand-held GPS receiver can be used for navigation under IFR in VMC flight conditions if the equipment is capable of allowing the pilot to comply with the ATC clearance. And the answer is yes, a portable VOR receiver can be used for executing a non-precision approach under IFR in VMC flight conditions. And the answer is also yes, a portable VOR can be Velcroed to the instrument panel. QUESTION 1-g: What are the minimum flight instruments required to be operational and onboard the helicopter to receive instrument training in this non-IFR certificated Robinson R-22? ANSWER 1-g: Per §91.205(d); In addition, to the instruments and equipment of §91.205(b), the instruments and equipment listed in §91.205(d)(2) through (9), as appropriate. QUESTION 2: Ref. §61.129(c)(3)(i); A person is undergoing training for a helicopter additional rating at the Commercial Pilot Certificate level. The helicopter the person will be receiving training in is a non-IFR certificated Robinson R-22. a. What are the minimum flight instruments and equipment requirements for this Robinson R-22 that are used for the instrument training for the add on helicopter rating at the commercial pilot certificate that is addressed in §61.129(c)(3)(i)? ANSWER 2-a: Ref. §91.205(b); For daytime instrument training, the aircraft's minimum flight instruments and equipment requirements may be as a simple as the instruments requirements of §91.205(b) with a portable communication receiver, and a portable VOR navigation receiver or some other kind of navigation receiver in the aircraft. As an example, if the training was given in a helicopter, the instrument equipment requirements may be as a minimum: an airspeed indicator, altimeter, magnetic compass, a portable communication receiver, and a portable navigation receiver. QUESTION 2-b: If the training is being given in a helicopter, does the training have to be given by a flight instructor who holds a instrument helicopter rating on their flight instructor certificate? ANSWER 2-b: Ref. §61.195(c); Yes, it has to be given by a flight instructor who holds a instrument helicopter rating on their flight instructor certificate. QUESTION 2-c: If the instrument training required by §61.129(c)(3)(i) is given by a flight instructor who holds a instrument helicopter rating on their flight instructor certificate, can that time also be used to count toward the aeronautical experience of §61.65(d)? ANSWER 2-c: Ref. §§61.129(c)(3)(i) and 61.65(d); Yes, the time also be used to count toward the aeronautical experience of §61.65(d). And in conclusion if you remember nothing from what you have just read in this Q&A answer, ALWAYS REMEMBER THIS EARLIER STATEMENT: "However, a VFR certificated helicopter shall not operate under IFR in flight conditions that are less than VMC without the helicopter meeting the certification requirements of Appendix B of Part 27 and §91.205(d)." These answers have been reviewed and approved by William H. Wallace, AFS-804, National Resource Specialist, Rotorcraft Operations); Robert M. Barton, Manager-AFS-820, Operation Branch; and James Riddle, Manager-AFS-840, Certification Branch from the General Aviation and Commercial Division, Washington, DC; Bob Kopecky, AFS-600; and Jim Carlson, Dallas FSDO No. 5. {q&a-170} QUESTION 1: Does the long instrument cross country still require the three required approaches to be conducted at three different airports? Or, can they all be done at one airport as long as the specified distance is covered and three different kinds of approaches are made with the use of navigation systems? ANSWER 1: Reference §61.65(d)(2)(iii)(B) and (C), it states: (iii) For an instrument--airplane rating, instrument training on cross-country flight procedures specific to airplanes that includes at least one cross-country flight in an airplane that is performed under IFR, and consists of-- (A) A distance of at least 250 nautical miles along airways or ATC-directed routing; (B) An instrument approach at each airport; and (C) Three different kinds of approaches with the use of navigation systems; NO, the approaches do not have to be done at THREE different airports. "However, AT LEAST TWO airports must be involved, one of which is a point of landing more than 50 NM from the original point of departure (see q&a-47 under answers for 61.65)." ) Just like it says ". . . A distance of at least 250 nautical miles along airways or ATC-directed routing. . ." You could do one approach and a landing at an airport 125 NM away from the original point of departure and on the return do 2 approaches at the departure airport. Just make sure you do ". . . Three different kinds of approaches with the use of navigation systems. . ." and an instrument approach at EACH airport. {q&a-112} QUESTION: Reference §61.65(d)(2)(i): Does all 15 hours have to be performed in the actual aircraft category or can some of that 15 hours be performed in a flight simulator or flight training device? ANSWER: All of the 15 hours must be accomplished in the actual aircraft category. The portion that may be performed in a flight simulator or flight training device is addressed in §61.65(e). But §61.65(e) only permits use of a flight simulator or flight training device for the ". . . 40 hours . . ." stated in §61.65(d)(2). {q&a-118} QUESTION 2: Second question is: can you provide the definitive ruling on how many and which type of approaches can be used during an Instrument Rating Practical Test. What is the source? ANSWER 2: Reference §61.65(a)(8). §61.65(a)(8) refers to the practical test and then you go to the Instrument Rating PTS and it requires two non-precision approaches and one precision approach. It is my understanding that the Instrument Rating PTS is undergoing revision to clarify this issue. (NOTE: An expanded discussion of what will appear in the PTS may be found on the first page of the DESIGNEE UPDATE, Vol. 9, No.4, dated October 1997.) {q&a-97} QUESTION 1: Do landings have to be made at each airport on the cross country flight required by §61.65(d)(2)(iii) for the instrument rating-airplane aeronautical experience? ANSWER 1: Not at all of the airports, but at least one landing must be made at one of the airports, as required by §61.1(b)(3)(ii) [and specifically subparagraph (B)] which states (ii) For the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements (except with a rotorcraft rating) for a private pilot certificate, commercial pilot certificate, or an instrument rating, or for the purpose of exercising recreational pilot privileges (except in a rotorcraft) under §61.101(c), time acquired during a flight- (A) Conducted in an appropriate aircraft; (B) That includes a point of landing that was at least a straight-line distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the original point of departure; (C) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems to navigate to the landing point. §61.65(d)(2)(iii) states: (iii) For an instrument - airplane rating, instrument training on cross-country flight procedures specific to airplanes that includes at least one cross-country flight in an airplane that is performed under IFR, and consists of - (A) A distance of at least 250 nautical miles along airways or ATC-directed routing; (B) An instrument approach at each airport; and (C) Three different kinds of approaches with the use of navigation systems; So in answer to your specific question, as long as the total distance of your suggested cross country was "A distance of at least 250 nautical miles along airways or ATC-directed routing;" as provided for in §61.65(d)(2)(iii)(A), then yes your scenario is correct and it would meet the requirements of the rule. {q&a-47} QUESTION 6: In the existing §61.71(a), it states: ". . . However, if he applies for a flight test for an instrument rating he must hold a commercial pilot certificate, or hold a private pilot certificate and meet the requirements of §§61.65(e)(1) and 61.123 (except paragraphs (d) and (e) thereof)." And §61.65(e)(1) states: "A total of 125 hours of pilot flight time, of which 50 hours are as pilot in command in cross country flight in a powered aircraft with other than a student pilot certificate. Each cross country flight must have a landing at a point more than 50 nautical miles from the original departure point." In the new §61.71, the language referring to §§61.65(e)(1) and 61.123 has been dropped. Does that mean if I have a student that graduates from my Part 141 instrument rating course, he no longer (after August 4, 1997) has to meet the "50 hours are as pilot in command in cross country flight in a powered aircraft" of §61.65(e)(1) and paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (f) of §61.123? ANSWER 6: A Part 141 graduate will no longer be required to meet the "50 hours are as pilot in command in cross country flight in a powered aircraft" of §61.65(e)(1) and paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (f) of §61.123. The deleting of that provision was intentional, because we who drafted the rule believe our Part 141 school give such quality of training that a person who graduates from a Part 141 school provides an equivalent level of safety. And we don't have to file a difference with ICAO because our country is the only country that has Part 141 approved schools and we have never filed differences when it relates to Part 141. {q&a-31} QUESTION 7: FAR 61.65 (a)(8)(ii) states "_If an approved flight training device is used for the practical test, the instrument approach procedures conducted in that flight training device are limited to one precision and one non precision approach, provided the flight training device is approved for the procedure performed." The preamble states in part "_The final rule also limits the procedures which may be performed in an approved flight training device to one precision and one nonprecision approach provided the flight training device is approved_" I understand this to say that at least one approach must be flown in the airplane. Is this correct? ANSWER 7: You're correct. At least one approach must be flown in the aircraft. {q&a-74} QUESTION 6: Definition of "original point of departure". A. How should the "original point of departure" be managed to meet 61.65(d)(iii)(B) "an instrument approach at each airport" if the home base is an airport that does not have an instrument approach? B. Is the "original point of departure" subject to change if there is an overnight, extended stay, or the aircraft is left for repair and the pilot returns later to continue the cross-country or bring it home? Does "original point of departure" change with a new day? ANSWER 6A: The distance of the return leg to the original point of departure ("home base") from the last airport where an approach was made shall not be used to meet the 250 NM requirement since an approach cannot be made at the original point of departure airport. ANSWER 6B: The "original point of departure" does not change with a new day or delay. {q&a-60} QUESTION 17: A person comes in with a knowledge test report for instrument-airplane. This dual rated person originally intended to take the instrument practical in an airplane, but later decided to take it in helicopter instead. Can the IRA test be used in place of the IRH test? ANSWER 17: NO. These tests are not interchangeable. {q&a-60} 61.69 Glider towing: Experience & training QUESTION 1: Who would qualify as the "authorized instructor" in §61.69(a)(3)? ANSWER 1: Per §61.69(a)(3) which states, "Has a logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor who certifies that the person has received ground and flight training in gliders and is proficient in". The pertinent definition of an "authorized instructor" as per 61.1(b)(2)(ii), which states "A person who holds a current flight instructor certificate issued under part 61 of this chapter when conducting ground training or flight training in accordance with the privileges and limitations of his or her flight instructor certificate; or" Therefore, the "authorized instructor" in this case would be required to hold a valid and current flight instructor certificate with a glider rating on that flight instructor certificate. And this flight instructor would also have to be appropriately qualified in accordance with §61.69(a). Otherwise, this flight instructor would also have to be qualified to tow gliders [i.e., as required by §61.69(c)]. QUESTION 2: Does the towplane pilot have to be rated/proficient in gliders? ANSWER 2: Reference §61.69(a)(1) and (2); The towplane pilot doesn't even need to be rated in gliders. As per §61.69(a)(1) and (2), it merely states that: (a) No person may act as pilot in command for towing a glider unless that person: (1) Holds at least a private pilot certificate with a category rating for powered aircraft; (2) Has logged at least 100 hours of pilot-in-command time in the aircraft category, class, and type, if required, that the pilot is using to tow a glider; Therefore, if the tow plane pilot is using a Cessna 305 to tow a glider, that pilot only needs to hold a Private Pilot Certificate with an Airplane Single Engine Land rating [i.e., §61.69(a)(1)] and have logged at least 100 hours of PIC time in a single engine land airplane [i.e., §61.69(a)(2)]. {q&a-253} QUESTION: Does the endorsement requirement in paragraph 61.69(a)(3) apply to a private pilot with airplane-single engine land and glider who is going to act as "tow-pilot"? It seems this requirement would be met by virtue of having at least a private glider rating. This is evidence of having complied with 61.31 (j)(1)(ii) which appears to cover the endorsement required by 61.69(a)(3). ANSWER: YES. The person must have the endorsement. Ref. section 61.69(a)(3) states: (a) No person may act as pilot in command for towing a glider unless that person: * * * * * (3) Has a logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor who certifies that the person has received ground and flight training in gliders and is proficient in-- (i) The techniques and procedures essential to the safe towing of gliders, including airspeed limitations; (ii) Emergency procedures; (iii) Signals used; and (iv) Maximum angles of bank. {q&a-138} 61.71 Graduates of parts 141 & 142 training programs CORRECTION: Revision of Q&A #231 is made to emphasize the requirements for 1). Completion of the "Record of Pilot Time", Section III of the Airman Application by graduates of pilot schools, and 2). The pilot examiner's comparing the experience shown with the requirements of part 141, or if necessary, with the Training Course Outline by contacting an official of the flight school or the Principal Operations Inspector. QUESTION 1: When an applicant completes an approved Part 141 course of training, does an examiner need to review the times in Section III "Record of Pilot Time" on the Airman Certification and/or Rating Application (FAA Form 8710-1) to insure the applicant's aeronautical experience meet Part 141 aeronautical experience requirements, as appropriate? Does the applicant even need to complete Section III "Record of Pilot Time" on the Airman Certification and/or Rating Application (FAA Form 8710-1) ANSWER 1: Ref. § 61.39(a)(7) and §61.71(a); Yes, the FAA would expect an examiner to review the times on the "Airman Certification and/or Rating Application" (FAA Form 8710-1) to insure the applicant's aeronautical experience meet the appropriate aeronautical experience requirements of Part 141. And yes, the applicant is required to enter his/her aeronautical experience in Section III "Record of Pilot Time" because as per § 61.39(a)(7) it states "Have a completed and signed application form." However, the aeronautical experience times may not meet the appropriate minimum aeronautical experience requirements of Part 61, because Part 141 provides for less course approval times. And §141.55(d) or (e) provides for course approval ". . . without specifying the minimum ground and flight training time requirements of this part . . ." so it is possible for an applicant who graduates from an approved Part 141 training course to have less time than the minimum aeronautical experience requirements of Part 61. As per §61.71(a), if an applicant is a graduate of Part 141 approved course of training, that applicant ". . . is considered to have met the applicable aeronautical experience, aeronautical knowledge, and areas of operation requirements of this part" (e.g., Part 61). But no place does it provide that the applicant needn't complete Section III "Record of Pilot Time" on the Airman Certification and/or Rating Application (FAA Form 8710-1). And per § 61.39(a)(7), it requires that the applicant "Have a completed and signed application form." Now during an examiner's review of the applicant's "Airman Certification and/or Rating Application" (FAA Form 8710-1) in Section III "Record of Pilot Time" if the examiner were to find that the times were less than the required Part 141 aeronautical experience requirements, then the FAA expects that examiner to at least question the local FAA FSDO or the Chief Instructor about it. Knowing the way most Part 141 schools operate, an examiner could question the school's Chief Instructor and the matter would probably get resolved right then. QUESTION 2: When an applicant has completed/graduated from a Part 141 training course, does the applicant/school need to show the applicant's aeronautical experience time in Section III - Record of Pilot Time on the "Airman Certification and/or Rating Application" (FAA Form 8710-1)? And does the examiner need to verify that the applicant's time shown in Section III - Record of Pilot Time on the "Airman Certification and/or Rating Application" (FAA Form 8710-1) meet the appropriate minimum aeronautical experience requirements for the pilot certificate and/or rating the applicant is seeking? ANSWER 2: Ref. § 61.39(a)(7) and FAA Order 8710.3C, Chapter 5, page 5-11, paragraph 41.B.(6); Per § 61.39(a)(7), the applicant's aeronautical experience time must be shown in the appropriate blocks of Section III -Record of Pilot Time on the "Airman Certification and/or Rating Application" (FAA Form 8710-1). As per § 61.39(a)(7), it requires that the applicant "Have a completed and signed application form." And on the instruction sheet of the "Airman Certification and/or Rating Application" (FAA Form 8710-1), it states: III. RECORD OF PILOT TIME. The minimum pilot experience required by the appropriate regulation must be entered. It is recommended, however, that ALL pilot time be entered. If decimal points are used, be sure they are legible. Night flying must be entered when required. You should fill in the blocks that apply and ignore the blocks that do not. Second In Command "SIC" time used may be entered in the appropriate blocks. Flight Simulator, Flight Training Device and PCATD time may be entered in the boxes provided. Total, Instruction received, and Instrument Time should be entered in the top, middle, or bottom of the boxes provided as appropriate. And per FAA Order 8710.3C, Chapter 5, page 5-11, paragraph 41.B.(6), the FAA expects the examiner to verify that the applicant's aeronautical experience time shown in Section III - Record of Pilot Time on the "Airman Certification and/or Rating Application" (FAA Form 8710-1) in applicant's "Airman Certification and/or Rating Application" (FAA Form 8710-1) meet the appropriate minimum aeronautical experience requirements for the pilot certificate and/or rating that the applicant is seeking. The FAA expects an examiner to review Section III - Record of Pilot Time of the Airman Certification and/or Rating Application" (FAA Form 8710-1). However, if the times do not meet the minimum aeronautical experience requirements and/or the course approval times, then the FAA expects the examiner to inquire why the applicant's times do not meet the requirements. And yes, as I previously mentioned, it may be the school's approved course of training is one that has been approved in accordance with §141.55(d) or (e). But a simple conversation with the Chief Flight Instructor or with the local FSDO (the principal operations inspector who has oversight of the school) should be able resolve any questions. {q&a-231} QUESTION 2: I test applicants who have graduated from part 141 schools. §61.71 states that if an applicant presents a graduation certificate the applicant is considered to have met the applicable aeronautical experience, aeronautical knowledge and area of operation requirements of Part 61. Does this mean that the applicant does not have to show me logged ground and flight training required under part 61 and that the graduation certificate will stand by itself. Am I required to examine the 141syllabus to insure that the minimum logged training under part 61 was accomplished. ANSWER 2: Ref. §61.71(a) and §141.95; No, you do not have to examine the school's syllabus. If a person holds a graduation certificate from an approved training program under part 141 of this chapter then that person is considered to have met the applicable aeronautical experience, aeronautical knowledge, and areas of operation requirements of this part if that person presents the graduation certificate and passes the required practical test within the 60-day period after the date of graduation. So as an examiner, you do not have to examine the school's syllabus. That is the FAA's responsibility when we review the TCO during the approval process. Additionally, the FAA reviews the school's records and students' records throughout the year at periodic times to ensure compliance with the appropriate rules of Part 141 [i.e., FAA Order 8700.1, Chapter 141 and §141.101, §141.77(a)(1), §141.95, etc.]. In addition, the school's Chief Instructor or Assistant Chief Instructor will have also reviewed the student's application, training records, and graduation certificates before that applicant appears for the practical test. But the examiner certainly has the right and SHOULD review the applicant's training records and logbook to ensure the applicant completed the course requirements and that the school has completed the necessary paperwork and endorsements on the applicant [i.e., §141.95]. But you the examiner, your main emphasis should be on reviewing the student's application, logbook, and conducting the practical test. Leave the detail review of the school records and student training records to the FAA and to the school's Chief Instructor. {q&a-206} QUESTION 1: FAR 61.65 (d)(1) requires a person who applies for an instrument rating to have logged at least 50 hour of PIC cross country. FAR 141, Appendix C does not have this requirement. Is this correct? ANSWER 1: Reference §61.71(a): §61.71(a) was revised in the new Part 61 to delete that requirement. Yes, it was intentional. {q&a-117} QUESTION 5: Reference §61.71(b)(1); Does this Part 121 proficiency check have to be a PIC proficiency check? Does the check have to be given by an FAA Inspector or an FAA DPE? ANSWER 5: As per §61.71(b)(1), "Satisfactorily accomplished an approved training program and the pilot-in-command proficiency check for that airplane type, in accordance with the pilot-in-command requirements under subparts N and O of part 121 of this chapter; and" and As per §61.157(f), in pertinent part, ". . . Any check must be evaluated by a designated examiner or FAA Inspector." {q&a-89} 61.73 Military pilots or former military pilots QUESTION: I am requesting a reversal of the FAA's decision to categorize the FA-18 E/F as a centerline thrust airplane. I have compiled evidence from the aircraft flight manual and performance charts of the FA-18, series E and F, to the contrary that the F-18 is a "limited to center thrust" multiengine airplane. ANSWER: Ref. § 61.73(a)(2) and FAA Order 8700.1, Chapter 1, Section 3, page 1-13 and 1-14, paragraph 21.E. and Chapter 28, page 28-2, paragraph 5.G. The F-18's aircraft flight manual does not have a manufacturer's minimum controllable airspeed (Vmc) that is equivalent to a manufacturer's Vmc. Therefore, a military pilot who qualifies for an FAA pilot certificate on the basis of their military qualifications in an F-18, per § 61.73, will continue to receive the limitation "limited to center-thrust." I will admit the Angle of Attack Conversion chart (figure 11-11) in the F-18 aircraft flight manual is somewhat similar to being a manufacturer's published Vmc speed. However, the FAA has determined that Angle of Attack Conversion chart and the other information you provided from the F-18's aircraft flight manual, specifically the procedures for single engine operations described in paragraph 11.4.1 and the single engine emergencies in Chapter 14, does not equate to being a published minimum controllable airspeed (Vmc), as set forth in § 23.149(b) or § 25.149(b). {q&a-421} REVISION: To include "Procedural Requirements." QUESTION: I have a question regarding §61.153 in conjunction with a recent FAQ Posting. We have a former rated military aviator of the United States Air Force (departed the US Air Force over a year ago) and who has no civilian pilot certificates, and who wants to now take the ATP practical test based on his military experience. The FAR 61.153 addresses the eligibility requirements for the ATP certificate. Paragraph (d) states in part "...2) Meet the military experience requirements under 61.73 to qualify for a commercial pilot certificate..." Can this former rated military aviator who does not hold any FAA pilot certificates may apply directly for an ATP certificate on the basis of prerequisite eligibility requirements of §61.153(d)(2)? ANSWER: Ref. § 61.73(c)(1) and (2) and § 61.153(d)(2); Yes, a former rated military aviator who does not hold any FAA pilot certificates may apply directly for an ATP certificate provided he meets ". . . the military experience requirements under § 61.73 of this part to qualify for a commercial pilot certificate, and an instrument rating if the person is a rated military pilot or former rated military pilot of an Armed Force of the United States . . .". This is provided for by §61.153(d)(2). And this probably should be understood without saying it; however, just to make sure that it is understood, former rated military aviators who apply directly for an ATP certificate on the basis of §61.153(d)(2) must also comply with the remaining prerequisite eligibility provisions of § 61.153 [i.e., paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), and (h)] in order to apply directly for an ATP certificate. And paragraph (e) of §61.153 is the provision that requires that an applicant for an ATP certificate to meet the appropriate aeronautical experience requirements of §§ 61.159, 61.161, 61.163, or 61.165, as appropriate. This answer in similar in scope and content with an earlier answer (Q&A-398) that was provided in response to a question about former rated military aviators applying directly for a commercial pilot certificate. As I stated, in Q&A 398, ". . . In accordance with Title 14, CFR section 61.73(c)(2),. . . Present documentation showing that . . ." he was a rated military pilot on active flying status in an armed force of the United States. Otherwise, [former rated military aviator] need only have been a rated military pilot in an armed force of the United States at sometime in his life, but he/she just wasn't on active flying status within the preceding 12 calendar months prior to the month of application." Yes, the FAA has made § 61.153(d)(2) an exception for ". . . a rated military pilot or former rated military pilot of an Armed Force of the United States . . ." to be able to apply directly for an ATP certificate. As a point of clarification, the former military pilot will be required to meet the appropriate aeronautical experience requirements for the ATP pilot certificate and rating sought. For example, if the former military pilot is seeking an ATP pilot certificate with an airplane multi-engine land rating, then that former military pilot must have logged the required aeronautical experience as set forth in § 61.159(a) or as permissible under paragraphs (b) through (e). PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS: In order to apply for an ATP certificate under § 61.153(d)(2) on the basis of being a former military pilot, the applicant must present the applicable required evidentiary documents, as set forth in § 61.73(h). These evidentiary documents are necessary to prove that the applicant was a former U.S. military pilot and meets the requirements of § 61.73(c) to qualify for applying for an ATP certificate under § 61.153(d)(2). After the examiner reviews the applicant's evidentiary documents, and it is determined the applicant does meet the requirements of § 61.73(c) to qualify for applying for an ATP certificate under § 61.153(d)(2), the examiner shall, for administrative purposes, ensure the applicant has completed item B. [ ] "Military Competence Obtained In" in Section II "Certificate or Rating Applied For on Basis of:" on the Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application, Form 8710-1. The examiner shall place his/her initials and date under item B. [ ] "Military Competence Obtained In" so that the FAA's Airman Certification Branch, AFS-763, knows the examiner has reviewed the former military pilot's military flight records [i.e., meaning the required evidentiary documents, as set forth in § 61.73(h)] prior to conducting the practical test. However, the basis for the certificate will still be item "A. [ ] Completion of Required Test" and that item must also be completed by the applicant. {q&a-402} CORRECTION: To include appropriate "Procedural Requirements." QUESTION: Request for an explanation of the intent 14 CFR § 61.73(c)(1) "Pass the appropriate knowledge and practical tests prescribed in this part for the certificate or rating sought; and" Otherwise, what is meant by the phrase ". . . Pass the appropriate knowledge and practical tests prescribed in this part . . ." And as a follow-on, explain the intent of ". . . or meet the requirements of § 61.73 . . ." in § 61.123(h)? ANSWER: Ref. §61.73(c)(1) and also paragraph (b)(3)(i) or (ii) of § 61.73, and § 61.123(h) This question was copied from an official response to an inquiry from James B. Friel, Principal Operation Inspector, AWP FSDO No. 15, San Jose, CA and answered by John M. Wensel, Manager, Certification Branch, AFS-840 Reference your request for an explanation of the intent Title 14 CFR, section 61.73(c)(1) and (2). In Mr. Morris' situation, he did not take advantage of his military aviation service when it would have been permissible for him to have merely accomplished the military competency knowledge test. Otherwise, he missed the opportunity to apply directly for a commercial pilot certificate with an instrument rating by accomplishing the military competency knowledge test. Therefore, Mr. Morris must comply with Title 14, CFR section 61.73(c)(1) and (2) to obtain a pilot certificate and ratings. The intent of Title 14, CFR section 61.73(c) allows for recognizing Mr. Morris' military flight experience (i.e., his logged flight/aeronautical experience). Per Title 14,