Commercial and CFI practical test

[mike_elliott]

The FAA just published a national policy N8900.463 stating that a complex airplane is no longer required for the commercial or CFI practical test. The total 10 hrs of complex training for the commercial, however is still a requirement along with a complex endorsement but the practical test may be conducted in any airplane

[RobertGary1]

You can take your cfi ride jn a 172? Just seems strange 

-Robert

[mike_elliott]

You can take it in a cub now. 

1.    Purpose of this Notice. This notice outlines a change in policy regarding testing applicants for a commercial pilot or flight instructor certificate, regardless whether the training was received under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 61 or 141. Specifically, it outlines the policy which no longer requires applicants for a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane single-engine rating to provide a complex or turbine-powered airplane for the associated practical test and no longer requires applicants for a flight instructor certificate with an airplane single-engine rating to provide a complex airplane for the practical test.

[Txbyker]

I don't know if this is true but the instructors I am using told me the FAA had to quickly do that because one of the largest school's fleet was grounded due to the wing issue in Florida.  Has anyone else heard of that?

Russ

[mike_elliott]

54 minutes ago, Txbyker said:

I don't know if this is true but the instructors I am using told me the FAA had to quickly do that because one of the largest school's fleet was grounded due to the wing issue in Florida.  Has anyone else heard of that?

Russ

That doesnt pass the smell test Russ...Have you ever heard of the FAA doing anything quickly, except for take a break?

[steingar]

I think the Complex requirement originally came about because all the more capable aircraft were retractables.  In today's world there are plenty of very capable aircraft that have the gear welded down.  Moreover, the commercial should be about how well you fly an aircraft, not whether you can remember to put the gear down.  Sounds like a fairly intelligent move.

I'll bet the real driver is the dearth of complex aircraft available to rent.

[RobertGary1]

32 minutes ago, steingar said:

I think the Complex requirement originally came about because all the more capable aircraft were retractables.  In today's world there are plenty of very capable aircraft that have the gear welded down.  Moreover, the commercial should be about how well you fly an aircraft, not whether you can remember to put the gear down.  Sounds like a fairly intelligent move.

I'll bet the real driver is the dearth of complex aircraft available to rent.

No, they still need the 10 hours of complex time.

-Robert

[RobertGary1]

1 hour ago, Txbyker said:

I don't know if this is true but the instructors I am using told me the FAA had to quickly do that because one of the largest school's fleet was grounded due to the wing issue in Florida.  Has anyone else heard of that?

Russ

That doesn't make any sense. The FAA still requires the same complex training from what I read. This is just the checkride itself.

 

-Robert

 

[kortopates]

2 hours ago, steingar said:

I think the Complex requirement originally came about because all the more capable aircraft were retractables.  In today's world there are plenty of very capable aircraft that have the gear welded down.  Moreover, the commercial should be about how well you fly an aircraft, not whether you can remember to put the gear down.  Sounds like a fairly intelligent move.

I'll bet the real driver is the dearth of complex aircraft available to rent.

 

1 hour ago, RobertGary1 said:

That doesn't make any sense. The FAA still requires the same complex training from what I read. This is just the checkride itself.

-Robert

 

Personally, I think @steingar first statement makes the most sense with our modern Cirrus like aircraft. 

But the requirement for logging 10 hrs PIC in a complex aircraft vs training and testing the commercial maneuvers are two very different things. 

[RobertGary1]

12 hours ago, kortopates said:

 

Personally, I think @steingar first statement makes the most sense with our modern Cirrus like aircraft. 

But the requirement for logging 10 hrs PIC in a complex aircraft vs training and testing the commercial maneuvers are two very different things. 

But if the faa is responding to a lack of complex planes to rent they’ve totally failed because it’s just as hard to get a complex plane for the 10 hours as for the checkride. 

-Robert 

Edited April 26, 2018 by RobertGary1

[steingar]

15 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

That doesn't make any sense. The FAA still requires the same complex training from what I read. This is just the checkride itself.

Yeah, that's true.  Can't really say what the driver is, since it's government and simple good sense doesn't seem like a very likely driver.

[mike_elliott]

It really doesn't matter what the FAA's motivation was for making this change, does it, or am I missing something? I can see where it allows a person to obtain his/her CFI or CPL with less of an obstacle to entry.

just a few weeks ago we had a young lady all concerned about her CFI ride in a Johnson bar Mooney. Now it is a non issue for her, she can take it in the schools 172.

[midlifeflyer]

19 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

That doesn't make any sense. The FAA still requires the same complex training from what I read. This is just the checkride itself.

 

-Robert

 

A bit of Civics 102. The 61.129 complex requirement has not changed because of the federal rulemaking process.

Changing regulations requires a formal notice and comment period followed by a Final Rule which addresses the comments and explains the changes. In addition, an probably more significant, the process is also subject to the smaller FAA budget (prioritization) and the current federal policy against issuing new regulations. The PTS/ACS is not subject to that process so it can be done whenever the FAA wants to.

The FAA does want to change 61.129(a). In fact the the FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (to satisfy the notice and comment requirement) two years ago. The NPRM contains the same statement about fleet age and availability as the national policy. It keeps the 10 hour requirement but allows it to be accomplished in a TAA or turbine aircraft in addition to a complex.

If anything, it demonstrates the FAA's commitment to the change. I've heard but can't verify, that the hodlup on changing the regulation is at the DOT rather than the FAA.

[midlifeflyer]

3 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

It really doesn't matter what the FAA's motivation was for making this change, does it, or am I missing something? I can see where it allows a person to obtain his/her CFI or CPL with less of an obstacle to entry.

True. A commercial or CFI candidate will not have to demonstrate to a DPE that she can lift and extend the gear when doing takeoffs and landings. Whether that's a sky-is-falling scenario is I guess open to debate.

[RobertGary1]

1 hour ago, midlifeflyer said:

A bit of Civics 102. The 61.129 complex requirement has not changed because of the federal rulemaking process.

Changing regulations requires a formal notice and comment period followed by a Final Rule which addresses the comments and explains the changes. In addition, an probably more significant, the process is also subject to the smaller FAA budget (prioritization) and the current federal policy against issuing new regulations. The PTS/ACS is not subject to that process so it can be done whenever the FAA wants to.

The FAA does want to change 61.129(a). In fact the the FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (to satisfy the notice and comment requirement) two years ago. The NPRM contains the same statement about fleet age and availability as the national policy. It keeps the 10 hour requirement but allows it to be accomplished in a TAA or turbine aircraft in addition to a complex.

If anything, it demonstrates the FAA's commitment to the change. I've heard but can't verify, that the hodlup on changing the regulation is at the DOT rather than the FAA.

I could see the point with TAA. The T206 with G1000 I fly is certainly not less "complex" than my Mooney. 

I haven't worked in a flight school in a long time but I bet its getting super hard to find something spinable for the CFI spin endorsement too. I wonder if that will go away.

-Robert

Edited April 26, 2018 by RobertGary1

[pwnel]

On 4/26/2018 at 2:56 PM, RobertGary1 said:

I could see the point with TAA. The T206 with G1000 I fly is certainly not less "complex" than my Mooney. 

I haven't worked in a flight school in a long time but I bet its getting super hard to find something spinable for the CFI spin endorsement too. I wonder if that will go away.

-Robert

Surely a 172 is perfectly spinable?

[MBDiagMan]

Makes perfect sense.  As I understand it, you take most of the commercial ride in a non complex aircraft, and then simply do a takeoff and landing and maybe show that you can handle a controllable pitch propeller in the complex plane and the requirements are met.  If you have ten hours training in the complex, then in my above scenario, that part of the ride would be pretty much a formality.

[midlifeflyer]

On 4/26/2018 at 2:56 PM, RobertGary1 said:

I could see the point with TAA. The T206 with G1000 I fly is certainly not less "complex" than my Mooney. 

I haven't worked in a flight school in a long time but I bet its getting super hard to find something spinable for the CFI spin endorsement too. I wonder if that will go away.

-Robert

I don't think it's likely. I think there's too much importance to a CFI knowing how to recover from a student's unintentional spin, which is why the FAA brought it back after getting rid of spin required training altogether.  But with many unspinnable aircraft out there (by design or owner/operator choice)  spin training is definitely becoming a specialty.

[RobertGary1]

15 hours ago, pwnel said:

Surely a 172 is perfectly spinable?

Legally only the really old ones are certified for spins. 

-Robert 

[pwnel]

18 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

Legally only the really old ones are certified for spins. 

-Robert 

Sorry, but that's just plain wrong.  

The 172S POH under Maneuver Limits in utility category gives you the entry speeds for all commercial maneuvers - spins included. 

Same section in 182T POH states that the aircraft is only certified under normal category and spins are prohibited.  

[Parker_Woodruff]

have spun the C172S when flying it in the utility category.  It's not a very exciting spin, but it'll spin.

[midlifeflyer]

8 hours ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

So have I and yes it will. But I really don’t know how folks do it accidentally. 

It depends what else they are doing at the time. I had a studen put us into an unintentional 172 spin while doing power on stalls. 

[RobertGary1]

In the Aeronca we used to give it a blast of power and roll the ailerons into the spin to get it started. Otherwise you could fly around in a stall with full rudder all day without spinning. The decathlon was another story.  Did lots of inverted spins in it. Recovery includes pulling back on the yoke. Inverted is a bit confusing. 

-Robert