New Instrument requirements?

[Captain Bash]

20 minutes ago, ilovecornfields said:

I have a commercial oral prep sheet I’d be happy to share if you want to send me a PM. I think the real value was in making it but it might serve as a good starting point if you want to make your own.

OOOOOO!!! Yes please!

I'm making one now...but I'd love anything you're willing to share!

PM incoming!

[tigers2007]

Redbird FMX (full motion) sim is $25-40/hr. CFI-I is $50/hr. You can do six approaches and a hold in 45 minutes. Sounds like $56.25 for the CB's. Maybe if you talk faster you can get it done for a cool Grant.

[Captain Bash]

8 minutes ago, tigers2007 said:

Redbird FMX (full motion) sim is $25-40/hr. CFI-I is $50/hr. You can do six approaches and a hold in 45 minutes. Sounds like $56.25 for the CB's. Maybe if you talk faster you can get it done for a cool Grant.

Yeah, living in Palm Springs doesn't offer too many opportunities to get actual time. I just knock it out in the sim. Cheap and easy way to stay current.

[midlifeflyer]

8 hours ago, Captain Bash said:

OOOOOO!!! Yes please!

I'm making one now...but I'd love anything you're willing to share!

PM incoming!

I sure hope one doesn't need a cheat sheet to know the difference between currency and proficiency!

[Hank]

4 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

I sure hope one doesn't need a cheat sheet to know the difference between currency and proficiency!

When studying for an exam, it's best to include everything, even the stuff you already know. Helps the answer come out neatly when needed (including the oral portion in this case).

[Captain Bash]

4 hours ago, Hank said:

When studying for an exam, it's best to include everything, even the stuff you already know. Helps the answer come out neatly when needed (including the oral portion in this case).

Exactly.

Since I am doing CFI afterwards, I am making a complete sheet of everything in ASA's oral prep book. Writing down everything helps the memory retain things much better than just reading it...even the stuff I know very well.

[midlifeflyer]

5 hours ago, Hank said:

When studying for an exam, it's best to include everything, even the stuff you already know. Helps the answer come out neatly when needed (including the oral portion in this case).

I guess it works differently for different people. I find the more I study something before a test, the less I actually retrieve.

[PT20J]

On 1/31/2020 at 7:11 PM, PT20J said:

OK, I looked at this again. I got the citation from eCFR which should have the most current text of the regulation: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl

However, upon looking again, I found this footnote after the revision history: 

Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations affecting §61.57, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at www.govinfo.gov.

 

This has been bugging me. I figured that AOPA deals a lot with regulatory affairs, so I thought I’d put my Lifetime Premier Plus membership to good use and ask what it means to have this note in place of a revision history. The response came back,

“The note for revision note on 61.57 is interesting.  That is a new one for me.”

I found another way to get revision history without searching back copies of the Federal Register: https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet

Skip

[midlifeflyer]

15 hours ago, PT20J said:

This has been bugging me. I figured that AOPA deals a lot with regulatory affairs, so I thought I’d put my Lifetime Premier Plus membership to good use and ask what it means to have this note in place of a revision history. The response came back,

“The note for revision note on 61.57 is interesting.  That is a new one for me.”

I found another way to get revision history without searching back copies of the Federal Register: https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet

Skip

The regulation is the current one. The note just means the line above it.

[Doc. No. 25910, 62 FR 16298, Apr. 4, 1997; Amdt. 61-103, 62 FR 40898, July 30, 1997]

does not contain all the revision citations. It doesn't. There have been a number of revisions since that reg was rewritten as part of the 1997 Part 61 overhaul, at least 3 or 4 as I recall, including the one in June 2018. It has something to do with differences between the eCFR and how the still-technically-"official" paper CFR are published.

[sailon]

Folks, as one who just completed an IPC (I was still current by the way), it is actually easier to take an instructor up and do the IPC than it would be to cram in 6 approaches!  Couple of reasons.  1 Every time I have renewed my insurance, the broker always asks when I had my last IPC.  With the rates sliding up, the insurance co. might consider the recent IPC as part of the risk analysis.  (or so I hope).  2. It is always good to shake off the rust on the rules with an instructor.  There were more than a few subtilties that I had forgotten.  One hour of ground and a couple of hours in the air helps restore confidence.  (when was the last time you did unusual attitude training???)

Personally, I am going to not sweat currency and plan on at least one IPC a year.

[carusoam]

Great review, Sailon!

Thanks for sharing your details.

We could ask @Parker_Woodruff if an IPC each year would help lower insurance costs...?

Expect there is a discount for training... but you may run into a challenge of having more training than discounts can     Help with...

Best regards,

-a-

[PT20J]

On 2/6/2020 at 4:43 AM, midlifeflyer said:

The regulation is the current one. The note just means the line above it.

[Doc. No. 25910, 62 FR 16298, Apr. 4, 1997; Amdt. 61-103, 62 FR 40898, July 30, 1997]

does not contain all the revision citations. It doesn't. There have been a number of revisions since that reg was rewritten as part of the 1997 Part 61 overhaul, at least 3 or 4 as I recall, including the one in June 2018. It has something to do with differences between the eCFR and how the still-technically-"official" paper CFR are published.

I agree with all that. I didn’t see the editorial comment in my original post because I looked at the reg in Foreflight which omitted the comment. I contacted Foreflight and with their usual quick response, they said they would look into updating their eCFR import tool. 

Obviously, the purpose of the rather cryptic comment is to point out that the revision history is incomplete. Searching the FR at www.govinfo.com as suggested in the comment is very difficult (at least for me) as the search engine brings in a lot of extraneous citations. Fortunately, the FAA keeps a good history of regs at the URL in my previous post. 

I’m still curious why the revision history on eCFR is incomplete (probably no one else cares, but I’m just curious by nature). I asked the question of ecfr@nara.gov. I’ll post the response in the unlikely event I receive one.

Skip
 

[Parker_Woodruff]

8 hours ago, carusoam said:

 

We could ask @Parker_Woodruff if an IPC each year would help lower insurance costs...?

 

Most of the time it won't make a difference, but some carriers require the IPC for higher liability limits, such as $1MM "Smooth" (no passenger sublimit)

[midlifeflyer]

6 hours ago, PT20J said:

I agree with all that. I didn’t see the editorial comment in my original post because I looked at the reg in Foreflight which omitted the comment. I contacted Foreflight and with their usual quick response, they said they would look into updating their eCFR import tool. 

Obviously, the purpose of the rather cryptic comment is to point out that the revision history is incomplete. Searching the FR at www.govinfo.com as suggested in the comment is very difficult (at least for me) as the search engine brings in a lot of extraneous citations. Fortunately, the FAA keeps a good history of regs at the URL in my previous post. 

I’m still curious why the revision history on eCFR is incomplete (probably no one else cares, but I’m just curious by nature). I asked the question of ecfr@nara.gov. I’ll post the response in the unlikely event I receive one.

Skip
 

I don't use Foreflight's FAR so I don't know what they do. 

Personally, so long as I know the regulation is current, I only care about revision history when I have to analyze a situation which took place some time ago. So, for example, if I were representing a pilot who the FAA claimed flew IFR on December 15, 2017 without being current, I would need to know what the regulation said on December 15, 2017. The editorial comment isn't really "cryptic" it's just a heads-up that: (1) that 1997 was not the last date the reg was changed and (2) I need to do check the extended history as an intermediate step to find out the regulatory language which applied at the time of the deviation. 

It will be interesting to hear what they say if they reply. My guess remains that it is a publishing decision. It might even be as simple as the editorial decision which leaves VOR compass roses in some places to reduce clutter on sectional charts. Here's the full revision history you are looking for (and even that doesn't include the pre-1997 versions) :

[Amdt. 61–103, 62 FR 40898, July 30, 1997; Amdt. 61–106, 64 FR 23529, April 30, 1999; Amdt. 61–109, 68 FR 54559, Sept. 17, 2003; Amdt. 61–124, 74 FR 42550, Aug. 21, 2009; Amdt. 61–127, 76 FR 19267, April 7, 2011; Amdt. 61–129, 76 FR 78143, Dec. 16, 2011; Amdt. 61–130, 78 FR 42374, July 15, 2013; Amdt. 61–131, 78 FR 56828, Sept. 16, 2013; 78 FR 66262, Nov. 5, 2013; Amdt. 61–139, 81 FR 90170, Dec. 13, 2016; Amdt. 61–139A, 82 FR 9677, Feb. 8, 2017; Amdt. 61–142, 83 FR 30277, June 27, 2018]

[PT20J]

21 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

I don't use Foreflight's FAR so I don't know what they do. 

Personally, so long as I know the regulation is current, I only care about revision history when I have to analyze a situation which took place some time ago. So, for example, if I were representing a pilot who the FAA claimed flew IFR on December 15, 2017 without being current, I would need to know what the regulation said on December 15, 2017. The editorial comment isn't really "cryptic" it's just a heads-up that: (1) that 1997 was not the last date the reg was changed and (2) I need to do check the extended history as an intermediate step to find out the regulatory language which applied at the time of the deviation. 

It will be interesting to hear what they say if they reply. My guess remains that it is a publishing decision. It might even be as simple as the editorial decision which leaves VOR compass roses in some places to reduce clutter on sectional charts. Here's the full revision history you are looking for (and even that doesn't include the pre-1997 versions) :

[Amdt. 61–103, 62 FR 40898, July 30, 1997; Amdt. 61–106, 64 FR 23529, April 30, 1999; Amdt. 61–109, 68 FR 54559, Sept. 17, 2003; Amdt. 61–124, 74 FR 42550, Aug. 21, 2009; Amdt. 61–127, 76 FR 19267, April 7, 2011; Amdt. 61–129, 76 FR 78143, Dec. 16, 2011; Amdt. 61–130, 78 FR 42374, July 15, 2013; Amdt. 61–131, 78 FR 56828, Sept. 16, 2013; 78 FR 66262, Nov. 5, 2013; Amdt. 61–139, 81 FR 90170, Dec. 13, 2016; Amdt. 61–139A, 82 FR 9677, Feb. 8, 2017; Amdt. 61–142, 83 FR 30277, June 27, 2018]

I'm only interested in this because someone brought up history and I thought I understood how to research it and found out that there was something I didn't understand. It's just me, but if I don't understand something, I keep at it until I do. 

I did get a response:

Thank you for contacting the e-CFR helpdesk at the Office of the Federal Register.

We carry this note at 1,518 sections where there are too many citations to carry at those points. The user is referred to the List of CFR Sections Affected at www.govinfo.gov, where all citations are gathered.

Ken Payne

Office of the Federal Register

National Archives and Records Administration

The FAA maintains revision history for FARs at: https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet

The FAA list of amendments for section 61.57 agrees with yours except that it does not include amendment 61-103 which you cited. According to the FAA history, 61-103 amended section 61.65; not 61.57.

Skip

 

[midlifeflyer]

10 minutes ago, PT20J said:

I'm only interested in this because someone brought up history and I thought I understood how to research it and found out that there was something I didn't understand. It's just me, but if I don't understand something, I keep at it until I do. 

I did get a response:

Thank you for contacting the e-CFR helpdesk at the Office of the Federal Register.

We carry this note at 1,518 sections where there are too many citations to carry at those points. The user is referred to the List of CFR Sections Affected at www.govinfo.gov, where all citations are gathered.

Ken Payne

Office of the Federal Register

National Archives and Records Administration

The FAA maintains revision history for FARs at: https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet

The FAA list of amendments for section 61.57 agrees with yours except that it does not include amendment 61-103 which you cited. According to the FAA history, 61-103 amended section 61.65; not 61.57.

Skip

 

My guess was pretty good, eh?

62-103 was the 1997 revision which amended about 90% of Parts 61 and 141, including 61.57. Look up that Federal Register cite and you'll see it.

[sailon]

On 2/6/2020 at 2:23 PM, sailon said:

Folks, as one who just completed an IPC (I was still current by the way), it is actually easier to take an instructor up and do the IPC than it would be to cram in 6 approaches!  Couple of reasons.  1 Every time I have renewed my insurance, the broker always asks when I had my last IPC.  With the rates sliding up, the insurance co. might consider the recent IPC as part of the risk analysis.  (or so I hope).  2. It is always good to shake off the rust on the rules with an instructor.  There were more than a few subtilties that I had forgotten.  One hour of ground and a couple of hours in the air helps restore confidence.  (when was the last time you did unusual attitude training???)

Personally, I am going to not sweat currency and plan on at least one IPC a year.

UPDATE:  Insurance bill came in, went up 33%.  Ouch.  IPC didn't help, but effort was worth it.  Broker says increases from 15-50 percent "across the board, Underwriters are taking a harder look at each risk and aircraft."