Proposed FAR Changes

[MaRiO FDZ]

Lots of changes... most definetly next years FAR AIM will be interesting

 

[MaRiO FDZ]

You are, of course, correct.

I hope the flight instructor isn't a guy. Or a girl...

 

[Flying Saluki]

I cross-posted this here and in the CFI Corner.

The FAA issued a proposed rule this morning. It deals with a number of training, instrument currency and one logging issues. It can be read at http://1.usa.gov/2203vVS.

If interested, I put together a summary on one of my Facebook pages

One of the interesting proposals from a CFI standpoint is yet another reversal of the FA's position. This proposal includes returning the authority of a CFII without the applicable CFI-Aircraft rating to teach instruments.

An interesting proposal for those heading for careers is permitting a copilot to log SIC time in a Part 135 operations even if the regs do not require an SIC. That is a reversal of the FAA's permission and is, I think designed to reflect the reality of the 135 operating world.

With regard to the SIC logging time under 135, I can't help but wonder if it's because there are fewer opportunities to bridge the gap between 250-1500

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

With regard to the SIC logging time under 135, I can't help but wonder if it's because there are fewer opportunities to bridge the gap between 250-1500

I think it is.

I didn't spend time discussing that aspect of it but look at the details of the proposal in the linked Proposed Rule. For those who might be affected by this, it make interesting reading and some here may already know some of the history. The proposal is an outgrowth of AmeriFlight's petition for exemptions to allow SIC logging. It argued a number of things, including enhanced safety by having an incentive to add an SIC, real-world experience fro upcoming pilots and, specifically "granting the exemption would close the experience gap between pilots with 300 flight hours and SICs who must meet the new 1,500 hour experience requirement to qualify for an ATP certificate by providing ‘‘richer and more varied flying’’ than was otherwise available."

So it's definitely in the backstory to the proposed revision.

There is a catch, logging SIC when and SIC is not otherwise required is not just "put one in there." It needs to be part of an "SIC professional development program proposed by the operator and incorporated into its Ops Specs.

 

[Old Pete]

Technically correct is best correct

I'm more of "Materially correct" kind of guy myself.