New Part 61

[minitour]

wish the x country for commercial would have been available for me. I had to cancel quite a few flights due to that.

It certainly adds some flexibility to the training environment!

Finally!

-mini

 

[juan valdez]

It certainly adds some flexibility to the training environment!

Finally!

-mini

Yup. I also didn't really understand why it had to be VFR. Seems going it IFR would give me dual training at once.

 

[Polar742]

Makes me wonder if I'll be under the hood in the Level D in a couple months!! :crazy:

"V1"

"Engine Loss!"

"S@#@....I can't see the G$% D!#@$ EICAS. F#$#@ B(*$*@&#@$#@!, I'm taking this off!"

Anyone that knows me has no doubt that would be the correct sequence of events.:bandit:

Anyrate, what a failed chance to straighten things out.

 

[Inverted25]

I am still confused. If you have just a CFII can you still do instrument instruction in a single engine airplane as long as you hold a single engine commercial?

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Ok, so let's see if I understood this correctly.

There are two types of training devices, flight and aviation.

I think of it this way:

"Flight simulator" and "flight training device" have specific definitions in FAR 61.1. If you go to 61.4(c) you'll see that the FAA reserves the ability to approve devices other than "flight simulators" and "flight training devices." That's where all those others come in - BATD, PCATDs, etc.

The part that might be a little weird is that "aviation training device" isn't defined. I'm thinking that this is because, in this case it's meant to be just English: a device that's used for aviation training, not a specific kind of device with specific attributes.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

I am still confused. If you have just a CFII can you still do instrument instruction in a single engine airplane as long as you hold a single engine commercial?

No. You must have the appropriate CFI aircraft rating also.

This is a substantial change from past FAA policy although the policy was itself being disputed within the FAA. The interesting part is that, if you read the part I quoted from the Federal Register in its full context, it reads like this has always been the rule - even though John Lynch, who is probably the author of the commentary has himself gone both ways in the past.

 

[MikeD]

Someone should have appointed you Administrator.

-mini

Never let it be misconstrued that I do not disapprove of the current legislation.

 

[minitour]

Never let it be misconstrued that I do not disapprove of the current legislation.

I couldn't follow all of those negatives.

You're hired.

-mini

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

So does this mean doing the intial as CFII is dumb because you can no longer teach without a CFI?

You can still teach in a simulator/flight training device/PCATD. And ground stuff. Just can't teach in the airplane.

I plan on doing the CFII as the initial, just because of 1) airplane availability and 2) comfort with flying IFR rather than VFR. If you plan on getting all 3 instructor ratings, it really shouldn't matter how you get there.

 

[MikeD]

I couldn't follow all of those negatives.

You're hired.

-mini

That'd be cool. We could hash out NPRMs here.

 

[Bernoulli Fan]

I think of it this way:

"Flight simulator" and "flight training device" have specific definitions in FAR 61.1. If you go to 61.4(c) you'll see that the FAA reserves the ability to approve devices other than "flight simulators" and "flight training devices." That's where all those others come in - BATD, PCATDs, etc.

The part that might be a little weird is that "aviation training device" isn't defined. I'm thinking that this is because, in this case it's meant to be just English: a device that's used for aviation training, not a specific kind of device with specific attributes.

It appears in 61.1 that XPlane and a full panel PC monitor, yoke, and rudder pedals counts as a flight training device. So what's the point of BATD and AATD?

(7) Flight training device means a device that—
(i) Is a full-size replica of the instruments, equipment, panels, and controls of an aircraft, or set of aircraft, in an open flight deck area or in an enclosed cockpit, including the hardware and software for the systems installed, that is necessary to simulate the aircraft in ground and flight operations;

 

[minitour]

That'd be cool. We could hash out NPRMs here.

Commandment Number 1: Shut the Hell Up
Commandment Number 2: There's Nothing I can do about the Sun.
Commandment Number 3: There are no more Jolly Ranchers, they're all gone!
Commandment Number 4: When we pass a billboard, please don't read it out loud.

-mini

 

[nosehair]

if you read the part I quoted from the Federal Register in its full context, it reads like this has always been the rule

Yes. This has always meant to have been the rule. Gosh, back when these rules were first written, you wouldn't think you would have to spell it out that way. Isn't it very obvious that an instructor should be an instructor of the aircraft he is instructing in? Whether it's instruments or not.

 

[minitour]

Yes. This has always meant to have been the rule. Gosh, back when these rules were first written, you wouldn't think you would have to spell it out that way. Isn't it very obvious that an instructor should be an instructor of the aircraft he is instructing in? Whether it's instruments or not.

Well the use of the word "and" always gave it away for me, but there were those that argued that "and" just mean "and...you have to have a commercial certificate with bla bla bla". I'm just glad it's going to be spelled out for those of us that take the short bus to work.

-mini