“Solo” with authorized instructor onboard

19 Answers

1. 
   

   
   

   Mark Kolber on Sep 08, 2013

   AFAIK, neither the FAA Chief Counsel’s office nor any other official source has made a definitive statement on this.

   Personally (but I don’t make the rules), I think the answer is yes. 61.129(c)(4) (and the other similar performing-the-duties rules) talk in terms of “performing the duties of pilot in command…. with an authorized instructor…on the areas of operation listed in § 61.127(b)(2).

   In addition, the explanatory material to the Final Rule talks in terms of this performing-the-duties time being used for training in CRM and the CFI playing SIC to the pilot’s pretend PIC. I think the common mistake is thinking of it as “solo with someone on board but pretending not to be there.” It’s not. In my mind it’s clearly a training event.

   But whether it is a “training event” or not, when a “student” is doing his or her performing-the-duties flights, the instructor is acting as an authorized instructor. It can’t be Joe Blow. It has to be an authorized instructor.

   The universal rule of logging time is equally in 61.51(e)(3) clear that ” A certificated flight instructor may log pilot in command flight time for all flight time while serving as the authorized instructor in an operation if the instructor is rated to act as pilot in command of that aircraft.

   Put them together and I personally (IOW, it’s not a legal opinion) think that the CFI supervising the student “performing the duties of PIC. But that’s just me.

   You can get a formal letter of interpretation from the FAA by writing or faxing a letter with the question to:

   Office of the Chief Counsel
   800 Independence Avenue SW
   Washington, DC 20591

   (202) 267-3227 FAX

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

2. 
   

   
   

   John D Collins on Sep 08, 2013

   I agree with Mark. For me it would be clear as the flight instructor may log pilot in command time while serving as the authorized instructor in an operation if the instructor is rated to act as pilot in command of that aircraft. Part 61.129 (b)(4) states in part “or 10 hours of flight time performing the duties of pilot in command in a multiengine airplane with an authorized instructor”. I would read this to mean that the CFI is serving as an authorized instructor and must be rated multi engine rated (MEI). There is no requirement that the CFI act as PIC, only that they are rated to act as PIC.

   For me, the instructor logging is clear, however, it is less clear what the student logs. My reading of 61.51 concludes he can’t log PIC under (e)(1)(i) because he is not rated in the aircraft. He can’t log PIC under (ii) because he is not the sole occupant. He can’t log under (iii) as a multiengine training aircraft only requires a single pilot or (iv) because the provision doesn’t apply. He also can’t log solo flight as he is not the sole occupant. The only thing that makes sense to me is that the student log it as training time and the instructor endorse the logbook with a description of the training something like this: Pilot performing the duties of PIC as permitted in 61.129 (b)(4). The instructor must also make their normal signature, certificate #, and expiration date.

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

3. 
   

   
   

   Mark Kolber on Sep 08, 2013

   John, you are correct on the student logging for exactly the reasons you state. And at this point, it is not really unclear due to a February 2013 Chief Counsel opinion (Crowe). http://goo.gl/sRPuYi

   The student logging is also discussed in the Final Rule discussion.

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

4. 
   

   
   

   Kris Kortokrax on Sep 08, 2013

   I would start with 61.1 (b) which defines training time and authorized instructor.

   Training time means training received –
   (i) In flight from an authorized instructor;

   Authorized instructor means –
   (ii) A person who holds a flight instructor certificate issued under part 61 of this chapter and is in compliance with § 61.197, when conducting ground training or flight training in accordance with the privileges and limitations of his or her flight instructor certificate;

   I would then go to 61.129 (b)(3) which specifically describes “training” and then 61.129 (b)(4), in which the word training does not appear.

   To me, this time spent with an instructor on board is analogous in intent with solo time. In other words, the individual should be capable of managing a typical multi-engine training airplane such as a Seminole, Duchess or DA-42 by himself. In the preambles in 1998, it was stated that the implemention of this provision for multi-engine airplanes was due to “liability and insurance concerns”. There was no mention of CRM training. That mention was made in 2009, when the provision was expanded to other categories and classes. There is no reason why CRM training could not be provided under the auspices of 61.129(b)(3), instead of 61.129(b)(4).

   The instructor should be providing no training during this time. If he is, then the flight is a dual training flight under 61.129(b)(3).

   I don’t believe that the instructor should be logging PIC time, however the flight time could be logged.

   If one follows the normal sequence of events, this should not be an issue. Obtain the single engine commercial and then add on the multi rating. I do understand though, that some schools are rating people first in the multi so they don’t need a complex single.

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

5. 
   

   
   

   William Brynjo on Sep 08, 2013

   Just to clarify, you have the same wording for the commercial single engine, assuming the normal progression through single engine commercial, that includes 5 hours of night in the solo/ acting as PIC with authorized instructor onboard. The school I am teaching at uses the acting as PIC with instructor onboard for night flights- so the student is legal to act as PIC, I am looking more for the CFI role in this situation.

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

6. 
   

   
   

   William Brynjo on Sep 08, 2013

   Sorry, misread acting as PIC vs performing the duties of PIC.

   what is the difference between performing the duties of PIC, vs acting as PIC?

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

7. 
   

   
   

   Kris Kortokrax on Sep 08, 2013

   There is no requirement in 61.129(a)(4) to perform the time with an instructor. It may be done solo. I would figure that if we can insure a Student pilot to perform 5 hours of solo in a single engine airplane to accomplish the requirements for a Private pilot certificate, we could certainly insure a 250 hour pilot to accomplish 10 hours of solo. A Private pilot certificate is required in order to be eligible for the Commercial pilot certificate. A Private pilot is certainly authorized to act as PIC at night, unless he was certified in Alaska and has not yet met the requirements for night.

   “Performing the duties of a PIC” is language the FAA created to allow for a CFI to babysit a pilot who cannot be insured to act as PIC of an aircraft in solo flight.

   There have been numerous discussions on this website concerning “acting as PIC” vs “logging PIC”.

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

8. 
   

   
   

   William Brynjo on Sep 08, 2013

   Thank you for the discussion, my question is how to deal with this unique time as the school does not allow students to solo at night (it is only a school, there is only flight training with the airplanes).

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

9. 
   

   
   

   Kris Kortokrax on Sep 08, 2013

   The regulations allow for the “babysitter” to go along. Personally, I don’t think much of schools who have so little confidence in their ability to teach, that they don’t allow solo student operations, especially regarding pilots with 250 hours or more of experience.

   An interpretation has already been offered concerning trainees not being able to log PIC time. I’m sure that the individual who asked the question thought he would receive an answer more to his liking than the one given.

   With regards to CFIs logging the time, we instructors and pilots cannot offer interpretations. Your school cannot offer interpretations. Even FAA inspectors cannot offer interpretations. Tthe answer is ultimately up to the Office of Legal Counsel.

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

10. 
    

    
    

    William Brynjo on Sep 08, 2013

    Ok, Thank you for the answer, maybe ill ask the FAA – but it is a really awkward rule that the school is using to thier advantage so that thier insurance is cheaper in an expensive airplane. I realize it is a unique situation, that no one else has the pleasure to deal with, but I a,m new at this, and I wanted an idea of what different interpretations of the paragraphs might be.

    In regards to the rest of the rule, I have no idea why the faa allows that exemption it seams completely uncalled for when one has a private certificate, in single engine ops.

    0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

11. 
    

    
    

    Fritz Katz on Sep 08, 2013

    This school sucks and worse: emblematic of the “guaranteed/fast/easy” fraud, corruption, cheating, chiseling, and dishonesty that has overtaken GA the past 20 years AND LEADS TO ACCIDENTS. Solo = alone. That student does not have ANY of the real world pressure and responsibility for the flight s/he needs to experience to become a fully capable pilot. You should all be ashamed for tacit approval of this dodge.

    -1 Votes 2 Votes  3 Votes

12. 
    

    
    

    Fritz Katz on Sep 08, 2013

    This school sucks and worse: emblematic of the “guaranteed/fast/easy” fraud, corruption, cheating, chiseling, and dishonesty that has overtaken GA the past 20 years AND LEADS TO ACCIDENTS. Solo = alone. That student does not have ANY of the real world pressure and responsibility for the flight s/he needs to experience to become a fully capable pilot. You should all be ashamed who offered tacit approval of this dodge.

    -1 Votes 0 Votes  1 Votes

13. 
    

    
    

    Kris Kortokrax on Sep 08, 2013

    It was initially done in the 1997 Part 61 rewrite for multi-engine airplanes only. In 2009, they apparently decided to extend the capability to other categories and classes (equal opportunity).

    Again, we can all give you our opinions. Only Legal Counsel can give a binding interpretation.

    0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

14. 
    

    
    

    Mark Kolber on Sep 09, 2013

    Some of the “good or bad” discussion misses a common misreading of the reg. Clearly it was designed to substitute for solo in those situations where insurance cost or other factors makes solo flight impractical. But the reg doesn’t call it whether before or after its expansion, “pretending to be solo.” It’s “performing the duties of pilot in command, ” which, certainly after the 2009 expansion, contemplates the CFI “may” be something more than just an insurance crutch sitting on his hands and doing nothing.

    I’m not sure what Fritz means by “tacit approval,” unless he’s fallen into the truly unfortunate view that has become rampant in our society that seeking to understand or explain something means one approves of it. Me. I haven’t seen one post here suggest for a moment that the poster would approve of a CFI or a school that would put a CFI in the right seat of a Cessna 152 to substitute for a commercial applicant’s long solo cross country just because the reg says they can.

    0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

15. 
    

    
    

    Kris Kortokrax on Sep 10, 2013

    Just out of curiosity Mark, what might be the “something more” that the CFI might be there for?

    I don’t think it could be for any training purpose, as that should be spelled out in 61.129(b)(3). Granted, as instructors, we are always evaluating trainees when we are present. The examiner will not be acting as an SIC during the practical test.

    I’m just interested in your thoughts about why else the CFI might be there, if not to “sit on his hands”, (again, I would not be doing nothing, I would be evaluating my trainee’s performance of the duties of a PIC). Obviously, if the need arose, any of us would assume command to the extent necessary.

    0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

16. 
    

    
    

    Mark Kolber on Sep 11, 2013

    Kris,

    The 2009 amendment, expanding the “performing the duties” to other categories and classes suggests a few possibilities, primarily multi-pilot CRM.

    ==============================
    Many of these aircraft operators also believe solo provisions for commercial pilot certification-multiengine airplane rating is beneficial in teaching crew resource management (CRM). These provisions permit the training to be performed solo or with an instructor on board while the applicant is performing the duties of PIC in a multiengine airplane. Some operators have said that they will be agreeable to their commercial pilot applicants practicing abnormal and emergency procedures if the applicant’s instructor was on board. Therefore, this final rule provides for commercial pilot certification for the single engine airplane, helicopter, gyroplane, powered-lift, and airship ratings to be performed either solo or while performing the duties of PIC with an authorized instructor aboard.
    ==============================

    Arguably, the emergency/abnormal stuff fits the mold for traditional dual instruction. And people can certainly agree to disagree on the need for multi-crew training, even in a twin, at this stage. So it may well be that that these comments by the FAA are simply self-justification for what is in essence a rule created by insurance requirements and expanded to equalize the requirement. Based on the comments it received in response to the Proposed Rule, even the FAA recognizes there will be disagreements on whether this should be done:

    ==============================
    We believe the negative comments against this proposal are more of a philosophical disagreement than a safety issue. The existing rule, § 61.129(b)(4), has permitted the commercial pilot-airplane multiengine training to be performed either solo or with an instructor on board since August 4, 1997, and there has not been any difference noted in safety or the quality of the skills and abilities of commercial pilot-airplane multiengine applicants. We believe applicants and instructors have used this training for commercial pilot-airplane multiengine applicants to achieve proficiency in crew resource management and coordination with an SIC designated pilot.
    ==============================

    0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

17. 
    

    
    

    Kris Kortokrax on Sep 11, 2013

    I had read the preambles and noted that operators commented that they used the time to teach CRM and abnormal/emergency procedures. I didn’t see anywhere that the FAA suggested that was the reason for the rule change. They just acknowledged that some operators noted those reasons as a justification.

    Without a common written set of operating procedures and probably little or no real experience flying in a multi pilot operation, I wonder what value the trainee will derive from the neophyte instructor in the right seat.

    0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

18. 
    

    
    

    Boiler on Feb 21, 2014

    Here is the latest interpretation from the Chief Counsel’s office that hopefully clears this up. It’s been pretty thoroughly covered here already. The instructor may log PIC, and how the student should log the time is also addressed

    http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2014/Kuhn%20-%20%282014%29%20Legal%20Interpretation.pdf

    Boiler up.

    0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

19. 
    

    
    

    plenumspacer12 on Jun 11, 2018

    Can someone point me to where can I find this letter, since it was removed from FAA website. Thanx

    0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes