rotorhead1026

Really all sounds kind of bogus, doesn't it? No disrespect intended. This is really an Oklahoma City issue; a given FSDO may tell you what's going on there, but accepting something as solo when in fact it AIN'T is something that would have to be approved at the top. People in this thread say it has been done, but it's not something that a FSDO could approve without authorization from really high up, I think. Somebody must know something more ...

floridaCFII

Yeah... it's legit. I know that at least a couple of the "name-brand" flight academies in Florida do it. What I'm not sure of is how the CFI logs the time. It's my understanding that they log PIC and Dual Given, and the student logs Dual Received and "Supervised PIC". This allows the flight to meet the requirements of the course for the long commercial cross-country.

The way it's been explained to me is that while the CFI is there, they are not performing any instruction. They are there to observe the student performing the duties of PIC, and if the CFI has to intervene or take over in any way, then the flight is not satisfactory.

rotorhead1026

So there's something in writing ... somewhere? I doubt no one's word; it's just that all this seems to be hearsay. Just curious now ...

floridaCFII

That I'm not sure about. It's written in the Part 141 Course Outlines for the 141 schools that do it. I am not sure where you would find that for a Part 61 student.

rotorhead1026

Cripes, I was so focused on 61 I never even thought to look in Part 141. Makes sense - a completely different set of requirements. Look in Appendix D, 5(b). It's right there.

"b) For an airplane multiengine course: 10 hours of flight training in a multiengine airplane performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a certificated flight instructor. The training must consist of the approved areas of operation in paragraph (d)(2) of section No. 4 of this appendix, and include at least— " etc, etc and refers to solo requirements

Since I never taught at a 141 school, I would never have known ...

So this deal works under 141 only. [Ooops, didn't look long enough - see below about 61.129 (b) (4)].


As far as the original question goes, no additional x/c is required for a (Part 61) class add-on, AFAIK.

Brian Z

My copy of the 08 FAR states the same under 61.129(b)(4)

ERAUdude

All of this is sounding good. All my training at ERAU was done part 142 and we did long XCs for both commercial certs. during our instrument rating. I think I'll look into it more among work. Thanks for the help everyone!

FDXer

I don't know if this adds to your original question about Single and Multi ratings but I have a Multi-ATP but I'm only rated Private privileges for single engine land. I asked a FAA inspector about this and I would need a checkride to get commercial privileges added to my single engine rating.

Other than my initial private certificate, all my ratings were in multi-airplanes and I'm not allowed to exercise commercial privileges in a single engine airplane. Since I am an ATP, I can use my instrument rating in a single engine airplane.

It seems like you were asking about doing commercial ratings in a single and applying them to a multi. I did the opposite because of the military and commuter ranks and I can't apply my ratings to a single.

I hope this helps.

rotorhead1026

No, but it still would be a class add-on (if in fact you wanted to do it), where you basically are considered to have the experience requirements (and the written) - so you'd train to proficiency on the single, get recommended, and do the practical test. The only issue is RG, flaps, and a CS prop - both experience in same and requirements for practical test (I don't have a PTS handy). There are folks who have virtually all of their time in jets and apparently have to go back and get time in something with a CS prop! (or so I'm told).

normajean21

if 2 private pilots go on x/c who logs pic?