hc0fitted

IF you were to add a ME on to a PPL this is true but. If a person were to do his/her Commercial Multi he/she needs 10 hours of solo in a multiengine aircraft 61.129.
Of course no insurance company is going to let a student solo a multi hence Supervised PIC is needed....

Yeffro

OP that dude is wrong. The "performing the duties..." endorsement does NOT allow anyone to log PIC for an aircraft that they're not rated for, as previously stated.

hc0fitted

Yes, key point Initial... If you do your initial commercial in a multi you need 10 hours of solo time OR 10 hours of flight time acting as a PIC with an authorized instructor(SPIC). There is no other option.

NoyGonnaDoIt

You will find it throughout 61.129, the aeronautical experience requirements for the commercial certificate. It was originally only there for the multi rating but the October 2009 revision added it for all the other commercial ratings.

If you go a little beyond the reg and into the 2009 Final Rule explanatory material, it's not really an instructor sitting there like a bump on a long. One of the goals is to use the time to improve CRM skills.

But as others indicated, "performing the duties of PIC," at least in the context of commercial training, is not one of the 61.51 "boxes" that allow logging PIC.

rickair7777

You can't log it as PIC in any other context either, because it is not PIC. It merely substitutes for PIC which would otherwise be required in certain situations.

NoyGonnaDoIt

Take a look at 61.51(e)(iv) (performing the duties of pilot in command in an approved PIC training programs, primarily 135 and 121).

rickair7777

Ooops, that paragraph did not used to exist! Maybe I better spring for a new FAR/AIM.

In the 121 context that appears to mean that you could log non-flying legs of Captain IOE as a PIC, where you were not really able to do that in the past. But read the fine print...in order to do that the check airman would have to sign your logbook just like a CFI (nobody actually does that in 121).

But this appears to me to be applicable only towards formal (I assume 135/121) PIC training programs. It is not apparent that an FBO instructor could use this provision.

Also, this does not change 61.159(a)(4), which is still logged as SIC if you happen to be doing that.

However...if you log turbine PIC where you did not actually sign for the aircraft be aware that airlines will not count that towards their TPIC mins. It may not be worth logging a few hours of IOE if you have to separate it out later.


NGD, any idea why they added this provision? It doesn't make sense from a 121 perspective, ie a solution in search of a problem...

NoyGonnaDoIt

There was some confusion over the rule's meaning. Some of the commenters indicated that since the rule requires that the trainee is appropriately rated, if the trainee was on the controls, he'd e able to log PIC under the "sole manipulator" clause. Others expressed concern about yet another PIC-logging rule that didn't even require "hands-on" flying time. Best I can figure from the explanatory material , like part of the extension of "supervised solo" it has a CRM basis. The trainee is being allowed to log PIC when "playing captain" for a multi-pilot crew even when not doing the flying.

Why the FAA found it necessary, I've not a clue. FWIW, this is what the final rule said about that:

==============================
The rule was initially petitioned for by Saudi Aramco. Saudi Aramco wanted permission to allow new hires' training in their Bell 214 helicopter to eventually become PICs in the company and allow logging PIC flight time while under the supervision of more experienced and senior PICs. This rule does require pilots to hold at least a commercial pilot certificate and requires those performing supervising PIC duties must hold either a commercial pilot certificate or airline transport pilot certificate, and flight instructor certificate with the appropriate category and class of aircraft being flown, if a class rating is appropriate.
==============================

If you're curious, the discussion of the rule and comments is in the August 21, 2009 Federal Register at pages 42514-42515.