Here's the link to the new 61.65

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_61-65K.pdf

​

​Republished with permission from another DPE...
​
Please see the referenced legal interpretation which clarify the regs and are considered compulsory/mandatory. 

1. 250 hours of pilot time: Part 61.129(a) requires total “flight time as a pilot” of 250 hours. “Flight time as a pilot” does not require a level of training proficiency. Consequently, “flight time” accrued toward a private pilot certificate can be used to meet the requirements of 61.129(a)(1) & (2). 

 

1. Private pilot training that cannot be used toward Commercial certificate.  A PVT pilot certificate is required to be eligible for a commercial certificate, and the "20 hours of training" of 61.129(a)(3) toward the commercial certificate must occur while training for the commercial certificate. (Theriault 2010 legal interpretation). Further, training for a private pilot certificate does not meet the performance standards of a commercial certificate (Legal Interpretation Murphy 2011). Examples of training time toward a private pilot certificate that cannot be used to meet 61.129(a)(3):

 

1. Complex, TAA and Turbine time 
2. Cross country time
3. Instrument time
4. Night time

 

1. Instrument Rating may not meet requirements of instrument training for commercial certificate. While training for an instrument rating, many may or might accomplish part or all the requirements for a commercial certificate. However, an instrument rating in and of itself does not provide proof of meeting the requirements 61.129(a)(3)(i) (Legal Interpretations Hartzell 2010 and Oord 2018) which include: 
   1. Attitude instrument flying
   2. Partial Panel Skills
   3. Recovery from unusual flight attitudes
   4. Intercepting and tracking navigational systems

 

1. Use of Instrument Rating (IR) training toward a commercial certificate:  In order to have IR training apply toward the commercial certificate instrument time, the training entries must specifically document meeting the requirements as outlined in 61.129(a)(3)(i) which could be done by referencing 61.129(a)(3)(i) or by documenting the training using the same phraseology as outlined in this same regulation. Examples of instrument training time “Remarks” that can be used toward the requirements of 61.129(a)(3)(i):

 

1. “Instrument maneuvers and training to meet the requirements of 61.129(a)(3)(i)”
2. “RNAV 13 partial panel, ILS 4, attitude instrument, intercepting and tracking courses” then another entry my have “VOR-A & unusual attitudes”  

 

1. Who may provide the instrument training toward a commercial certificate: Per 61.195 a flight instructor my conduct instrument training required for the commercial pilot certificates only if has an instrument rating on their CFI certificate. However, commercial helicopter rating requirement of 61.129(c)(3)(i) is for “control and maneuvering solely by reference to instruments” which is technically not the same as “instrument training”. Therefore, a CFII certificate is not required to provide the training by reference to instruments for commercial helicopter certificate (Legal Interpretation Jablecki 2016).  

 

1. Using instrument rating cross-country training toward commercial certificate cross country training requirements. The two commercial dual cross countries required under 61.129(a)(3)(iii), can be done either IFR or VFR. (Legal Interpretation Sun 2011). Legal interpretations of Hartzell 2010 and Oord-AOPA 2018 state training for an instrument rating can be applied toward the instrument experience required by 61.129(a)(3)(i) if documented appropriately (see above). However, the legal interpretations do not prohibit nor clearly specify instrument rating cross country training may be applied toward the commercial cross country training requirements of 61.129(a)(3)(iii). Therefore, performing a cross-country during instrument training potentially might satisfy the requirements of a commercial dual cross country but is likely subject to the interpretations of the testing DPE or FSDO. While using one training flight to satisfy requirements of both the instrument rating cross country and a commercial cross country is not prohibited, until legal interpretation can validate this position, discretion would dictate a separate flight training event. 

 
 
Hartzell 2010: 
 
“the hours of training used to obtain the instrument rating will meet some, if not most, or quite often, meet all the requirements for instrument aeronautical experience under §61.129” 
 
“The interpretation (Theriault 2011) did not establish an additive requirement for the number of hours of instrument training required to meet the aeronautical experience requirements of 61.129.”
 
“We are merely clarifying the requirements that the applicant for the commercial pilot certificate provide evidence that they have met the requirements of 61.129.”
 Oord-AOPA 2018 
“To allow for training time to count towards both 61.65(e) and 61.129(c)(3)(i) in cases where it meets the requirements of both, as stated in the letter to Ms. Kristine Hartzell dated December 12, 2010, that time must be logged consistent with 51.51 and documented in a manner that demonstrates the time counts towards the commercial pilot certificate and (instrument) ratings.”  
One example that has been debated is using the 250 nm instrument rating cross country to qualify for both the instrument rating requirement of 61.65(d)(2)(ii)(A) and one of the 2-hour commercial dual cross-country requirements of 61.129(a)(3). 
 
 

1. Solo vs Duties of PIC time requirement for the Commercial certificate. 61.129(a)(4) permits use of “performing duties of PIC” (PDPIC) with an instructor on board in lieu of solo time. This likely arose out of pilots training in high performance or multi-engine aircraft where they may be able to legally solo these aircraft but would be non-insurable on a solo endorsement. This requirement is to be ALL solo OR ALL observed PIC. They cannot be a combination of both. (Legal interpretation Grannis 2016). 

 

1. How to Log PDPIC time. If using PDPIC to meet 61.129(a)(4) requirements, it must be logged appropriately. (Legal Interpretation Kuhn 2014) The flight time should be logged as 
   1. “PIC” 
   2. NO DUAL received
   3. CFI must sign the entry to prove it was not a solo 
   4. noted in remarks “Performing duties of PIC” or PDPIC. 

 

1. NOTE on part 141 operations: Part 141 training MUST follow the TCO training course outline approved by the FAA. Therefore, there is no ability to meet both instrument and commercial training requirements with a particular flight under 141. The requirements for instrument and commercial ratings are detailed in part 141 appendix C and D.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Flight Instructors, do you want to help your student pass the check ride, maybe with a little less stress and anxiety going into it?  Of course you do! So stop making the examiner the bad guy!  Last Saturday, I overheard a CFI tell his student "If you tell the examiner that, he'll bust you!".  I don't know the reason for that comment but I do know that it will raise the students anxiety going into the checkride.  Choose your words carefully.  The student may have answered a question incorrectly.  So maybe saying "That's not quite right.  Let's do a little more ground to shore things up." might get a same results without increasing the stress and anxiety of things to come.

It's been said before but worth repeating.

Pilot logs:  Put your name in the book, total each column on each page, double check the math, make sure you meet the requirements for your particular certificate or rating, high lite or use a sticky note to make them easy to find and consider using a check list with the requirements and the date they where met.

Aircraft logs:  Make sure you've looked over the logs more than once and can easily find stuff.  Know how to determine the current status of all AD's (is there an AD list).  ​Make a cheatsheet listing all the required maintenance items and the date/time they were completed.  

What do you get when a few DPEs get together?  Usually a bitch session about how bad check rides are going.  That's exactly what happened a few days ago.  Four of us hanging around the airport waiting for the weather to clear up to either go fly ourselves or finish up a checkride.

We started comparing notes on recent rides.  All of us were seeing very similar issues on orals, weak cross country planing and lack of system knowledge.  That hit home for me as I just issued a Notice of Disapproval to an initial CFI and Private pilot applicants. Both for lack of knowledge in those two areas.  Those two applicants had something else in common, the same recommending CFI.  That's where the frustration sets in for me.  The lack of knowledge of a CFI will mostly likely be passed down to their students.  How did it get this far?  There are any number of reasons but somehow it has to be caught and corrected before an incident or accident occurs.  

Some of the weakness we found common and unnerving.  Pilots and CFIs not knowing how to lean a mixture (some have admitted to me that they have never leaned a mixture), Not knowing how to recognize a blocked static port and what to do.  Not knowing how to identify or handle a failed alternator.  Not knowing how to calculate ground speed without a GPS (I use to ask this question inflight up to a couple years ago.  Now I ask it on the ground because pilots are taking 20 minutes to get an answer and most of the time it's not correct.)

None of us DPEs like to issue a Notice of Disapproval.  Matter of fact, I hate it.  It sucks telling pilots, who have worked so hard to get this far, that they are not meeting the requirements of the ACS.  Usually when a DPE pulls the plug on a ride, they have given the applicant more than a fair chance to get it right.  It usually boils down to a larger issue of safety. We feel bad that the applicant didn't pass but it's not as bad as finding out the applicant was involved in an incident or accident of some kind.  The DPE goes home feeling as bad as the applicant and is left wondering if it was something the DPE said or did to cause the failure.  It sucks.  We want to see you pass and are rooting for you as much as anyone else.  It may not seem that way when you're on the other side of the table from them but they are.  

Fortunately the weather cleared up before we'd be forced to divert (the diversion has a name "Slicks Bar and Grill").  There's no better way to cheer up grumpy pilots than to go flying.  And that's what we did.

Scenario 1.  Pilot shows up in a Cessna C-162 (Skycatcher) for a private pilot checkride.  Pilot weighs 225 pounds, DPE is 180 pounds and the fuel tanks are toped off.  Pilot presents a weight & balance with the airplane within CG but clearly above Max Gross Weight.  When asked about it, the applicant says "My CFI is 200 pounds and the airplane flies fine"

Scenario 2.  Commercial pilot shows up for his multi engine checkride.  Shortly after take off the right engine oil temp goes above the red line and does not go down when in cruise.  Pilot said "it always does that and the mechanic says it's OK."

Scenario 3.  Initial CFI applicant flying a Vans RV-12.  During the run up the pilot notes the engine is running hotter than what he normally sees.  He hasn't flown this particular RV-12 before but its running hotter than the one he usually flies.  Pilot discontinues the run-up and returns to the ramp.

Scenario 4.  Commercial applicant flying a DA-40.  As part of her preflight, she sumps the fuel into a plastic jar and puts it into the baggage compartment (yes the jar is 1/2 filled with fuel).  When asked about that she responds with "that's school policy".
 
All four of these scenarios are real and have happened in the last 6 months.   

Last year I did about 60 initial CFI check rides and this year is on track to beat that!  Since January, I've done 19.  As you well know, an examiner is required to test the knowledge test codes missed on the knowledge test.  I'm seeing a lot of initial CFI applicants missing the same questions on the knowledge tests.  The 2 most popular Tasks are Navigation and Cross-Country Flight Planning (specifically AI.II.K5)  and Performance and Limitations (specifically AI.II.K2e).

These will get added to the check ride in a scenario.  For example, "we are to the point of planning our students first ever cross country.  Pick some place you want to go and teach me how to prepare the cross country" or "Teach me how to prepare a weight and balance for our flight with you, me and the 35 lbs. of crap we have in the baggage compartment".  Notice how I leave everything up to you.  Im the student.  If I haven't assigned the Task before the check ride, I'll give you 15-20 to prepare something.  

So here's a few suggestions to help get through this successfully.  1. Be really familiar with the subject matter missed on your knowledge tests.  2. Prepare and use lesson plans developed as part of your CFI training.  I found the best applicants prepare their own lesson plans but it is ok to use commercially produced ones (just go in and modify them for your own use).  3. Use the Private, Commercial and/or CFI ACS to insure you cover the elements needed.  

Here are some common errors Im noticing:  

Cross country planning: 1. Using Magnetic Course in place of True Course.  2. Not correcting to a common measurement (example the airplane POH is in MPH and the distance obtained off of the sectional was in Nautical Miles or when determining ground speed and cross wind correction using an TAS in MPH while the winds aloft is in Knots). 3. Not applying Deviation.  4. Not applying Notes from the performance charts (example reduction of cruise speed for missing wheel pants.

Weight & Balance:  1.  Not being able to find a current weight and balance in the POH.  2. Using a sample aircraft weight and balance and presenting it as "the real" weight and balance.  3.  Being able to define terms.  4.  Using a "cheat sheet" but the information on that "cheat sheet" is incorrect. 5. Being able to describe the "why and how" operating outside the CG limits is unsafe.

Circling Approaches have several regulatory and safety issue to consider.  Here are some great sources of info to consider as part of your risk management process.  Click the link to find the info.

Operations Attachment 19 - FAA Circle Approach GuidanceNTSB (.gov)https://data.ntsb.gov › Document › docBLOB

https://www.faa.gov/media/12381

​https://www.faa.gov/media/14661

​https://www.ntsb.gov/advocacy/safety-alerts/Pages/SA-084.aspx
​

I'm sure I'm going to get hate mail over this but hear me out.

Some flight schools, CFI and students are hard to deal with. Applicants aren't qualified. Aircraft that aren't legal or in poor maintenance condition. Missing paperwork. Frequent cancelations, delays and/or No shows. Instructors that don't care and students that consistently perform poorly. Why should an examiner put up with this? A lot of DPEs simply won't return phone calls, texts or emails from people they don't regularly work with because of this.

Now we all know that all examiners talk with each other. They share experiences. Like Santa, they know who's been naughty and who's been nice. Why not enjoy a nice checkride experience at a good school and not deal with the dumpster fire at the other?  I like to watch a good dumpster fire every now and then but then I'd rather sip my tea from a safe distance and not get involved.

I travel for some of my rides.  I've quickly discovered there's a reason why some schools are adding perks and cash incentives to do rides at their location, the local examiners simply don't want to deal with them. This hasn't been just my experience. One examiner friend had a dozen rides he couldn't do in one month due to the stuff listed above. Another examiner friend traveled 300 miles to do 8 rides over 4 days at one school. Only 3 were accomplished for a variety of reasons (non weather related). These schools are very vocal about there being an examiner shortage. They complain to everyone. Kind of like a 2 year old throwing a fit.  "Call the FSDO", "Contact your Senator" you see the post on a variety of social media. In reality, they'd get more help if they got their act together and provided a trouble free checkride experience for the examiner.