Commercial Ticket Endeavor

"three-eight-hotel" wrote in message
oups.com...
I am currently IFR and have been giving some consideration into going
after the commercial rating.

You're IFR and you're posting? Shouldn't you be paying attention to the
instruments, and wait until you're back on the ground for Usenet?

[...]
My bottom-line question is... How much is this going to cost me and
can I really afford it?

I don't know whether you can afford it. I can't even tell you how much it
will cost, though obviously you can calculate a minimum cost based on how
much airplanes and instructors cost in your area. The actual cost, likely
to be at least somewhat above the theoretical minimum, will depend on you,
your instructor, and sometimes circumstances beyond either of your control.

Aside from the 10 hours of complex time (plus the checkride in a
complex airplane) and the instructor costs for those 10 hours, it seems
like most of the requirements may have already been covered in the
instrument training or can be done on your own. For example: The 300
NM XCtry, 5 hr. night-VFR with 10 to's and lndgs. at a towered airport,
...

It is true, for many pilots, their every day flying covers much of the basic
aeronautical experience requirements for the Commercial Pilot certificate.
FAR 61.129 has the details you need to know.

I know there are some new maneuvers, but those can be learned in the
172 and confirmed in the complex plane as part of the 10 hours.

Can they? It really depends on the pilot and the instructor. In my own
case, I certainly spent more time learning the maneuvers than I expected to.
Things went more smoothly after I had some time off (medical problems) and
came back to a new instructor.

It just seems to me that most of the requirements may have been met
during previous training and/or by getting out and flying?

Yes, that may well be the case for you.

Is it reasonable to think that I might be able to:
* Spend 4 or 5 hours in the 172, learning all the new maneuvers for
the checkride (at the cost of fuel and an instructor)

I would be surprised if you could learn all of the maneuvers in just 5
hours. There are five tasks in the PTS that are likely brand-new for the
typical Private Pilot, and several more that probably will require at least
some time revisiting to brush up on. It's theoretically possible that you
could learn each of the new maneuvers in 1 hour each, but it seems unlikely.

For what it's worth, I used a 172 to learn the maneuvers, but frankly I
found the complex airplane I intended to use for the checkride -- the
Cardinal RG -- to be much easier to fly. I wouldn't call either the 172 or
the 177RG "precise" airplanes, but the Cardinal certainly had better "feel"
to it, IMHO.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

* Spend 10 hours in a complex plane (at the cost of the plane and
instructor), learning the plane and dialing in the maneuvers
* Take the checkride (cost of DE and plane)

If I flew a 2 hr. day XCtry and 2 hr. night XCtry, meeting the NM
requirements, with an instructor while working on the instrument
rating, would that carry-over?

At a minimum, you would have to meet the VFR requirement as well. Reading
the Part 61 FAQ, Q&A 93 says that an instrument training flight done under
simulated instrument conditions does NOT qualify for the 2 hour XC
requirements, even if the VFR conditions requirement is met (apparently
because, even though the actual conditions are VFR, the pilot is still
flying under IMC...the fact that it's simulated IMC is irrelevant).

In another question, the FAQ does clarify that you can do simulated
instrument conditions in a given flight, and still count that flight for the
2 hours XC. But only if there are 2 hours NOT spent under simulated
instrument conditions for that flight. For example, if you had a 2.5 hour
training flight, meeting the distance requirements, during which you used a
view limiting device for less than half an hour (perhaps you only flew the
approaches under simulated instrument conditions), and for which the rest of
the flight was done under VFR conditions, that would be fine.

Is the requirement that a logbook entry
exist for those elements, or that they were done while training for the
commercial rating?

You would certainly need a logbook entry for any aeronautical experience you
intend to use for the certificate. There is not, as far as I know, a
requirement that the training be done specifically for the Commercial Pilot
certificate. The training flight does, of course, need to include aspects
of piloting found in 61.127(b)(1), but there's nothing that says that
training has to happen after you have "officially" commenced on your
Commercial Pilot training.

My ultimate goal is to get the CFI ticket, and let other help support
my habit! ;-)

Then it's an investment. The real question would be, can you afford to NOT
get the Commercial Pilot certificate. Assuming you eventually make the cost
of the training back through your paid piloting duties, no amount for the
training would be too much, and once you've paid off the training,
everything else is gravy. Right?

Pete

three-eight-hotel wrote:

I know there are some new maneuvers, but those can be learned in the
172 and confirmed in the complex plane as part of the 10 hours.

I suspect that the decision on what aircraft to use for each part of the
exam is at the discretion of the individual examiner. I, too, have been
considering pursuing my commercial but my Bonanza has a newly rebuilt,
turbo-normalized engine in it. As much as I would like to learn and
demonstrate the maneuvers in the Bonanza, I have concerns about damaging
engine heat that might build up while practicing and flying them during the
exam.

A few instructors whom I asked about this did speculate that the examiner,
a certified A&P, would allow demonstrating the commercial maneuvers in a
C172, then demonstrating competency in the complex aircraft (gear, cowl
flaps, and adjustable prop in the Bo).

--
Peter

Define "friend" for us NG folk. Now define "friend" in a 'legal' sense as
you would like to see it written in the FARs.

A "friend" is one with whom one has a prior personal relationship. I
would not define "friend" in a legal sense for the FARs, because I
believe that the private pilot privilage of flying somebody who pays for
the flight (but no more than the cost of the flight) should be extended
beyond friends, just like it is extended beyond friends in an automotive
sense. I also believe that a commercial operation should be reserved
for commercial pilots, just like automotive livery services are reserved
for licensed livery operators. The boundary is always fuzzy, moving the
boundary does not make it less fuzzy.

The important pieces are (IMHO):
1: Protection of the flying public from the perception that they are
receiving a greater degree of safety and oversight than they are. (this
is more of a disclosure issue - "I'm a private pilot, not a commercial
pilot, I have not been tested to the higher commercial standards and
neither has the aircraft.")

2: Protection of legitimate charter operations from fly-by-nights that
are really trying to undercut them by skimping on safety. This is more
of a business issue, and is primarily aimed at operations that are
intending to make a profit that they can take to the bank.

3: Protection of the freedom in this country to manage our own affairs
the way we wish, so long as it does not adversely and unfairly impact
others.

I believe that private pilots should be able to fly passengers, whether
they are friends, friends-of-friends, new-found acquantances, or cub
scouts they've never met. I believe they should be able to do so even
if the pilot doesn't have any independent reason to fly to the
passenger's destination. Joy of flight is reason enough to take off.

I believe that private pilots should be prohibited from running a
commercial operation in disguise, but should be able to recover all
costs of operating the aircraft for an individual flight. I believe
that posting on a college ride board in the same manner as an automotive
posting does not establish commercial intent.

My beliefs are more liberal than the FAA's present rules allow, and one
could rightly conclude that I disagree with the FAA's rules on this
matter. However, I think that the present rules draw a line that is
more arbitrary than the ones I would draw.

To address the question above, I would replace 61.113 (c) with something
like: "A private pilot may share the operating expenses of a flight
with his passengers in any mutually agreed upon manner. A private pilot
may not receive compensation for the flight over and above these
expenses. Except as otherwise provided in this part, a private pilot
may not operate in a manner resembling a commercial operation; this
resemblance being considered overall rather than flight by flight."

No, this is not a clear-cut division either, no rule (except an outright
ban) is. However, I believe the wording provides a clear enough picture
so that a judge is likely to interpret it the same way a pilot is likely
to have done (making a violation likely to be deliberate rather than a
trap), while preserving the maximum reasonable freedom for a private
pilot to operate.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Lotsa luck...

denny