Commercial

[TRLpilot]

pilot + principles = no pft

pilot + principles = no dirt-cheap compensation (aka. whoring)

i think everyone can agree that we need less pilots and more principles in this world!

 

[avbug]

If there were more principals, I'd just get sent to their offices more often.

I don't even drive by a school, any more.

 

[JeffSKDTW]

I don't even drive by a school, any more.

Not since the Restraining Order.

 

[Flyin Tony]

I just got off the Phone with Riverside FSDO and a DE there said that you can carry a passanger! So looks like I dont have to fly the 250 X-country again. Also my CFI and everyone at the airport said yes that It was ok that my Dad went.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I just got off the Phone with Riverside FSDO and a DE there said that you can carry a passenger! So looks like I don't have to fly the 250 X-country again. Also my CFI and everyone at the airport said yes that It was ok that my Dad went.

Great. An entire FSDO area that violates the rules. <sigh>

One thing to =really= watch out for. If you do it don't tell =anyone=. You could be an ATP 10 years from now flying for the airlines and someone finds out and you lose all of your certificates and ratings back to the day before you received the commercial. Not because you did anything wrong, but because you just didn't meet a basic qualification for the certificate.

 

[Flyin Tony]

I dont know if it matters but my dad is a pilot but has not flown in 16 years. I know the DE asked me that but i didnt think that that matters at all.

 

[Jedi_Cheese]

I obey the rule of the logbook has written in it what happened on the flight and anything else is sort of fuzzy... *until the laywer cuts me a deal* It's some of the best advice I ever got. And I am not exactly wordy in the entries.

 

[igneousy2]

61 Faq

This is from the FAR 61 FAQ that the FAA publishes. It's not "official" but it's as close as you can get.

UPDATE YOUR FAQs at:​

Part 61 FAQs at: http://www1.faa.gov/avr/afs/afs800/docs/pt61FAQ.doc



Part 141 FAQsat: http://www1.faa.gov/avr/afs/afs800/docs/pt141FAQ.doc



Additional document and linkage for the “Aeronautical Experience Check List” which is a file that contains an aeronautical experience checklist to assist in checking an applicant’s FAA Form 8710‑1-Airman Certificate and/or Ratings: http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/afs800/docs/aero-exp.doc



THE SOURCE OF ANSWERS IS JOHN LYNCH, CERTIFICATION AND FLIGHT TRAINING BRANCH, AFS-840, WASHINGTON, DC UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED



Disclaimer Statement: The answers provided to the questions in this website are not legal interpretations. Only the FAA's Office of Chief Counsel and Regional Chief Counsel provide legal interpretations. The FAA's Office of Chief Counsel does not review this website nor does it disseminate legal interpretations through it. However, there are some answers provided in this website where the FAA Office of Chief Counsel's legal interpretations have been reprinted.



The answers in this website address Frequently Asked Questions on 14 CFR Part 61 and represents FAA Flight Standards Service policy as it relates to this regulation. The answers are as result of questions asked by FAA Flight Standards Service’s Regional Offices, District Offices, and from concerned people from the public. The answers provide for standardization

QUESTION: Must the solo cross country described in 61.129(a)(4) be as “sole occupant” as defined in 61.51(d) --i.e., alone in the aircraft? Suppose a person did a cross country trip as a PVT that fulfills the rule in every other respect, except s/he was carrying non-pilot passengers --his/her children, for example. Wasn't that pilot “alone” for all practical purposes (decision-making, flight planning and execution, etc.). Might not it be argued that such experience is actually more valuable than being physically alone in the airplane, since it adds to the mix elements of responsibility and pressure --and the implied the ability to manage those factors-- that wouldn't otherwise be there?



ANSWER: Ref§ 61.129(a)(4); It reads “solo” and we intended it to be “solo.”

{Q&A-8}




QUESTION:§ 61.129(a)(4) Aeronautical Experience for the Commercial Pilot Certificate states that “10 hours as solo flight in a single-engine...” is required. In the past “solo” flight was not required at the commercial level. The Preamble states on page 73 that “...HAI objects to the requirements in proposed 61.129(a)(4)...for supervised PILOT IN COMMAND on the areas of operation listed in 61.127.” QUESTION: Does a Private Pilot need to be the “sole occupant” in the airplane to meet the requirements of 61.129(a)(4), or can they carry passengers which the preamble seems to imply by the wording “pilot in command”.



ANSWER: Ref. § 61.129(a)(4); Per § 61.129(a)(4) it reads solo and we intended it to say “solo.” As it relates to § 61.129(a)(4), no the person cannot take a non-pilot person along on the flight.

{Q&A-53}





That's good enough for me.

Later

 

[midlifeflyer]

This is from the FAR 61 FAQ that the FAA publishes. It's not "official" but it's as close as you can get.

It's also part of the FAA's attempt to standardize how FSDOs and DPEs treat the regs. So the DPE who told Tony it's okay should be scheduled for some recurrent training.

 

[Flyin Tony]

Im going with what you guys say. The FSDO down here is full of crack heads. I did call the AOPA and they said the same thing as you guys said.
thanks for the help
Tony