Commercial rating?

[Paul Tomblin]

So I've got my instrument rating, complex endorsement and 450 hours PIC.
So I've starting thinking about the commercial rating. But I've got some
questions:

- I understand there isn't much airwork involved and that it's mostly
about knowing aircraft systems. Is that correct?
- The requirements state I have to have made a 300nm solo flight. Does a
flight with a non-pilot count, or do I really have to have been alone?
- What can I do with it? Can I offer to fly people somewhere for money?
If I want to take pictures from the air to sell, do I need a commercial
rating?
- How different is the second class medical from the third?
- If I add on a seaplane rating later, will it automatically be commercial
or is there a separate checkride for seaplane commercial?
- Is adding a commercial rating one of the things that non-citizens need
Homeland Security/TSA approval for?

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Reliability went through the floor, tunnelled its way to the centre of
the Earth, and perished in the magma.
-- Saundo

[Robert M. Gary]

1) The commercial checkride is mostly airwork. There are some new
maneuvers to be done. The oral is a bit more intense than the private,
mostly with regard to aircraft systems (be ready to answer the output
of the alternator in amps and the capacity of the battery).
2) The FAA's position is that the "solo" cross country must truely be
solo. Exceptions are made for pets.
3) You can't do much with the commercial ticket. You can work at a site
seeing operation or you can go after your CFI. You can also work for a
121/135 operation. Actually taking people places for money is very
different and requires 135.
4) The second class medical is almost identical to the third
5) If you add a seaplane rating it will not automatically be commercial
but it will not be very difficult to take the commercial add-on vs the
private add-on sea checkride. As I recall the only difference is that
commercial must demostrate docing.
6) Yes, if you are a non-citizen your first stop must be to register
with TSA. That paperwork will take a bit of time. AOPA has the best
info on this. Once you decide on a CFI or flight school you will need
to work with them because your TSA approval is LOCKED to them. If you
change CFIs or flight school you must reapply with TSA, get a new
background check, pay another $130 and reshow your passport. The CFI
and FBO must already be registered as a TSA training facility.

-Robert, CFI land & sea

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Robert M. Gary" > said:
>2) The FAA's position is that the "solo" cross country must truely be
>solo. Exceptions are made for pets.

Darn. So taking my wife to Chicago won't count, in spite of what a pet
she is.

>3) You can't do much with the commercial ticket. You can work at a site
>seeing operation or you can go after your CFI. You can also work for a
>121/135 operation. Actually taking people places for money is very
>different and requires 135.

I don't want to be a CFI - I am quite capable of scaring myself in an
airplane, I don't need a student pilot to do it for me.

>6) Yes, if you are a non-citizen your first stop must be to register
>with TSA. That paperwork will take a bit of time. AOPA has the best
>info on this. Once you decide on a CFI or flight school you will need
>to work with them because your TSA approval is LOCKED to them. If you
>change CFIs or flight school you must reapply with TSA, get a new
>background check, pay another $130 and reshow your passport. The CFI
>and FBO must already be registered as a TSA training facility.

That sucks. That's almost enough incentive to go get my citizenship.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Like the man said: "Nothing good ever goes in /opt."
-- Tim Foreman

[Jim Macklin]

A commercial pilot with minimum time can be hired by any
plane owner to fly their airplane under part 91, anywhere in
the world, under IFR or VFR. They just can't carry
passengers or cargo "for hire."

You can demo airplanes as a salesman and be paid to do it.


"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
| In a previous article, "Robert M. Gary" >
said:
| >2) The FAA's position is that the "solo" cross country
must truely be
| >solo. Exceptions are made for pets.
|
| Darn. So taking my wife to Chicago won't count, in spite
of what a pet
| she is.
|
| >3) You can't do much with the commercial ticket. You can
work at a site
| >seeing operation or you can go after your CFI. You can
also work for a
| >121/135 operation. Actually taking people places for
money is very
| >different and requires 135.
|
| I don't want to be a CFI - I am quite capable of scaring
myself in an
| airplane, I don't need a student pilot to do it for me.
|
| >6) Yes, if you are a non-citizen your first stop must be
to register
| >with TSA. That paperwork will take a bit of time. AOPA
has the best
| >info on this. Once you decide on a CFI or flight school
you will need
| >to work with them because your TSA approval is LOCKED to
them. If you
| >change CFIs or flight school you must reapply with TSA,
get a new
| >background check, pay another $130 and reshow your
passport. The CFI
| >and FBO must already be registered as a TSA training
facility.
|
| That sucks. That's almost enough incentive to go get my
citizenship.
|
|
| --
| Paul Tomblin >
http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
| Like the man said: "Nothing good ever goes in /opt."
| -- Tim Foreman

[Robert M. Gary]

> You can demo airplanes as a salesman and be paid to do it.

I think you can do that with a private though 61.117(f)

"(f) A private pilot who is an aircraft salesman and who has at least
200^M
hours of logged flight time may demonstrate an aircraft in flight to
a^M
prospective buyer. "

-Robert, CFI

[Michael Ware]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:Tf3Pf.116007$QW2.78328@dukeread08...
> A commercial pilot with minimum time can be hired by any
> plane owner to fly their airplane under part 91, anywhere in
> the world, under IFR or VFR. They just can't carry
> passengers or cargo "for hire."
>
>
They can't? Please explain. §61.133 says you can. I am curious about the ins
and outs of this myself. And could somebody explain, maybe by example, what
'holding out' means?

Mike

[Bob Gardner]

You need to read Parts 119 and 135 to see what is required and what is
exempted.

"Holding out" means indicating to the public at large that you are in the
business of providing air transportation...the FAA has said that merely
putting a notice on a bulletin board is holding out. The rationale is that
the uninformed public needs some assurance that the person they are flying
with has met standards higher than those required of a private pilot, that
his/her plane is maintained to a higher standard than a simple annual
inspection, and that his/her physical condition is checked regularly and
exceeds that required of private pilots. Don't you feel safer knowing that
the captain of your airline flight has a checkride and a physical every six
months instead of a biennial flight review and a physical every three years?

Bob Gardner

"Michael Ware" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> news:Tf3Pf.116007$QW2.78328@dukeread08...
>> A commercial pilot with minimum time can be hired by any
>> plane owner to fly their airplane under part 91, anywhere in
>> the world, under IFR or VFR. They just can't carry
>> passengers or cargo "for hire."
>>
>>
> They can't? Please explain. §61.133 says you can. I am curious about the
> ins
> and outs of this myself. And could somebody explain, maybe by example,
> what
> 'holding out' means?
>
> Mike
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Michael Ware" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> news:Tf3Pf.116007$QW2.78328@dukeread08...
>> A commercial pilot with minimum time can be hired by any
>> plane owner to fly their airplane under part 91, anywhere in
>> the world, under IFR or VFR. They just can't carry
>> passengers or cargo "for hire."
>>
>>
> They can't? Please explain. §61.133 says you can. I am curious about the
> ins
> and outs of this myself. And could somebody explain, maybe by example,
> what
> 'holding out' means?

What Jim means is that having a commercial certificate isn't a *sufficient*
condition for carrying passengers or cargo for hire. That's actually
slightly inaccurate, because there are some narrow exceptions, but generally
speaking carriage of passengers or cargo for hire requires not only a
commercial certificate, but compliance with other regulations (Parts 119 and
135, as Bob mentions, are the most common ones to run into, though you could
of course do it under Part 121 as well).

You can't use a Private Pilot certificate to work for a commercial
operation -- you need a Commercial or ATP -- but having a Commercial pilot
certificate is not sufficient to make a commercial operation legal. There
are other rules that need to be complied with as well.

As far as what "holding out" means, the FAA has failed to provide a concrete
definition. However, generally speaking if a pilot demonstrates a
willingness to fly the general public, they are "holding out". A pilot with
a commercial certificate can do very limited passenger or cargo flying for
people with whom they already have an existing relationship, and where they
are not providing the aircraft, but even there anything more than the
occasional contract job is likely to run afoul of an FAA inspector.

Pete

[Jim Macklin]

A salesman may demo his airplane (consignment) but a private
pilot may not be hired to do the demo.


"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
|> You can demo airplanes as a salesman and be paid to do
it.
|
| I think you can do that with a private though 61.117(f)
|
| "(f) A private pilot who is an aircraft salesman and who
has at least
| 200^M
| hours of logged flight time may demonstrate an aircraft in
flight to
| a^M
| prospective buyer. "
|
| -Robert, CFI
|

[Jim Macklin]

If you are advertising a service, you are holding out. A
private pilot may share the total cost of a flight that is
the private pilot's purpose, a trip that would be taken even
if there was no one to share the costs with. A commercial
pilot may do that same as private part 91 operation. But a
commercial pilot may be hired, as the employee of the
aircraft owner to fly the airplane. But that airplane can
only carry the owner and his cargo and passengers, no person
who is charged for the flight because that would be "for
hire."


"Michael Ware" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:Tf3Pf.116007$QW2.78328@dukeread08...
| > A commercial pilot with minimum time can be hired by any
| > plane owner to fly their airplane under part 91,
anywhere in
| > the world, under IFR or VFR. They just can't carry
| > passengers or cargo "for hire."
| >
| >
| They can't? Please explain. §61.133 says you can. I am
curious about the ins
| and outs of this myself. And could somebody explain, maybe
by example, what
| 'holding out' means?
|
| Mike
|
|

[Robert M. Gary]

> So if I had a float plane and wanted to offer to fly people and stuff out
> to lake bound cottages, I'd need to set myself up as a Part 135 operation?

Yes, you would have to be 135 to charge people to fly them places.
You'd also have to be married to an insurance company CEO. :)

> How about my previous question about doing photography?

Photography is fine. You can be paid to take pictures as a commercial
pilot. In fact, our Sacramento FSDO has said that private pilots may be
paid to take pictures themselves as long as they are working directly
for the end customer (i.e. not employed by an aerial survey company). I
think the FSDO is wrong on that but they are the ones to enforce
anything. You can also tow banners etc. In reality, those jobs are not
plentiful though.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

> A salesman may demo his airplane (consignment) but a private
> pilot may not be hired to do the demo.

Is that an understanding from the FAA? That sounds unlikely. The
definition of salesman shouldn't be limited to someone selling
something he personally owns. I understand this to mean a private pilot
may work for an aircraft broker and receive a salery or commision for
selling the plane, including taking the customer for a ride. This seems
to be an explicit exemption for the "incidental" rule for private
pilots flying for their employeers.

-Robert

[[email protected]]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> - Is adding a commercial rating one of the things that non-citizens need
> Homeland Security/TSA approval for?

Paul - your situation sounds identical to mine.

I posed this question to AOPA and was told that NO TSA security check
is required for the Commercial. Only the initial Private/Sport
Certificate, IFR Rating, and Multi Engine Ratings require TSA approval.

I have started my training at a Part 141 school, and have completed my
complex endorsement over this past weekend, and had no questions at all
about citizenship or TSA security checks. My coworker, a US Citizen,
recently did his multi at the same school and had to provide
passport/ID to prove his citizenship.

Rich

[Jim Macklin]

You can do photo work, as long as you are the photographer,
but if a photographer wants to hire you, you need the 135
certificate. There are some allowances for distance (radius
of action) and you can't land anywhere but the airport of
departure.

Yes, to fly people or cargo to other places, you must have
the 135 certificate.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
| In a previous article, "Peter Duniho"
> said:
| >condition for carrying passengers or cargo for hire.
That's actually
| >slightly inaccurate, because there are some narrow
exceptions, but generally
| >speaking carriage of passengers or cargo for hire
requires not only a
| >commercial certificate, but compliance with other
regulations (Parts 119 and
| >135, as Bob mentions, are the most common ones to run
into, though you could
| >of course do it under Part 121 as well).
|
| So if I had a float plane and wanted to offer to fly
people and stuff out
| to lake bound cottages, I'd need to set myself up as a
Part 135 operation?
|
| How about my previous question about doing photography?
Can I take farm
| photographs, or do photogrammetry surveys? How about
artistic pictures?
|
| --
| Paul Tomblin >
http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
| As convenient as it is for information to come to us,
libraries do have a
| valuable side effect: they force all of the smart people
to come together in
| one place where they can interact with one another. --
Neal Stephenson

[Jim Macklin]

We are correct. A salesman with only a PPL and 200 hours
may demo an airplane in flight to a customer, the purpose of
the flight is a sale, not a trip, even though it may involve
a trip. But the salesman cannot hire a PPL to fly the demo,
even if the only pay is the flight time.

Consignment means that the salesman has control of the
operation of the airplane even though he does not own or
hold title.

A brand new CPL with 200 hours from an approved school [250
hours otherwise] may not be a PIC under 135, but under part
91, that pilot may be hired to do ferry, spotting, or to fly
your airplane for your private purposes.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
|> A salesman may demo his airplane (consignment) but a
private
| > pilot may not be hired to do the demo.
|
| Is that an understanding from the FAA? That sounds
unlikely. The
| definition of salesman shouldn't be limited to someone
selling
| something he personally owns. I understand this to mean a
private pilot
| may work for an aircraft broker and receive a salery or
commision for
| selling the plane, including taking the customer for a
ride. This seems
| to be an explicit exemption for the "incidental" rule for
private
| pilots flying for their employeers.
|
| -Robert
|

[Jose]

> the FAA has said that merely
> putting a notice on a bulletin board is holding out. The rationale is that
> the uninformed public needs some assurance...

This is not a good justification. The uninformed public needs to be
informed. This can be accomplished by requiring that any offer of
flight clearly state that one is (or is not) a private pilot who does
not meet the regulations for paying commercial flight, and/or is flying
a private aircraft which is not maintained to commercial standards.

> Don't you feel safer knowing that
> the captain of your airline flight has...

Not relevant, and I doubt the public knows what the airline captain has
gone through. And I believe that the uninformed public does know the
difference between an airline flight and a private airplane flight.

I think the FAA has gone way overboard on this, and has cut out some
excellent ways to boost GA (for example, putting an offer of flying home
on the same bulletin board as offers for driving home from college)

People putting offers to drive home from college are not livery drivers,
and probably have had their license for only a few years.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> However, generally speaking if a pilot demonstrates a
> willingness to fly the general public, they are "holding out".

And getting known for offering to fly people hanging around the airport
fence demonstrates a willingness to fly the general public.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Robert M. Gary]

> I posed this question to AOPA and was told that NO TSA security check is required for the Commercial.

Hey, it looks like you are right on that. The only restriction appears
to be that it must be only for single engine, mutliengine training for
any level requires TSA approval.
http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf91/310342_web.pdf

-Robert

[Sylvain]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> So if I had a float plane and wanted to offer to fly people and stuff out
> to lake bound cottages, I'd need to set myself up as a Part 135 operation?

yes. Unless your passenger owns the aircraft and hires you to do the
flying.

>
> How about my previous question about doing photography? Can I take farm
> photographs, or do photogrammetry surveys? How about artistic pictures?


sight seeing within 25 miles and aerial photography can be conducted
under part 91. See 14 CFR 119.1(e).

The whole thing is a bit confusing, and these are quite typically the
kind of questions you should expect during the oral part of the
checkride :-)

To get back to the original question, prepare the written, and by the
time you have taken it, you should know the answers to all these
questions ;-)

--Sylvain

[Sylvain]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> You can do photo work, as long as you are the photographer,

actually this is incorrect. aerial photography, along with
other things like ferry flights, crop dusting, banner towing,
firefighting, etc. are the kind of aerial work a commercial
pilot can engage in. The 25 miles radius things are for sight
seeing flight (hint: suggest your sight seeing customers to
bring a camera and then it becomes an aerial photography flight :-)

--Sylvain

[Jim Macklin]

Any private pilot may offer, on a bulletin board a FREE ride
home. But if you are wanting to share the cost, several
checks are required.
1. The pilot is going anyway, whether anybody else wants to
go.
2. The offer cannot be made as a public offering, but only
to friends.
3. Costs must be shared which means the pilot must pay at
least the pro rata share, your passengers cannot pay all the
costs.

A commercial pilot without a 135 certificate as an operator
has only the privilege of a private pilot.

A notice on the Internet or a laundry bulletin board that
says, "Airplane going to fly on the week-end, where do you
want to go?" is very illegal. A similar notice that says,
"Flying to St.Louis on Friday and coming back Sunday, round
trip $200." is also illegal, even if the calculated share
cost would be $500.

A notice that says, "Frat brothers, I'm flying to St.Louis
on Friday and coming back on Sunday. Share the airplane
costs to be calculated after the trip. Meals and lodging
not part of the shared costs." would probably be legal since
it was offered only to "friends" and the cost was open.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
|> the FAA has said that merely
| > putting a notice on a bulletin board is holding out. The
rationale is that
| > the uninformed public needs some assurance...
|
| This is not a good justification. The uninformed public
needs to be
| informed. This can be accomplished by requiring that any
offer of
| flight clearly state that one is (or is not) a private
pilot who does
| not meet the regulations for paying commercial flight,
and/or is flying
| a private aircraft which is not maintained to commercial
standards.
|
| > Don't you feel safer knowing that
| > the captain of your airline flight has...
|
| Not relevant, and I doubt the public knows what the
airline captain has
| gone through. And I believe that the uninformed public
does know the
| difference between an airline flight and a private
airplane flight.
|
| I think the FAA has gone way overboard on this, and has
cut out some
| excellent ways to boost GA (for example, putting an offer
of flying home
| on the same bulletin board as offers for driving home from
college)
|
| People putting offers to drive home from college are not
livery drivers,
| and probably have had their license for only a few years.
|
| Jose
| --
| Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Macklin]

But an offer of a free ride is different from a $10 ride.


"Jose" > wrote in message
...
|> However, generally speaking if a pilot demonstrates a
| > willingness to fly the general public, they are "holding
out".
|
| And getting known for offering to fly people hanging
around the airport
| fence demonstrates a willingness to fly the general
public.
|
| Jose
| --
| Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Macklin]

The FAA will look at each operation on its merits. If you
are flying a photographer, who is taking photographs by the
hundreds, for some purpose, you are probably OK. But if you
are skirting the charter 135 rules by taking tourists on a
sightseeing ride and they happen to have their pocket camera
or cellphone with camera, it does not meet the test.

It is your certificate which is on the line. If you are
"doing photo work" you may have a mounted camera(s), be
carrying a professional photographer who hired you, or you
the pilot may have hired the photographer to take pictures
you were hired to get for a customer.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Sylvain" > wrote in message
t...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > You can do photo work, as long as you are the
photographer,
|
| actually this is incorrect. aerial photography, along
with
| other things like ferry flights, crop dusting, banner
towing,
| firefighting, etc. are the kind of aerial work a
commercial
| pilot can engage in. The 25 miles radius things are for
sight
| seeing flight (hint: suggest your sight seeing customers
to
| bring a camera and then it becomes an aerial photography
flight :-)
|
| --Sylvain

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
> And getting known for offering to fly people hanging around the airport
> fence demonstrates a willingness to fly the general public.

You keep forgetting the "commercial operation" component of the issue.
Without compensation, there is no holding out as a commercial operation.

[Thomas Borchert]

Paul,

> - How different is the second class medical from the third?
>

IIRC, vision is the key difference. For Class III, you need 20/40
corrected vision, for Class II it's 20/20.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Robert M. Gary]

> (hint: suggest your sight seeing customers to
> bring a camera and then it becomes an aerial photography flight :-)

>From my experience the FAA does not like pilots who try to play lawyers
and look for loop holes. The FAA is also very, very sensitive to 135
operations. If you advertise such a service they will notice and start
asking questions pretty quickly.

-Robert

[Jose]

(from Peter Duniho)
> You keep forgetting the "commercial operation" component of the issue.
> Without compensation, there is no holding out as a commercial operation.

Maybe (only maybe) so, but the FAA has rather creative definitions of
"compensation". I would never have considered recording the flight in a
logbook (a history of what actually happened) "compensation", nor does
it seem right that the fact that I can use this experience (which
actually happened) to demonstrate to the FAA that I am worthy of an
advanced rating to be "compensation" either.

(from Jim Macklin)
> Any private pilot may offer, on a bulletin board a FREE ride
> home. But if you are wanting to share the cost, several
> checks are required.
> 1. The pilot is going anyway, whether anybody else wants to
> go.
> 2. The offer cannot be made as a public offering, but only
> to friends.
> 3. Costs must be shared which means the pilot must pay at
> least the pro rata share, your passengers cannot pay all the
> costs.

1 and 2 are not enumerated in the FARs. They are made up out of whole
cloth. The FAA can do that and get away with it.

And as for (1), "I am going to fly for three hours =anyway=. Wanna come
with me? I don't care where we go."

Legal? Where in the FARs?

Having made the offer, and having no takers, is it legal to consider the
weather, the condition of the aircraft, and the condition of the pilot,
and decide to not fly?

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Macklin]

The FAA lawyers make the rules. For instance, a brand new
private pilot may change a tire, but cannot work on the
brakes on the same wheel.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Jose" > wrote in message
et...
| (from Peter Duniho)
| > You keep forgetting the "commercial operation" component
of the issue.
| > Without compensation, there is no holding out as a
commercial operation.
|
| Maybe (only maybe) so, but the FAA has rather creative
definitions of
| "compensation". I would never have considered recording
the flight in a
| logbook (a history of what actually happened)
"compensation", nor does
| it seem right that the fact that I can use this experience
(which
| actually happened) to demonstrate to the FAA that I am
worthy of an
| advanced rating to be "compensation" either.
|
| (from Jim Macklin)
| > Any private pilot may offer, on a bulletin board a FREE
ride
| > home. But if you are wanting to share the cost, several
| > checks are required.
| > 1. The pilot is going anyway, whether anybody else wants
to
| > go.
| > 2. The offer cannot be made as a public offering, but
only
| > to friends.
| > 3. Costs must be shared which means the pilot must pay
at
| > least the pro rata share, your passengers cannot pay all
the
| > costs.
|
| 1 and 2 are not enumerated in the FARs. They are made up
out of whole
| cloth. The FAA can do that and get away with it.
|
| And as for (1), "I am going to fly for three hours
=anyway=. Wanna come
| with me? I don't care where we go."
|
| Legal? Where in the FARs?
|
| Having made the offer, and having no takers, is it legal
to consider the
| weather, the condition of the aircraft, and the condition
of the pilot,
| and decide to not fly?
|
| Jose
| --
| Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> The FAA lawyers make the rules. For instance, a brand new
> private pilot may change a tire, but cannot work on the
> brakes on the same wheel.

Yes, but those rules are written down in a place labled "rules", where
we can all see them. The FAA also makes other rules that it keeps to
itself, and trots them out when convenient. Their definition of
"compensation" is one such.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Barrow]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:JktPf.116461$QW2.88175@dukeread08...
> The FAA lawyers make the rules. For instance, a brand new
> private pilot may change a tire, but cannot work on the
> brakes on the same wheel.

My wife and daughter can change a tire on the car, but neither of them could
do a brake job on those cars.

[Jim Macklin]

Changing a tire on an airplane requires removal of the brake
assembly, perhaps splitting the wheel halves and installing
the new tire on the old wheel and properly torquring the
wheel bolts. Then the wheel must be installed after packing
the cleaned and inspected wheel bearing.

Changing a tire on an airplane is more like changing the
front hub on a car.

The FAA assumes that all work allowed under the term,
"preventative maintenance" by a private pilot will be done
using the tools, techniques and procedures as a licensed A&P
would use. On my car, I can do just as most oil change
shops do, get under the vehicle, remove the drain plug,
remove the old oil filter, reinstall the drain plug, install
a new oil filter, then pour 4 or 5 quarts of oil in the
engine. An aircraft oil change requires the additional
steps of cleaning oil screens and inspecting for metal and
cutting the old oil filter open and examining the paper for
metal.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:JktPf.116461$QW2.88175@dukeread08...
| > The FAA lawyers make the rules. For instance, a brand
new
| > private pilot may change a tire, but cannot work on the
| > brakes on the same wheel.
|
| My wife and daughter can change a tire on the car, but
neither of them could
| do a brake job on those cars.
|
|
|
|

[Andrew Gideon]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> (be ready to answer the output
> of the alternator in amps and the capacity of the battery)

How do DEs know details like this for each aircraft? Are they truly that
experienced, or do they grab the POH (or equivalent) first? I'm especially
curious with respect to our older aircraft in the fleet, many of which have
nontrivial customizations since production.

- Andrew

[Andrew Sarangan]

If you are not interested in an instructor certificate, I can't think
of any reason why you would want to get a commercial. You can only do a
few things, like sight seeing flights, pipeline patrol, banner towing
(not sure if that is still legal after 9-11). All of these are pretty
meaningless for a person who is gainfully employed elsewhere.

However, the commercial training is a lot of fun.



Paul Tomblin wrote:
> So I've got my instrument rating, complex endorsement and 450 hours PIC.
> So I've starting thinking about the commercial rating. But I've got some
> questions:
>
> - I understand there isn't much airwork involved and that it's mostly
> about knowing aircraft systems. Is that correct?
> - The requirements state I have to have made a 300nm solo flight. Does a
> flight with a non-pilot count, or do I really have to have been alone?
> - What can I do with it? Can I offer to fly people somewhere for money?
> If I want to take pictures from the air to sell, do I need a commercial
> rating?
> - How different is the second class medical from the third?
> - If I add on a seaplane rating later, will it automatically be commercial
> or is there a separate checkride for seaplane commercial?
> - Is adding a commercial rating one of the things that non-citizens need
> Homeland Security/TSA approval for?
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
> Reliability went through the floor, tunnelled its way to the centre of
> the Earth, and perished in the magma.
> -- Saundo

[Chris]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> If you are not interested in an instructor certificate, I can't think
> of any reason why you would want to get a commercial. You can only do a
> few things, like sight seeing flights, pipeline patrol, banner towing
> (not sure if that is still legal after 9-11). All of these are pretty
> meaningless for a person who is gainfully employed elsewhere.
>

Having a 61.75 Private certificate and the hours and experience requirements
for the commercial it seemed to make more sense to do the commercial and get
that in my own right than spend the same money and get the private.

Chris

[Matt Barrow]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:wLDPf.116565$QW2.26150@dukeread08...
> Changing a tire on an airplane requires removal of the brake
> assembly, perhaps splitting the wheel halves and installing
> the new tire on the old wheel and properly torquring the
> wheel bolts. Then the wheel must be installed after packing
> the cleaned and inspected wheel bearing.
>
> Changing a tire on an airplane is more like changing the
> front hub on a car.

Okay...now describe the steps and skills involved in doing a brake job.

> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | "Jim Macklin" > wrote
> in message
> | news:JktPf.116461$QW2.88175@dukeread08...
> | > The FAA lawyers make the rules. For instance, a brand
> new
> | > private pilot may change a tire, but cannot work on the
> | > brakes on the same wheel.
> |
> | My wife and daughter can change a tire on the car, but
> neither of them could
> | do a brake job on those cars.
> |
> |
> |
> |
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> news:wLDPf.116565$QW2.26150@dukeread08...
>> [...]
>> Changing a tire on an airplane is more like changing the
>> front hub on a car.
>
> Okay...now describe the steps and skills involved in doing a brake job.

Why should he?

The point is not how complex the task is. It's whether it's allowed under
FAR 43.17(c). Tires changes are. Brake work is not.

Now, that said...a tire change is only permitted "provided it does not
involve complex assembly operations". Jim's description of a tire change is
accurate for many aircraft, but such a tire change may be precluded by the
prohibition against "complex assembly operations". It depends on how the
FAA (i.e. your local inspector) interprets the word "complex".

Jim certainly makes the process *sound* "complex". :)

I've never heard of a pilot being cited for replacing a tire, but there's
certainly room for equivocation in the regulation.

Pete

[Jim Macklin]

On a car or an airplane? Drum brakes, expansion tubes,
mechanical, floating disk (Goodyear) or floating caliper
(Cleveland), multi-disk (King Air or jets)? You must be
specific.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P



--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:wLDPf.116565$QW2.26150@dukeread08...
| > Changing a tire on an airplane requires removal of the
brake
| > assembly, perhaps splitting the wheel halves and
installing
| > the new tire on the old wheel and properly torquring the
| > wheel bolts. Then the wheel must be installed after
packing
| > the cleaned and inspected wheel bearing.
| >
| > Changing a tire on an airplane is more like changing the
| > front hub on a car.
|
| Okay...now describe the steps and skills involved in doing
a brake job.
|
| > "Matt Barrow" > wrote in
message
| > ...
| > |
| > | "Jim Macklin" >
wrote
| > in message
| > | news:JktPf.116461$QW2.88175@dukeread08...
| > | > The FAA lawyers make the rules. For instance, a
brand
| > new
| > | > private pilot may change a tire, but cannot work on
the
| > | > brakes on the same wheel.
| > |
| > | My wife and daughter can change a tire on the car, but
| > neither of them could
| > | do a brake job on those cars.
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

I really wanted to point out the need for following the
rules, procedures and techniques for any preventative
maintenance. It takes 2,000 hours of training in the
classroom and shop to qualify for an FAA A&P and that is
really just an entry level. A private pilot requires 40
hours in the airplane flying and the other training
generally just introduces such terms as "magneto, piston,
safety wire."

Each airplane is different and each person doing maintenance
on that airplane is required to follow the manufacturer's
manuals. So to do a "tire change" or replace a battery, you
need to have the manual and any supplementary manuals, the
tools and follow the procedures.

Bottom-line, a pilot who wants to work on "his" airplane
needs instruction. There are training classes available.
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > "Jim Macklin" >
wrote in message
| > news:wLDPf.116565$QW2.26150@dukeread08...
| >> [...]
| >> Changing a tire on an airplane is more like changing
the
| >> front hub on a car.
| >
| > Okay...now describe the steps and skills involved in
doing a brake job.
|
| Why should he?
|
| The point is not how complex the task is. It's whether
it's allowed under
| FAR 43.17(c). Tires changes are. Brake work is not.
|
| Now, that said...a tire change is only permitted "provided
it does not
| involve complex assembly operations". Jim's description
of a tire change is
| accurate for many aircraft, but such a tire change may be
precluded by the
| prohibition against "complex assembly operations". It
depends on how the
| FAA (i.e. your local inspector) interprets the word
"complex".
|
| Jim certainly makes the process *sound* "complex". :)
|
| I've never heard of a pilot being cited for replacing a
tire, but there's
| certainly room for equivocation in the regulation.
|
| Pete
|
|

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 14:25:39 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote in
<1c0Qf.116696$QW2.86247@dukeread08>::

>Bottom-line, a pilot who wants to work on "his" airplane
>needs instruction.

Actually, he can do it without instruction if it is done under the
supervision of the holder of an A&P certificate.

[Jim Macklin]

Any A&P who is supervising a pilot working on an airplane
without providing instruction, advice and tools is not doing
the job. That A&P should have the manuals and provide them
to the pilot, will watch the pilot as he does the work and
inspect the work as it is done and before it is signed off
for return to service.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 14:25:39 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
| > wrote in
| <1c0Qf.116696$QW2.86247@dukeread08>::
|
| >Bottom-line, a pilot who wants to work on "his" airplane
| >needs instruction.
|
| Actually, he can do it without instruction if it is done
under the
| supervision of the holder of an A&P certificate.
|

[Sylvain]

Chris wrote:

> Having a 61.75 Private certificate and the hours and experience
> requirements for the commercial it seemed to make more sense to do the
> commercial and get that in my own right than spend the same money and get
> the private.

absolutely; I did it initially for this very reason, makes sense.

--Sylvain

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>Bottom-line, a pilot who wants to work on "his" airplane
>>needs instruction.
>
> Actually, he can do it without instruction if it is done under the
> supervision of the holder of an A&P certificate.

Actually, within the limits of the "preventative maintenance" rules, he need
not do it under the supervision of the holder of an A&P certificate, nor
does he need any sort of formal instruction.

I believe that what Jim was trying to say is that some sort of instruction
is important, not that it's legally required. Based on his clarification in
response to my post, I think he's talking about the practical and
safety-related side of the question, not the regulatory side.

Pete

[Jim Macklin]

Even a licensed A&P needs instruction. The FAA position is
that formal training and currency are required for an A&P.
If you have not previously done a certain ordinary task, you
must be supervised the first time you do it. Then if you
have not done any work for a period of time, you must gain
currency.
§ 65.81 General privileges and limitations.
(a) A certificated mechanic may perform or supervise the
maintenance, preventive maintenance or alteration of an
aircraft or appliance, or a part thereof, for which he is
rated (but excluding major repairs to, and major alterations
of, propellers, and any repair to, or alteration of,
instruments), and may perform additional duties in
accordance with §§65.85, 65.87, and 65.95. However, he may
not supervise the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or
alteration of, or approve and return to service, any
aircraft or appliance, or part thereof, for which he is
rated unless he has satisfactorily performed the work
concerned at an earlier date. If he has not so performed
that work at an earlier date, he may show his ability to do
it by performing it to the satisfaction of the Administrator
or under the direct supervision of a certificated and
appropriately rated mechanic, or a certificated repairman,
who has had previous experience in the specific operation
concerned.

(b) A certificated mechanic may not exercise the privileges
of his certificate and rating unless he understands the
current instructions of the manufacturer, and the
maintenance manuals, for the specific operation concerned.

[Doc. No. 1179, 27 FR 7973, Aug. 10, 1962, as amended by
Amdt. 65-2, 29 FR 5451, Apr. 23, 1964; Amdt. 65-26, 45 FR
46737, July 10, 1980]




--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.



§ 65.83 Recent experience requirements.
A certificated mechanic may not exercise the privileges of
his certificate and rating unless, within the preceding 24
months-

(a) The Administrator has found that he is able to do that
work; or

(b) He has, for at least 6 months-

(1) Served as a mechanic under his certificate and rating;

(2) Technically supervised other mechanics;

(3) Supervised, in an executive capacity, the maintenance or
alteration of aircraft; or

(4) Been engaged in any combination of paragraph (b) (1),
(2), or (3) of this section.




"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
| ...
| >>Bottom-line, a pilot who wants to work on "his" airplane
| >>needs instruction.
| >
| > Actually, he can do it without instruction if it is done
under the
| > supervision of the holder of an A&P certificate.
|
| Actually, within the limits of the "preventative
maintenance" rules, he need
| not do it under the supervision of the holder of an A&P
certificate, nor
| does he need any sort of formal instruction.
|
| I believe that what Jim was trying to say is that some
sort of instruction
| is important, not that it's legally required. Based on
his clarification in
| response to my post, I think he's talking about the
practical and
| safety-related side of the question, not the regulatory
side.
|
| Pete
|
|

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:gl3Qf.116727$QW2.106797@dukeread08...
> Even a licensed A&P needs instruction. The FAA position is
> that formal training and currency are required for an A&P.

It's unclear, once again, whether you are speaking of the regulatory sense
or the practical sense.

In the regulatory sense, you mean to write "only a licensed A&P needs
instruction". I'm not aware of any regulation that requires a certificated
pilot to undergo instruction prior to performing preventative maintenance.

Obviously, in the practical sense, one should obtain instruction for any but
the most trivial of tasks (I'd consider changing a light bulb pretty trivial
in most cases, but changing the oil and a filter not in most cases, for
example), whether one is a certificated mechanic or not.

But the regulations only require it for the certificated mechanic (oddly
enough).

Pete