FAA proposed change regarding instrument currency

[Guy Elden Jr]

Among other things included in the massive list of changes the FAA is
proposing to Part 61 is a new allowance for utilizing PCATD, FS, and
FTDs in order to accomplish the recency of experience requirements for
IFR flight:


"Under proposed § 61.57(c)(2), a person could use an FS or FTD
exclusively by performing and logging at least 3 hours of instrument
recent flight experience within the 6 calendar months before the date
of the flight.

Under proposed § 61.57(c)(3), a person could use a PCATD exclusively
by having performed and logged at least 3 hours of instrument recent
experience within the 2 calendar months before the date of the flight.
We have deliberately proposed differences between the use of a PCATD
and an FS or FTD because use of a PCATD to maintain instrument recent
experience is a relatively new concept, and the FAA wants to further
evaluate its use before we allow use of PCATDs equal to that of FSs
and FTDs."


I didn't notice at first glance any additional requirements, such as
an instructor needing to be present when using these devices. This to
me certainly would make staying instrument current much easier, as you
could accomplish the requirements at home on a personal computer using
an approved software app. I think Elite is one such approved
application (at least when used in conjunction with an instructor)
right now.

Anybody have any thoughts on this change?

--
Guy

[BDS[_2_]]

"Guy Elden Jr" > wrote...

I didn't notice at first glance any additional requirements, such as
an instructor needing to be present when using these devices. This to
me certainly would make staying instrument current much easier, as you
could accomplish the requirements at home on a personal computer using
an approved software app. I think Elite is one such approved
application (at least when used in conjunction with an instructor)
right now.

Anybody have any thoughts on this change?

--
Guy


I know that OnTop requires things like a radio stack to be plugged in in
order to actually qualify as a PCATD device. If you don't have that and the
other required "accessories" then you can only use it for "Personal Use" -
it won't even start up in PCATD mode without them.

BDS

[Marco Leon]

On Feb 8, 3:00 pm, "BDS" > wrote:

> I know that OnTop requires things like a radio stack to be plugged in in
> order to actually qualify as a PCATD device. If you don't have that and the
> other required "accessories" then you can only use it for "Personal Use" -
> it won't even start up in PCATD mode without them.

Yes. I think the walk-away cost to have a "loggable" PCATD is north of
$3000. As an example, I think ASA is cheaper than Elite and they want
$3,195 for their setup (http://www.asa2fly.com/category1.asp?
SID=1&Category_ID=15&).

Speaking of ASA, has anyone used their new On Top version 9? I'm sad
to see that the interface still looks like it's 15 years old. The
G1000 is of no interest at the moment but the RealityXP 430 seems
interesting.

Marco

[Guy Elden Jr]

> Yes. I think the walk-away cost to have a "loggable" PCATD is north of
> $3000. As an example, I think ASA is cheaper than Elite and they want
> $3,195 for their setup (http://www.asa2fly.com/category1.asp?
> SID=1&Category_ID=15&).

Wow... for that kind of money, I could get a solid 15 hours of
training in my flight school's wrap-around screen flight simulator, or
30 hours in an IFR equipped 172. Assuming an IPC took 2 hours, done
every 6 months, that'll last a good 7 - 15 years. Wouldn't exactly
make me feel safe about being proficient 5 months down the line tho.
(assuming no other instrument training / practice done in the
interim).

--
Guy

[Scott Skylane]

BDS wrote:

> I know that OnTop requires things like a radio stack to be plugged in in
> order to actually qualify as a PCATD device. If you don't have that and the
> other required "accessories" then you can only use it for "Personal Use" -
> it won't even start up in PCATD mode without them.
>
> BDS
>
>
My thoughts exactly. Whatever hardware the FAA will require to meet the
new reg will be far beyond what most of us have at home.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Morgans]

"Guy Elden Jr" > wrote

> Wow... for that kind of money, I could get a solid 15 hours of
> training in my flight school's wrap-around screen flight simulator, or
> 30 hours in an IFR equipped 172. Assuming an IPC took 2 hours, done
> every 6 months, that'll last a good 7 - 15 years. Wouldn't exactly
> make me feel safe about being proficient 5 months down the line tho.
> (assuming no other instrument training / practice done in the
> interim).

It might be a good deal for a good sized EAA group, (or other group) or a
medium sized FBO or flight school, to get an approved unit, and rent time on
it for instrument currency, thus spreading the costs of purchase and use.

Done in that manner, it seems like there would be a significant cost savings
to the pilot, and an opportunity for an FBO to make a little money, too.
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Dohm]

>
> "Guy Elden Jr" > wrote
>
> > Wow... for that kind of money, I could get a solid 15 hours of
> > training in my flight school's wrap-around screen flight simulator, or
> > 30 hours in an IFR equipped 172. Assuming an IPC took 2 hours, done
> > every 6 months, that'll last a good 7 - 15 years. Wouldn't exactly
> > make me feel safe about being proficient 5 months down the line tho.
> > (assuming no other instrument training / practice done in the
> > interim).
>
> It might be a good deal for a good sized EAA group, (or other group) or a
> medium sized FBO or flight school, to get an approved unit, and rent time
on
> it for instrument currency, thus spreading the costs of purchase and use.
>
> Done in that manner, it seems like there would be a significant cost
savings
> to the pilot, and an opportunity for an FBO to make a little money, too.
> --
Now, that's a very interesting idea!

Peter

[Ray Andraka]

Guy Elden Jr wrote:

> I didn't notice at first glance any additional requirements, such as
> an instructor needing to be present when using these devices. This to
> me certainly would make staying instrument current much easier, as you
> could accomplish the requirements at home on a personal computer using
> an approved software app. I think Elite is one such approved
> application (at least when used in conjunction with an instructor)
> right now.
>
> Anybody have any thoughts on this change?
>
> --
> Guy
>

You also need the hardware that goes with the software: the radio stack
etc. in order for it to qualify as a PCATD. I believe you also need an
instructor present, and it may need the instructor's console connected
as well.

[Roger[_4_]]

On 8 Feb 2007 11:53:22 -0800, "Guy Elden Jr" >
wrote:

>Among other things included in the massive list of changes the FAA is
>proposing to Part 61 is a new allowance for utilizing PCATD, FS, and
>FTDs in order to accomplish the recency of experience requirements for
>IFR flight:
>
>
>"Under proposed § 61.57(c)(2), a person could use an FS or FTD
>exclusively by performing and logging at least 3 hours of instrument
>recent flight experience within the 6 calendar months before the date
>of the flight.
>
>Under proposed § 61.57(c)(3), a person could use a PCATD exclusively
>by having performed and logged at least 3 hours of instrument recent
>experience within the 2 calendar months before the date of the flight.
>We have deliberately proposed differences between the use of a PCATD
>and an FS or FTD because use of a PCATD to maintain instrument recent
>experience is a relatively new concept, and the FAA wants to further
>evaluate its use before we allow use of PCATDs equal to that of FSs
>and FTDs."
>
>
>I didn't notice at first glance any additional requirements, such as
>an instructor needing to be present when using these devices. This to
>me certainly would make staying instrument current much easier, as you
>could accomplish the requirements at home on a personal computer using
>an approved software app. I think Elite is one such approved
>application (at least when used in conjunction with an instructor)
>right now.
>
>Anybody have any thoughts on this change?

I believe both Elite and On-Top are approved, but only for student
training with an instructor present. Unless they changed the rules
neither is of any *official* help once you have the rating.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:16:23 -0900, Scott Skylane
> wrote:

>BDS wrote:
>
>> I know that OnTop requires things like a radio stack to be plugged in in
>> order to actually qualify as a PCATD device. If you don't have that and the
>> other required "accessories" then you can only use it for "Personal Use" -
>> it won't even start up in PCATD mode without them.
>>
>> BDS
>>
>>
>My thoughts exactly. Whatever hardware the FAA will require to meet the
>new reg will be far beyond what most of us have at home.
>
For what that simulated stack costs I could fly a *lot* of hours in a
high performance, complex, retract.


>Happy Flying!
>Scott Skylane
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Bob Gardner]

They propose to change the rules. Do you bit and comment on the NPRM.

Bob Gardner

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On 8 Feb 2007 11:53:22 -0800, "Guy Elden Jr" >
> wrote:
>
>>Among other things included in the massive list of changes the FAA is
>>proposing to Part 61 is a new allowance for utilizing PCATD, FS, and
>>FTDs in order to accomplish the recency of experience requirements for
>>IFR flight:
>>
>>
>>"Under proposed § 61.57(c)(2), a person could use an FS or FTD
>>exclusively by performing and logging at least 3 hours of instrument
>>recent flight experience within the 6 calendar months before the date
>>of the flight.
>>
>>Under proposed § 61.57(c)(3), a person could use a PCATD exclusively
>>by having performed and logged at least 3 hours of instrument recent
>>experience within the 2 calendar months before the date of the flight.
>>We have deliberately proposed differences between the use of a PCATD
>>and an FS or FTD because use of a PCATD to maintain instrument recent
>>experience is a relatively new concept, and the FAA wants to further
>>evaluate its use before we allow use of PCATDs equal to that of FSs
>>and FTDs."
>>
>>
>>I didn't notice at first glance any additional requirements, such as
>>an instructor needing to be present when using these devices. This to
>>me certainly would make staying instrument current much easier, as you
>>could accomplish the requirements at home on a personal computer using
>>an approved software app. I think Elite is one such approved
>>application (at least when used in conjunction with an instructor)
>>right now.
>>
>>Anybody have any thoughts on this change?
>
> I believe both Elite and On-Top are approved, but only for student
> training with an instructor present. Unless they changed the rules
> neither is of any *official* help once you have the rating.
>
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 8, 11:53 am, "Guy Elden Jr" > wrote:
> Among other things included in the massive list of changes the FAA is
> proposing to Part 61 is a new allowance for utilizing PCATD, FS, and
> FTDs in order to accomplish the recency of experience requirements for
> IFR flight:
>
> "Under proposed § 61.57(c)(2), a person could use an FS or FTD
> exclusively by performing and logging at least 3 hours of instrument
> recent flight experience within the 6 calendar months before the date
> of the flight.
>
> Under proposed § 61.57(c)(3), a person could use a PCATD exclusively
> by having performed and logged at least 3 hours of instrument recent
> experience within the 2 calendar months before the date of the flight.
> We have deliberately proposed differences between the use of a PCATD
> and an FS or FTD because use of a PCATD to maintain instrument recent
> experience is a relatively new concept, and the FAA wants to further
> evaluate its use before we allow use of PCATDs equal to that of FSs
> and FTDs."
>
> I didn't notice at first glance any additional requirements, such as
> an instructor needing to be present when using these devices. This to
> me certainly would make staying instrument current much easier, as you
> could accomplish the requirements at home on a personal computer using
> an approved software app. I think Elite is one such approved
> application (at least when used in conjunction with an instructor)
> right now.

Its about time for the student pilot extention. Its just plain silly
to limit student pilot certificates to 24 months when they are issued
on the bases of asking for them. I had to send a student down to the
FSDO a few months ago to get a new student pilot certificate. He had
fill out an 8710 and make an appointment, just to receive a
certificate that the FAA has no bases to deny.

-Robert, CFII

[Jose]

> They propose to change the rules. Do you bit and comment on the NPRM.

Anybody got a pointer to it? I came up with several studies dating as
far back as 2003 with those reccomendations, but no NPRM.

Whatever happened to the DC ADIZ NPRM?

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Barry]

> Anybody got a pointer to it? I came up with several studies dating as far
> back as 2003 with those reccomendations, but no NPRM.
>
http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.cfm?documentid=450179&docketid=26661

[Roger[_4_]]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 20:29:38 -0800, "Bob Gardner" >
wrote:

>They propose to change the rules. Do you bit and comment on the NPRM.

Thanks Bob,

That'd sure save me a bunch and I wouldn't have to get out in this
*cold* weather. <:-))

..

>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com