Clarification of Part 61 Change

[smutny]

So, I've cruised the mighty internet and still have a question on the recent change to Part 61 and CFI-S privileges.

The updated Part 61 states the following, emphasis mine:

(l) Permitted credit for flight training received from a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating. The holder of a sport pilot certificate may credit flight training received from a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating toward the aeronautical experience requirements of this section if the following conditions are met:

My questions are (assuming both start with a CFI-S):

Pilot A gets their SPL in 20 hours, they then decide to go on to get their PPL. All 20 hours applies towards the PPL?

Pilot B decides after 10 hours in on their SPL they want to go for their PPL and switch to a non-LSA aircraft and CFI. They cannot apply any of those 10 hours towards their PPL?

Am I understanding that correctly?

[3Dreaming]

That is certainly the way it reads. I think you need to look at the intent of the change. The intent was to allow sport pilots who trained with a sport CFI to move on to a private pilot certificate without having to redo all of their previous training with a sub part H CFI.

If it is not interpreted that way what would keep a school from using sport pilot instructors from training students almost all the way through their training, then handing them over to a sub part H CFI for night training and checkride prep? I certainly don't think that was the FAA's intent for the change.

[drseti]

If you look at SP as a portal of entry into GA, and a stepping-stone toward PP, the change makes sense. A SP can now train with a Sport CFI, get licensed, fly for a while for fun, gain hours and lots of valuable experience, and then come back a year or two later and do a very abbreviated PP add-on course, without losing anything (except for the cost of the second knowledge and practical tests). And, yes, you can argue that this isn't necessarily the cheapest path to PP, but it seems to have worked well for the 20% or so of my graduates who've gone this route.

[smutny]

Not arguing for or against. Just making sure I’m understanding correctly. As I go for my CFI-S, I don’t want to steer people wrong.

[TimTaylor]

I would call the FAA and ask. When the regulation was written, they may not have thought about a student pilot switching from Sport to Private. I know what the regulation says, but that may not necessarily be the intent.

Also, while Paul points out a likely scenario, it is also possible a student pilot gets a Sport Pilot certificate and a week later gets the training and hours required for a Private. There is nothing that says he needs years of valuable experience as a Sport Pilot to upgrade to Private. Either the CFI-S training should count or it should not count, regardless.

[drseti]

it is also possible a student pilot gets a Sport Pilot certificate and a week later gets the training and hours required for a Private.

That's entirely correct. I was just reporting the scenario which my graduates have been following.

[TimTaylor]

it is also possible a student pilot gets a Sport Pilot certificate and a week later gets the training and hours required for a Private.

That's entirely correct. I was just reporting the scenario which my graduates have been following.

Yes, I understand. I'm just stating my opinion why the reg makes little sense as written. Same as the one that says you need a medical to act as safety pilot. It should say you need to be able to act as legal PIC to act as safety pilot.

[drseti]

Yes, that would make complete sense. Which is why we should never expect it from FAA.

[TimTaylor]

Yes, that would make complete sense. Which is why we should never expect it from FAA.

What it says to me is the people at the FAA who write these things are human. They are not always able or willing to understand all the implications of what they write. In addition, evidently nobody has ever gone through all of Part 61 and Part 91 to totally harmonize the advent of Sport Pilot and LSA with all the pre-existing regulations.

[drseti]

And the same, apparently, goes for the advent of Basic Med.

[TimTaylor]

And the same, apparently, goes for the advent of Basic Med.

What's the problem with Basic Med?

[drseti]

A few things weren't coordinated with other FARs when Basic Med was created. So, inconsistencies exist. Here's one example:

Using Basic Med, I can be PIC, Safety Pilot, and instruct in just about any ASEL I can also instruct in just about any ASEL even without Basic Med, if the person I'm instructing can be PIC (think flight reviews, for example). I'm also a DPE. I can give SP checkrides in an LSA with just a Driver's license medical. But, even though I'm trained for it as a DPE, I can't give PP, CP, or IFR checkrides (in an LSA or otherwise) using Basic Med. That requires a 3rd Class medical, even though the applicant is PIC during a checkride. When they wrote the Basic Med rules, they were thinking about PIC and CFI privileges, but forgot to include DPE privileges.

[chicagorandy]

The more this old geezer reads these type posts, the more I understand why aviation folks claim the FAA's motto is "We're not happy until you're not happy." lol

[drseti]

Actually, since the FAA's mandate is to eliminate aviation accidents, and there are no accidents if they ground everybody, that motto should be "we're not happy until you're not flying."

[TimTaylor]

The issue is that Basic Med restores most, if not all, of your Private Pilot privileges. I assume a DPE must be more than a Private Pilot. This seems to be working as it should. Somewhat the same issue FastEddie was discussing when he was disappointed he can't fly ferry flights using Basic Med.

The problem seems to be that every time the FAA tries to help and give us some additional relief, someone else complains that it doesn't give them enough relief. The fact that you can be DPE in LSA helps fill the gap there. I think there are plenty DPE's around for Private, Commercial, and Instrument in non-LSA.