AVSIG: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs wwswsigarch.jpg (7236 bytes)

✈ . . . . . . ✈ . . . . . ✈ . . . . ✈ . . . ✈ . . ✈ . ✈ . . ✈ . . . ✈ . . . . ✈ . . . . . ✈ . . . . . . Touch-and-Go to our Live Forum (This is a Read-only Archive of the 2004-2017 AVSIG Forum)


AVSIG Discussion Sections >> FAA Topics

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | >> (show all)
Scott Dyer [HPN/NY]
Top Gun


Reged: 01/11/03
Posts: 20065
Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs
      #261019 - 08/21/09 09:55 PM

This just released:

FAA Publishes Revisions to Flight Training Rules



Today, the Federal Register published revisions to the Code of Federal
Regulations (parts 61, 91, and 141) (available at:
http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=RuAi8b/0/1/0&W
AISaction=retrieve ) that revise certain training, qualification,
certification, and operating requirements for pilots, flight instructors,
ground instructors, and pilot schools. "This final rule is a result of the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) issued in early 2007," said John D.
Lynch, of FAA's Certification and General Aviation Operations Branch. "These
changes have been in the works since we issued the previous final rule
changes to parts 61 and 141 in August 1997."



Lynch reports the majority of the rule changes in parts 61, 91, and 141 are
to "further FAA's safety mission, incorporate international flight standards,
and respond to recent technological advances in aviation. Many of the changes
reflect and incorporate comments and suggestions made by trade organizations,
flight schools, manufacturers, individual pilots, and others." FAA received
nearly 2,000 comments from across a wide range of the aviation community in
response to the NPRM issued in February 2007.



Of the 102 changes, Lynch says, "One of the more significant changes
establishes training and qualification requirements for pilots and flight
instructors who use night vision goggles. Another significant change is
clarification on the use of aviation training devices, flight training
devices, and flight simulators for maintaining recent instrument experience.



In addition, the revisions address U.S. military pilots qualifying for flight
instructor certificates based on their military instructors pilot
qualifications as well as refines and clarifies provisions for current and
former U.S. military pilots to qualify for FAA pilot certificates and
ratings.



In a few days, the final rule will be available at:
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published

--------------------
www.scottdyercfi.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Andy Alson (HPN/NY)
THE TOP GUN!


Reged: 08/31/01
Posts: 1862
Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Scott Dyer [HPN/NY]]
      #261023 - 08/21/09 10:53 PM

I've been trying to read through the section on instrument currency as it
relates to maintaining currency in a combination of aircraft and sim (gotta
find the definitions of "flight simulator", "flight training device" and
"aviation training device").

Gonna be interesting to figure out what this all really means.

Andy


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Robert Mann [HPN-NY]
AVSIG Member


Reged: 05/15/04
Posts: 11777
Loc: NY
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Scott Dyer [HPN/NY]]
      #261024 - 08/21/09 11:01 PM

Scott,

<<One of the more significant changes establishes training and qualification requirements for pilots and flight instructors who use night vision goggles.>>

Who uses night vision goggles?

--------------------
Best,

Bob


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott Dyer [HPN/NY]
Top Gun


Reged: 01/11/03
Posts: 20065
Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Andy Alson (HPN/NY)]
      #261028 - 08/21/09 11:37 PM

Andy -- I haven't even begun to look at it. After next week for me, probably.

--------------------
www.scottdyercfi.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott Dyer [HPN/NY]
Top Gun


Reged: 01/11/03
Posts: 20065
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Robert Mann [HPN-NY]]
      #261029 - 08/21/09 11:37 PM

Bob - Med helicopter crews, perhaps?

--------------------
www.scottdyercfi.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Stan Prevost
Public Guest


Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 773
Loc: Huntsville, Alabama
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Scott Dyer [HPN/NY]]
      #261144 - 08/22/09 07:24 PM

Quote:

said John D.
Lynch, of FAA's Certification and General Aviation Operations Branch.




Huh? I'm missing something. I thought John Lynch retired five years or so ago.

--------------------
Best Regards,

Stan


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott Dunham (RDU)
Top Gun


Reged: 04/29/04
Posts: 6470
Loc: Chapel Hill, NC
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Robert Mann [HPN-NY]]
      #261457 - 08/24/09 10:14 AM

>> Who uses night vision goggles?

NVGs are in use by some EMS helicopter operators on a voluntary basis, although there's a push on to require them for night EMS operations when conditions indicate they'd be beneficial.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nehoC hctiM
Top Gun


Reged: 08/03/04
Posts: 2293
Loc: LAX Based 10/2016 - Current YA...
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Robert Mann [HPN-NY]]
      #261807 - 08/26/09 05:02 PM

Quote:

Scott,

<<One of the more significant changes establishes training and qualification requirements for pilots and flight instructors who use night vision goggles.>>

Who uses night vision goggles?




Living in California for many years, I have read about numerous helicopter military training accidents utilizing night vision goggles.

There is my guess.

Reminds me, at OSH there was a synthetic vision camera and display that one company was trying to market to GA.
Anyone have any experience with these?

--------------------
USA Today said, people over 50 are calmer.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Evad Rellimhtug
Top Gun


Reged: 08/31/01
Posts: 2310
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Robert Mann [HPN-NY]]
      #261859 - 08/27/09 12:18 AM

Quote:

Who uses night vision goggles?




Bob,
We use them at Sheriff's Aviation on a regular basis. We have about a dozen pairs and they are great! Helicopter crews have even started flying rescue missions in mountainous terrain after dark and landing on ridges to drop off and pick up ground teams.

--------------------
Best,
Evad

Edited by Dave Guthmiller (08/27/09 12:18 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anne Umphrey (KBED)
Top Gun


Reged: 04/28/04
Posts: 12756
Loc: KBED
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Evad Rellimhtug]
      #261886 - 08/27/09 09:40 AM

Boston Medflight uses them and my friend has said that it has made all the difference in their being able to do scene work at night. Much, much safer.
Anne

--------------------
You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky.
- Amelia Earhart, 1897 - 1937


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Evad Rellimhtug
Top Gun


Reged: 08/31/01
Posts: 2310
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Anne Umphrey (KBED)]
      #261892 - 08/27/09 10:31 AM

Anne,
What's interesting is that with NVG's you can see through smoke too. A couple of years ago we had a big fire in the mountains that burned over 100 homes. One of the night crews went up there to look at the damage since all of the fire fighting airplanes were done for the day. As they flew along with the NVG's they could see everything really well until the pilot flipped his off and realized they were in total IMC smoke and couldn't see a thing.

--------------------
Best,
Evad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anne Umphrey (KBED)
Top Gun


Reged: 04/28/04
Posts: 12756
Loc: KBED
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Evad Rellimhtug]
      #262003 - 08/27/09 08:38 PM

Fascinating. Were they worried about the effect of smoke on engine performance?

There was a report on the national news tonight about the very poor air quality in the LA basin. A fire north of La Canada? Hot and stagnant air. Comments?

Anne

--------------------
You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky.
- Amelia Earhart, 1897 - 1937


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Evad Rellimhtug
Top Gun


Reged: 08/31/01
Posts: 2310
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Anne Umphrey (KBED)]
      #262023 - 08/27/09 09:55 PM

Quote:

Fascinating. Were they worried about the effect of smoke on engine performance?




Anne,
I don't think that was too much of a concern with the A Star B3's. However, if it was a volcano that was spewing ash into the air it might have been a problem.<g>

Quote:

There was a report on the national news tonight about the very poor air quality in the LA basin. A fire north of La Canada? Hot and stagnant air. Comments?




It's been burning for a couple of days now and without the winds it should be no big deal to knock down. That just makes it miserable for the residents who have to breathe it without the winds blowing it out of here.

Cough...<g>

BTW, next time you make it out this way for a visit to Rancho Cucamonga give me a heads up and we can get you in one of the patrol B3's for a LE ride along flight. You might enjoy that.

--------------------
Best,
Evad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bill Bridges - 9S1
Top Gun


Reged: 05/17/04
Posts: 6008
Loc: 9S1
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Anne Umphrey (KBED)]
      #262024 - 08/27/09 10:03 PM

Anne,

Quote:

Were they worried about the effect of smoke on engine performance




Why would smoke effect engine performance?

Bill


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anne Umphrey (KBED)
Top Gun


Reged: 04/28/04
Posts: 12756
Loc: KBED
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Evad Rellimhtug]
      #262204 - 08/28/09 08:03 PM

OK! I'll be there!!!
Anne

--------------------
You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky.
- Amelia Earhart, 1897 - 1937


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anne Umphrey (KBED)
Top Gun


Reged: 04/28/04
Posts: 12756
Loc: KBED
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Bill Bridges - 9S1]
      #262205 - 08/28/09 08:05 PM

Oh, I was thinking it might be similar to ash from volcanoes. Or loss of lift is more like it. Could have expressed myself better.

Anne

--------------------
You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky.
- Amelia Earhart, 1897 - 1937


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Russell Holton
AVSIG Member


Reged: 07/07/05
Posts: 14136
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Bill Bridges - 9S1]
      #262717 - 08/31/09 08:40 PM

Quote:

Why would smoke effect engine performance?




Wouldn't the oxygen levels be lower?

Edited by Russell Holton (08/31/09 08:40 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anne Umphrey (KBED)
Top Gun


Reged: 04/28/04
Posts: 12756
Loc: KBED
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Russell Holton]
      #262731 - 08/31/09 09:35 PM

Heat, density altitude. Oh heck, forget I even said anything.

Anne

--------------------
You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky.
- Amelia Earhart, 1897 - 1937


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
John O'Shaughnessy [FCM]
Top Gun


Reged: 09/13/01
Posts: 5059
Loc: Minnesota
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Scott Dyer [HPN/NY]]
      #269112 - 10/21/09 02:05 PM

Looking over the Part 61 changes, I see the following change to the private pilot solo XC requirements.

Old language:

61.109 Aeronautical Experience:

(a)(5)(ii)
One solo cross-country flight of at least 150 nautical miles total distance, with full-stop landings at a minimum of three points, and one segment of the flight consisting of a straight-line distance of at least 50 nautical miles between the takeoff and landing locations; and


New language:

61.109 Aeronautical Experience:

(a)(5)(ii)
One solo cross country flight of 150 nautical miles total distance, with full-stop landings at three points, and one segment of the flight consisting of a straight-line distance of more than 50 nautical miles between the takeoff and landing locations; and

======

Did their word processor search and replace mess up? It seems they wanted to replace the language "at least" in the second clause with "more than,' but they also removed the "at least" from the first part of the sentence, implying that the trip needs to be 150 nautical miles, and not "at least" 150 nautical miles.

Thoughts?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott Dyer [HPN/NY]
Top Gun


Reged: 01/11/03
Posts: 20065
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: John O'Shaughnessy [FCM]]
      #269122 - 10/21/09 03:03 PM

John -- Thoughts? I have none. <G>

Typo that they'll have to fix, I think.

--------------------
www.scottdyercfi.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
John Gaitskill, 0A7
Top Gun


Reged: 05/15/04
Posts: 1412
Loc: hendersonville, nc
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Scott Dyer [HPN/NY]]
      #269134 - 10/21/09 04:45 PM

20 Oct 09 FR published corrections to the rules, but they didn't fix the 150 mile cross county language.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Dan Barclay [ORG]
Top Gun


Reged: 05/06/04
Posts: 4492
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: John O'Shaughnessy [FCM]]
      #269138 - 10/21/09 05:01 PM

It also now says that it will consist of landings at *exactly* three points.

>> with full-stop landings at three points

What are they thinking?

Dan


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Robert Mann [HPN-NY]
AVSIG Member


Reged: 05/15/04
Posts: 11777
Loc: NY
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: John O'Shaughnessy [FCM]]
      #269141 - 10/21/09 05:43 PM

John,

<< It seems they wanted to replace the language "at least" in the second clause with "more than,' >>

Maybe they thought that a minimum segment of exactly 50 miles was woefully inadequate, so they now require that it has to be "more than" 50 miles (as in 50.00001 miles) whereas before, exactly 50 miles would have been good enough to come under the definition of "at least 50 miles".

Whaduya think?

--------------------
Best,

Bob


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
John O'Shaughnessy [FCM]
Top Gun


Reged: 09/13/01
Posts: 5059
Loc: Minnesota
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Robert Mann [HPN-NY]]
      #269240 - 10/21/09 09:51 PM

I think my student will have to do some pretty crazy measuring with a protractor to get the exact distances...

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Terry Carraway
Top Gun


Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 7098
Loc: Maryland
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Robert Mann [HPN-NY]]
      #269470 - 10/23/09 03:36 AM

Yes, but now if the total distance is 151 nm,it doesn't count.

--------------------
Terry
Mostly 0W3


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Cole Loftus [C89]
Top Gun


Reged: 05/04/04
Posts: 2291
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Robert Mann [HPN-NY]]
      #271368 - 11/03/09 12:44 AM

It was changed for consistency with other regs dealing with the x/c distance.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Steve Leonard [KBOI]
Top Gun


Reged: 09/06/01
Posts: 1928
Loc: Atlanta
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Cole Loftus [C89]]
      #272263 - 11/07/09 11:21 PM

Quote:

It was changed for consistency with other regs dealing with the x/c distance.




Consistency is fine, but they've made it virtually impossible for most students to complete the requirements for a PPL. How do you plan a trip of 150 0 miles?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Cole Loftus [C89]
Top Gun


Reged: 05/04/04
Posts: 2291
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Steve Leonard [KBOI]]
      #272655 - 11/11/09 01:13 PM

I was referring only to the <50nm requirement.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Terry Carraway
Top Gun


Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 7098
Loc: Maryland
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Dan Barclay [ORG]]
      #273896 - 11/22/09 06:55 AM

Quote:

It also now says that it will consist of landings at *exactly* three points.

>> with full-stop landings at three points

What are they thinking?

Dan




Think? FAA? :)

--------------------
Terry
Mostly 0W3


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Sue A. Critz (KELP)
Top Gun


Reged: 04/30/04
Posts: 3384
Loc: El Paso, TX
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Terry Carraway]
      #281094 - 02/13/10 09:00 PM

More seriously, though, it puts a real crimp in my style.

I always have students permitted to make landings at four or even five airports. Why? Because in the interest of safety (which is what these reg changes are SUPPOSED to be partially about) I want students to make appropriate aeronautical decisions. One such decision might be to forgo that landing at the mountain airstrip where the winds can get very funny very fast and where weather reporting is next to nil. My last student did just that when he started encountering some bad turbulence while headed there. He was able to make his required three full stops at the other airports I'd approved him for, came back and reported everything he'd done and why. I said, "Good job!"

Why compel a student to make an unwise decision because "if I don't get these three landings in I'll have to do this all over again?"

I'm also not in agreement with making changes to simply be in lockstep with the JAA.

--------------------
-sue


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Mark Kolber (TTA/NC)
Public Guest


Reged: 05/17/04
Posts: 331
Loc: APA/Denver Colorado
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Dan Barclay [ORG]]
      #281101 - 02/14/10 08:42 AM

Quote:

It also now says that it will consist of landings at *exactly* three points.

>> with full-stop landings at three points

What are they thinking?

Dan


They weren't. Not everything is intentional. (where do you see the word "exactly"?)

Yes they pulled the word "minimum" but I'm betting that's that's an error. There's usually more than one left in when any set of regs is changed that much. I know they were were still making last minute corrections within 24 hours of publication of the final rule. That's the kind of error that's easy to make and miss, There's nothing in the Final Rule explanatory material that indicates anything other than to make a change to the single-segment distance requirement.

I'm really a bit amazed. It's not just here. Of all of the changes in the rules, it's this one - that affects exactly one reg and one flight in a way that is likely inconsequential 99% percent of the time that seems to have generated the most discussion.

--------------------
Mark Kolber
www.midlifeflight.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | >> (show all)



Extra information
0 registered and 3 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Mike Overly 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 9474

Rate this topic

Jump to

Contact Us AVSIG

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5

Logout   Main Index    AVSIG Aviation Forum