grecoaj

I heard through the grape vine that an examiner was turning away Instrument applicants because they did not have 50 hrs XC AFTER they received their PPL. That is, in reviewing the requirements for XC PIC time toward the instrument rating (61.65, d), he ignored all the XC PIC time logged during the applicant's training for the PPL.

The applicants already had their PPL and over 50 hrs XC PIC in the book.

Thoughts? Is this examiner right/within his rights?

rickair7777

That does not jive with a literal interpretation of the FAR's.

But the only pre-PPL which would count would be solo XC, since that's the only way for a student pilot to log PIC.

Examiners do weird stuff sometimes (some of them are pretty weird dudes).

NoyGonnaDoIt

I have not heard of anyone claim that the PIC cross country hours for the instrument had to be post private.

And as you said, a reading of 61.65 does not support it. The usual language in the FAR that signals "the pre-private flying doesn't count" is "in the areas of operation..." in a particular section. When used, the phrase has been interpreted in various scenarios to mean that you can't use tasks from another certificate or rating to count.

In 61.65(d), (d)(2), which talks about instrument time in "certain areas of operation" uses the phrase. So that one is limited.

But 61.65(d)(1) which talks about the cross country requirement does not. So any cross country loggable as PIC is applicable, including solo student cross counts.

The examiner is wrong. He should reported and retrained and if he is turning away applicants with proper credentials, hopefully the system may take care of itself - as the word spreads he'll simply stopped being used.

PearlPilot

Agreed with the above posts. Pre-ppl cross countries are PIC time and therefore qualifies for the instrument PIC requirement. My DPE accepted my 7 hours of pre-ppl cross countries.

Flyhayes

I was told something similar directly from a DPE I work with. Although the reason had nothing to do with the pre-PPL XC time. Rather the problem was with candidates that met the cross country requirements at 50hrs on the dot. The issue the FAA has with this lays in the fact that, at the flight schools located at larger airports, the FAA realizes that pilots are sitting on the ground sometimes over 30 min waiting for takeoff and then still logging that time toward their cross country flight.
Perhaps the information you received through the grape vine has gotten muddled along the way? Or maybe I'm raising an entirely different issue all together.

grecoaj

Flyhayes, interesting point. I'll go back to my source and dig up some more details.

In those cases, were those applicants required to log more xc pic time? If so, how much?

Flyhayes

The conversation was long enough ago that I don't really remember the details. I have vague notion that he mentioned he would do a quick distance/speed calculation for each supposed x-country to determine if they were in fact feasible x-county's. I'd likely bet that the entire flight time from the supposed x-country would be invalidated and a whole other x-country flight would have to be flown in it's place. But that's just me speculating.

mtbthis

Some of the them are pretty bad pilots.

Interesting topic though. Definitely out of the ordinary. Nothing like an FAA examiner ruining all the time/money/effort you put into your instrument rating. Classic.