By Matt Johnson FIRE THE ‘CANONS!’


It should come as no surprise that unintended entry


into Instrument


Meteorological Conditions (IMC) has plagued our industry sector for decades. Thankfully, wonderful organizations like the USHST, HAI, and others have relentlessly tried to curb the problem. However, at least weekly, I read a news blurb about another helicopter that crashed after the pilot “encountered diminishing weather conditions.” The certificate level and experience level of those involved in these accidents vary. Each of these tragedies begs questions. How did they get into that situation? Given the situation, were they prepared for it once they found themselves there?


Many factors can be deduced to explain this


situation. Still, I think most would


agree that properly learning the warning signs of potential IMC scenarios and how to adequately control the helicopter by reference to instruments is lacking.


Back in time


A quick history lesson: more than a decade ago, my predecessor to this column, Randy Rowles, chaired a training working group committee that provided input for a regulatory change. The idea was to incorporate a certain number of hours into the commercial helicopter aeronautical experience requirements. That requirement landed in FAA 14 CFR 61.129(c)(3)(i), and reads:


“five hours on the control and maneuvering of a helicopter solely by reference to instruments using a view-limiting device including attitude instrument flying, partial panel skills, recovery from unusual flight attitudes, and intercepting and tracking navigational systems. This aeronautical experience may be performed in an aircraft, full flight simulator, flight training device, or an aviation training device.”


It’s certainly a great addition to the requirements, but not an end-all/be-all for eliminating IMC-related accidents. Consider this: private airplane requirements include three hours of instrument training. And while the majority of small general aviation


80 Sep/Oct 2023


The LOI stated: “Yes, the five hours of aeronautical experience for


meeting


instrument requirements for a commercial pilot certificate may be accomplished outside of a helicopter, in an aircraft, flight simulator, flight training device, or an aviation training device.” This resulted in many commercial helicopter applicants obtaining their “five hours of instrument time” in an airplane in order to meet the 61.129 requirements, and this was very unfortunate. That wasn’t the intent of the regulation when it was published in 2009; the objective was to better prepare applicants for IIMC situations in a helicopter.


Fast Forward


Thankfully, albeit many years later, another legal interpretation request was made (Pratt) about 61.129(c)(3)(i). Specifically, the requester asked whether the five hours of instrument training required for a commercial pilot certificate with a rotorcraft category and helicopter class rating could be accomplished outside of a helicopter, specifically in an aircraft, flight simulator, flight training device, or an aviation training device that does not replicate a helicopter. Essentially, it was the same question that had been asked in 2011.


In this most recent LOI (August 2022), the Office of Chief Counsel stated that the


airplanes are “instrument-equipped,” times have changed and brought about more advanced avionics and autopilots in smaller helicopters as well.


Good Intentions


The intentions for the regulatory change were good, but it didn’t take long for a hiccup. In 2011, an LOI (Letter of Interpretation-Theriault) was issued by FAA Legal Counsel. The request for legal interpretation was initiated because of the language used in 61.129(c)(3)(i). While the first part was crystal clear, the second statement wasn’t so clear. Again, that second part reads, “This aeronautical experience may be performed in an aircraft, full flight simulator, flight training device, or an aviation training device.” The word “aircraft” created a lot of confusion.


previous interpretation was incorrect. For those lovers of legal phrases, this was found to be on the basis of “canons of construction.” This LOI stated:


“By applying canons of construction, when § 61.129(c)(3)(i) prescribes an aircraft as an option to perform the five hours of training on the control and maneuvering of a helicopter, its context is with respect to a helicopter, a device used for flight in the air. Moreover, a pilot cannot control and maneuver a helicopter outside of a helicopter itself, or without a full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device that replicates a helicopter. Therefore, when § 61.129(c)(3)(i) is read in the context of paragraph (c) in its entirety, the FAA interprets the last sentence of 61.129(c)(3)(i) to mean that the five required hours of aeronautical experience may be performed either in a helicopter, or through the use of a full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device that replicates a helicopter.”


Additionally, it said, “Thus, in light of this finding, the FAA hereby rescinds the Theriault (2011) interpretation.”


Kudos to the Office of Chief Counsel; it fired up the “canons” and got it right this time!


Matt Johnson has been an FAA designated pilot examiner for over a decade, conducting exams ranging from Private to ATP and CFI. Additionally, he is a single-pilot IFR air medical captain, Part 135 instructor and check airman. He can be reached at HelicopterDPE@gmail. com and via Twitter @HelicopterDPE


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84