3 questions that made me go hmmm :P

[dapilot]

two things for two people...

avbug:

*After posting, I note that Midlifeflyer was composing a reply at the same time. After reading his post, and noting the comment about instructors having issues with logging time, it's worth noting that these issues aren't that complex. It's more a case of lazy flight instructors who won't take the time to study or learn the material they're paid to know. Logging and regulation issues are not rocket science, nor are they difficult. A basic lack of understanding of the regulation on the part of an instructor, or any pilot, speaks to lack if professionalism, rather than to the complexity of the regulation.
^^^^^^^

I'm a flight instructor and a paragraph like that makes people with questions about any confusions about regulations or such, like myself reluctant to ask or follow up on the topic (adding fuel to the fire you can say). This is an aviation message board and we can freely discuss anything aviation related here without worrying about "who's" reading what you write (because almost all pilots have an ego and a pride they worry about so they don't bring up topics like these in front of other flight instructors or students), and it's clear that "you know your stuff" - but alot of us aren't as well-versed or comprehensive about the regulations as you are. I don't want to start anything but I just wanted to say that just because someone asked some questions, you calling flight instructors who don't know these confusing acting/logging PIC rules are lazy and saying they don't take the time to study or learn the material is just wrong. Lots of well qualified, professional, flight instructors and advanced students for that matter understand various topics - each have their own strengths and weaknesses.

I am not afraid to admit I don't know all the regulations by heart and call me a bad pilot if you may but I tell my students if I don't know something, I tell them I will find out for them or tell them where to look to find the answer...


ps - I didn't mean to sound defensive in this post, but i was just standing up for all the flight instructors who feel the way I do

U-I pilot:

I don't know if anyone is going to respond to your last message - if you did read all the other previous posts, you would clearly see the answer to your question. After reading all the posts, the answer seems pretty clear to me, and you as a Commercial Pilot applicant should see the answer as well...

 

[midlifeflyer]

Re: wait a second....

Originally posted by U-I pilot
asked MY instructor to bring more fuel to the fire:

by the logic presented before me here, I could log PIC in a bonanza, PC-12, meridian TBM-700 or any single engine land. This don't seem right...

But it is (unless one of those airplanes requires a type rating).

Now after asking another instructor here, the answer is its ok. Who knows for sure, AOPA? FSDO? cause these gray FAR's sure don't.

Problem is that it's =not= gray. It's been absolutely crystal clear official FAA policy for over 20 years.

As I said before, people have a lot of trouble with it because they just mentally can't or won't accept it.

I guess you can do this but do people that log this time have questions asked later on? problems or snags? whats the catch with this "logged but not acting" PIC

There's no catch for the person who properly logs flight time in accordance with FAA requirements.

Actually, there is a catch. I'm not sure how the FAA would find out, but let's say we go back to the scenario where you're flying a Bonanza with your non-CFI friend who has the proper endorsements. You are a lowly private pilot with no endorsements. You do all the flying but decide you don't feel comfortable with logging the time as PIC. Your friend logs the time as PIC.

No problem for you, but your friend just violated the regs.

 

[avbug]

dapilot,

I'm not criticising those who ask questions. One hallmark of an honest instructor is being willing to admit not knowing something, and then taking the time to find out the answer.

I meet a lot of instructors who don't realize that they're just as green as the primary students they're teaching. I hear instructors babble this or that about regulations or theories of flight, when it's perfectly obvious they haven't a clue what they're talking about.

On a number of web boards, and in hangars everywhere, a common comment is "my instructor said..." followed by a host of misinformation.

The subject of logging is very straightforward. One need only read the regulation. However, if instructors are arriving at a refresher course and still asking these questions, one must wonder what these people have been doing for the past two years (at least) while they plied their trade.

More offensive are the posts that ask questions such as "what are the requirements to be a ground instructor?" This is simple: look it up. But so often I field or deal with questions of that nature...people take no thought but to ask, rather than soiling their fingers in the pages of the books they should already know and understand. That's where my bone of contention takes shape.

You should feel free to throw anything out for discussion. A question on logging time is a valid question, as is anything you feel worthy of throwing out there. If you're going to ask "what makes an airplane fly?", then that may cause some grumbling...you see my point. But a valid question bears no shame.

I hear folks say all the time, "there's no such thing as a stupid question." Well, I'm here to say that's just not true. There are stupid questions. I hear them a lot. Perhaps that's better said as there are unprepared questions that wreak of emptiness of forethought...but it's still just about as offensive, either way it's put.

I don't think anybody here will decry any question of comment you have to throw out there. That's the purpose of these boards: discussion and sharing. Or for some of us (me), it's simply because if we weren't doing this, we'd have to get off my cantankerous rump and do something meaningful...

 

[JediNein]

Many times displaced thresholds are there because the airport community allowed homes to be built next to the runway. Folks move in and immediately start complaining about the noise. So the airport authorities move the runway down. At BFL, the runway has already moved 3,000 feet, and the third runway now has buildings on it.

We're going to see big changes at BFL soon as the first development on the downwind has successfully caused flight restrictions and the second development is right next to the "new" terminal. Hello people, houses= noise complaints=restricted flying... GRRR!

Anyways, ask the tower if the displaced threshold is available for landing. Sometimes you get lucky and a shortened taxi, sometimes they might allow an opposite direction landing or another runway....

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein

 

[dapilot]

roger that...

avbug, i understand what you are saying now... and i agree that things that are easily looked up should be looked up, and the gray areas are well meant to be posted...

JediNein...that makes sense as well... thanks for your input on the issue.

 

[Richie]

Part 1.1

"Alternate airport" means an airport at which an aircraft may land if a landing at the intended airport becomes inadvisable.

I've had this discussion with the local FSDO just recently.

Not that their opinion is law, but I have to agree that the literal interpretation does strongly imply the need for a DIFFERENT airport.

FSS would probably accept the flight plan if you filed the destination and alternate as the same airport, it's not their job to interpert the regs for you, however I doubt that it would be perfectly legal.

Of course no one would really care unless you had a fed on board doing an enroute check, or you managed to crash on your approach to that "alternate" airport.

 

[ILS8L]

As an instructor when you are not sure of something, the best thing to say is "let's look it up". In the same line of thinking, when you impart knowledge, try to show the reference at the same time. As a student you should ask, "can you show me that?". That will re-enforce the learning experience and do away with the abundance of WOM (word of mouth)

 

[100LL... Again!]

Ya know...

Every time someone uses the term 'sole manipulator',
I think of Paul Reubens.