Legal right-seat time?

[A Squared]

I think you're both missing the point I was trying to make. The "show the guy a cloud" was more tongue in cheek than anything else.

No, I understood perfectly well the point you were making, As surprising as it may seem to you, I even grasped the tounge in cheek tone.

Here's the point you are missing:

If you really are giving real instruction, log it, I have no problem with that at all.

In this case ther is no legitimate instruction. We are talking about a "co-pilot" in a twin cessna. There is no instruction being given.

Lets be honest here (I know we're breaking new ground for you here, but play along) the only reason "instruction" is being proposed is as a rationalization for logging time that you are not legally entitled to log.

All your bull$hit and bluster about captains learning form FOs is just that: bull$hit and bluster. True, a good captain is always learning, from any and all sources. That in no way changes the fact that the 421 "copilot" is not giving legitimate instruction to the pilot on these trips.

.......you just have to want to help someone be a better pilot. If you wish to call me ethically challenged for it then it's a charge I'll gladly accept.

Umm, no I'm not calling you ethically challenged for wanting to help someone become a better pilot, I'm calling you ethically challanged for proposing a lame and dishonest rationalization for logging time you are not entitled to log. Surely you are not so dense that you are unable to see that?

 

[IFlyGC]

Lets be honest here (I know we're breaking new ground for you here, but play along) the only reason "instruction" is being proposed is as a rationalization for logging time that you are not legally entitled to log.

Wait...before I say anything let me kneel before Sir Squared.....

It seems you know me quite well based upon the above paragraph....when did we meet?

So, Sir Squared, what is your definition of "Real Instruction"....I'm assuming your either an NTSB Judge or John Lynch so I'm dying to know. If this poor guy in the first post asked....

"I'm flying along with this guy in a 421 and helping him with his instrument skills...he's a little rusty. Can I log that as dual given?" The resounding answer would have been YES! But wait, oh no...this poor chap really wants to build multi-time...HOW DARE HE!!!! So it's ok for the capt to learn from the FO just as long as the FO doesn't need to build multi time.

Like I said in a previous post....you wish to consider me "un-ethical" then fine....I condsider myself branded.

~Fly~

P.S. Little too slow on the old "edit" button there ;-)

 

[A Squared]

"I'm flying along with this guy in a 421 and helping him with his instrument skills...he's a little rusty. Can I log that as dual given?" The resounding answer would have been YES!

Ummm, yes, but that is *not* the case, the pilot is *not* rusty, he has *not* requested instruction, instruction is *not* being given. It doesn't matter how you twist and wiggle, and toss out sarcasm and babble irrelevancies about "learning". You are still left with the simple fact that instruction is not being given. If you aren't instructing, you can't log PIC.

 

[IFlyGC]

OState.....

When you fly your 421 please do us all a favour and teach him something! Note in his logbook what you taught him and everything will be just fine.

As I said back in my very first post:

"Next, to log "dual-given" time legally you need to notate this in the "student's" logbook and sign it."

If you log dual-given in yours and not sign his, yes...your in violation.

~Ethically Challenged Fly~

 

[A Squared]

OState.....

When you fly your 421 please do us all a favour and teach him something! Note in his logbook what you taught him and everything will be just fine.

As I said back in my very first post:

"Next, to log "dual-given" time legally you need to notate this in the "student's" logbook and sign it."

If you log dual-given in yours and not sign his, yes...your in violation.

~Ethically Challenged Fly~

Even better, log as PIC only that time whhich you are the sole manipulator of the controls. Accept that you may not legally log the rest of the time. Learn from the experience, but don't put it in your logbook. Recognize that the FAA and future interviewers take an extremely dim view of falsified logbooks.

 

[IFlyGC]

Recognize that the FAA and future interviewers take an extremely dim view of falsified logbooks.

Squared.....I think we just agreed on something!

~Fly~

 

[A Squared]

Squared.....I think we just agreed on something!

~Fly~

D@mn, that's cool...... now if I could just get you to agree that logging instruction when there is none is falsification, we'd agree on *everything*

 

[IFlyGC]

I actually agree with that as well (OMG...no way!!! ) ....the only difference between our opinions is that I think OState could actually give this guy some instruction in at least something productive while he's flying up there.

I'm going out on a limb here but I'm assuming OState is a fairly fresh MEI where as 421 guy is a relatively experienced pilot. I'm sure theres a few things he's forgotten that OState would just love to refresh his memory on. Surely that's worthy of a dual given signature?

~Fly~

 

[TonyC]

The fact is, I don't care whose in the left seat, there's something he/she can learn from flying with someone else. You telling me a captain has never learned something from his FO?

I learned something from my student today - - a common occurance - - I wonder if I should have my students log "Dual Given" every time I learn something...

Hmmmm....

 

[Timebuilder]

"I'm flying along with this guy in a 421 and helping him with his instrument skills...he's a little rusty. Can I log that as dual given?" The resounding answer would have been YES! But wait, oh no...this poor chap really wants to build multi-time...HOW DARE HE!!!! So it's ok for the capt to learn from the FO just as long as the FO doesn't need to build multi time.

This is what is known as an excuse.

 

[midlifeflyer]

This is what is known as an excuse.

Maybe not. Is the CFI only logging the 10-15 minutes of "help" or is he logging the 2.3 hour flight?

 

[IFlyGC]

Maybe not. Is the CFI only logging the 10-15 minutes of "help" or is he logging the 2.3 hour flight?

Would it really be a problem if he did indeed log the entire flight? It's an accepted practice that CFI's log "dual given" from the moment the prop starts until the moment it stops again.....just because this further instruction isn't leading to an additional rating it shouldn't change a standard logging practice.

The problem some people seem to have is they assume that OState is gonna sit there fat, dumb and happy doing absolutely nothing while logging Dual-PIC-Multi...I agree, that is unethical. What I've said all along is that he should teach while he's flying up there. He doesn't have to waffle on for the whole 2.3 hour flight but he can certainly assist in improving what I'm sure are less than perfect IFR skills from the left seat pilot. (does anyone REALLY have PERFECT IFR skills?)

Many CFI's encourage their students to come back every 3/6/9 months for a refresher......if OState is actually using his MEI while on these trips does it really matter if he gains from it as well?

~Fly~

 

[midlifeflyer]

Would it really be a problem if he did indeed log the entire flight? It's an accepted practice that CFI's log "dual given" from the moment the prop starts until the moment it stops again.....just because this further instruction isn't leading to an additional rating it shouldn't change a standard logging practice.

The problem some people seem to have is they assume that OState is gonna sit there fat, dumb and happy doing absolutely nothing

I know that some are, but I'm not making that assumption. I'm assuming that the CFI in the scenario only wants to log what is legitimate.

When doing a initial training, a flight review, transition training or recurrent training, the whole purpose of the flight is instructional. So it of course makes sense for the CFI to log the time block to block.

But (to take it out of this "build multi" situation), suppose that I'm just flying with a friend for a $100 hamburger. We get to the destination and there's a solid 12-17 KT crosswind component. My friend is uncomfortable with crosswinds and asks me if I want to do the landing. I suggest that instead of that, I put on my CFI hat and talk/help him through it.

In that situation, I think it's quite legitimate for me to log the time from that point on. But not the whole flight because someone says, "oh, that's the way it's done"

Another thing to consider: Does the CFI want the added responsibility for the flight that this brings - especially if the aircraft is unfamiliar? Those stories that folks toss around about the CFI who was just minding his own business and got nailed by the FAA for an accident "just because" he had the highest certificate on board? To the extent than any of them are true at all, I'll bet that the evidence showed that the CFI did more than just sit there - if by direct information on that flight (obviously hard to prove since no CFI except a complete idiot would log CFI/PIC after the accident) , then with some evidence that the CFI =always= treated himself as an instructor when flying with others.

 

[IFlyGC]

I think that's just one of the unfortunate parts of this business. Regardless of what your doing on the flight the feds will still wonder why metal was bent while a CFI was in one of the front seats.

I haven't seen any rulings from the FAA on this one but I think it's safe to say that regardless of if you're wearing the CFI hat or not, you'll still come under scrutiny for the flight. If your buddy landed gear up with a CFI on board I don't think you'd get away with "well, I let him because I wasn't working as a CFI today".

More importantly, you did send him a bill for that less on x-wind landings, didn't you?

~Fly~

P.S. Thanks for being open minded on this topic.....there's been way too many ASSumptions on this thread!

 

[A Squared]

I'm going out on a limb here but I'm assuming OState is a fairly fresh MEI where as 421 guy is a relatively experienced pilot. I'm sure theres a few things he's forgotten that OState would just love to refresh his memory on. Surely that's worthy of a dual given signature?
~Fly~

For *a* flight? perhaps .... for repeated flights, week in, week out? no.

I could agree that it might be legit to claim you were giving instruction on a single cross country flight.

I think almost anyone would agree that 15 x-c flights in a month totaling 25 hours logged as "instruction" for the same pilot is pure BS.

The line lies somewhere in between the two. Where exactly, I can't say. There is no bright line, but we all know that at some point it becomes a scam