Legal right-seat time?

[avbug]

What most people do (and in no way do I condone this, nor have done so myself) but both pilots just log PIC. The only way you'd get busted is if the Feds looked at both your logbooks together. The biggest negative aspect though is during the airline interview you'll probably slip up, say there was another pilot on board

Most people do not do this. It's a foolish idea.

Dual logging of pilot in command is only acceptable under the regulation under very specific circumstances. Two pilots may log PIC when one is providing instruction as an authorized instructor (and no, pointing out clouds does not "count"), and the other pilot is acting as sole manipulator of the controls.

Two pilots may also log PIC when one is sole manipulator, and the other is acting as PIC of an aircraft requiring more than one crewmember. (Eg, the most common application, as safety pilot).

An ATP may log PIC while acting as PIC of an aircraft in an operation requiring an ATP. However, in this case, while another pilot may legally log PIC time while acting as sole manipulator, he or she should NOT.

The aircraft is rated for single pilot operations, however I have an MEI certificate, which says I'm legal to teach in this category and class. So in order for me to log PIC here, I have to log "Instruction Given" Am I stretching the rules here, and will the airlines question my PIC time in this 421???

If you're providing instruction as an authorized instructor, you may log it. Do not simply log time because you have the instructor certificate...only log in this manner if you're providing real flight instruction.

If you're flying with your friend and get to manipulate the contrls during the empty legs, then log the empty legs and forget logging the rest. Attempting to do so is cheesy and may eventually undermine your credibility. I've seen it happen in an interview.

 

[IFlyGC]

Most people do not do this. It's a foolish idea.

Ok, most people I know have tried or considered this method...and yes, your right...it IS a foolish idea.

Two pilots may log PIC when one is providing instruction as an authorized instructor (and no, pointing out clouds does not "count"), and the other pilot is acting as sole manipulator of the controls.

Can you show me the reg that specifically prevents a lesson on in-flight weather avoidance? Nah, didn't think so.

~Fly~

 

[Timebuilder]

Perhaps that reference cannot be found because of the "reasonable person" principle.

A "reasonable person" would deduce that a lesson on inflight weather avoidance would be given in a training scenario for a certificate or rating. Since you are both rated pilots, a situation where such a lesson would be required is "farfetched."

I think the best advice that I can give you is that if the operator permits, you can be given instruction in the aircraft in order to become familiarized with the plane, its systems, and its characteristics. All your friend needs is permission and a current MEI cert. Under part 91, your time can be logged as PIC time, too.

What's wrong with that idea?

 

[A Squared]

Can you show me the reg that specifically prevents a lesson on in-flight weather avoidance? Nah, didn't think so.

Don't need one. here's a primer on how it works for those of you who are ethically challenged. (that means you IFLYGC)

As an instructor you are allowed to log as PIC "all flight time while acting as an authorized instructor" (61.51(e)(3) )

So were you acting as an authorized instructor?

You say "yes, it was a lesson in in-flight weather avoidance"

Uh-huh Ok let's be honest here, that is what is known in technical terms as a "bull$hit rationalization" everyone knows it, you know it, I know it, the FAA inspector knows it, and more to the point, the NTSB judge knows it. That's where the rubber meets the road, in fromt of the NTSB judge. Tha FAA drags your sorry a$$ before an NTSB judge and says this guy is falsifying his flight time, you say "I was giving flight instruction in "weather avoidance" The NTSB judge has the discretion to look judge bull$hit rationalizations for what thay are, that's what a judge does. Go read a dozen NTSB decisions. see for yourself how well bull$hit rationalizations fly with an NTSB judge...I'lll give you a hint, they don't. The judges opinion will be couched in terms like "credibility", and "reasonable" and words like that, but when you strip away the legal mumbo jumbo they read soemthing like this:

pilot: my 91 operation was not an illegal part 135 charter because (insert bull$hit rationalization here)

judge: "that's bull$hit, you're violated"


or

pilot: My logbook isn't falsified beccause (insert bull$hit rationalization here)

Judge "that's bull$hit, you're violated"


Really, I'm serious read a bunch of NTSB decisions to really get an idea of how this works. You may convince yourself with bull$hit like "lesson in weather avoidance" you may even convince your friends ... but you're not going to convince an FAA inspector, and you're certainly not going to convince an NTSB judge.

BTW; the penalty for falsification, which is what we're talking about here, falsification, is *always* revocation, not suspension. Revocation means they take away your certificate and you're not a pilot anymore. Think about it before you falsify your logbook.

 

[IFlyGC]

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. 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?

You don't have to be giving someone training for a certificate or rating to justify signing someone's logbook. Heck, the first time I saw the inside of a cloud was a year after I got my CFII ticket....I was already MORE than rated but you better believe I flew with a competent CFII before I did it solo!

You don't need a lesson plan or a syllabus to teach someone something new....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.

~Fly~

 

[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.