Legal right-seat time?

[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

 

[Timebuilder]

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~

The real issue is this:

Is this an instructional flight? No.

Maybe someone can help me out here. I've been given the chance to fly corporate trips in the right seat of a 421, though I am obviously not the primary pilot. 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???

The purpose of this flight is not instructional. Apparently, the pilot is fully qualified and current in the airplane. The person who wants to log dual given is not current in the airplane, and may in fact may never have flown in make and model. Nosehair pointed out that since the instruction being discussed is not for the purpose of a certificate or rating, the five hours of time in type is not a necessity.

What this boils down to is whether this passes the smell test. Does a qualified and current pilot have any perceptible need to receive instruction from someone who has no experience in his airplane? A weather lesson, if it were to be given, would have to have some reason to happen in flight, such as taking Barry Schiff along, and having him sign the pilot's logbook for instruction in use of weather avoidance radar, for example.

Mark is correct, I think, when he suggests that a CFI could help out with a crosswind landing, but I would be surprised if this corporate operator would place a PIC in the airplane that would need any help with crosswind landings, or any other topic that would warrant a logbook entry by anyone.

The only logical event is for our ride-along pilot to be receiving instruction in the operation of a 421, if that would be permitted by the operator. Becoming familiar with a new aircraft is a 100% legitimate purpose for instruction.

 

[100LL... Again!]

A non-qualified, zero-time-in-type pilot giving instruction to a qualified, experienced pilot on a REVENUE leg??!!

Please. Log it if you must, but be prepared to do some explaining.

Also, you are a fraud if you do this.

Log a little PIC on the pt91 legs. Otherwise, EARN your time by giving REAL instruction.

The piont made earlier is best - it does not matter ONE BIT how you think you can justify logging this time.

Walk into the local FSDO and explain your plan to four inspectors. If you can get even ONE to agree with you, then do it.

Good Luck...