Logging landings/approaches

[Atccfi]

Yet another question regarding logging times....sorry. But this one may be a little different. So as a cfi how are you supposed to log landings with your students? If your student lands, do you still log it? You are the PIC after all. How about with instrument approaches? your student is the one flying the approach, you are instructing him/her how to proceed, and still PIC, but not really flying it...do you still log it? just a thought to see how other instructors are doing it.... ATC

 

[phishn@daves]

That's what I used to ccall the "Landing Contest"..........with my students!!

I would make sure I got to land daily and it made the students try harder! Although I'm not really sure about the reg, it made for good practice! And for the new CFI's not a bad idea!

 

[igneousy2]

61.57 requires you to be sole manipulator during the 3 landings, day & night so it's pretty clear.

61.57 for instrument currency says you must "perform" the approaches, if you're IMC and doing the approach on your ticket I would say that you are performing the approach even though you aren't the sole manipulator.

 

[midlifeflyer]

61.57 requires you to be sole manipulator during the 3 landings, day & night so it's pretty clear.

61.57 for instrument currency says you must "perform" the approaches, if you're IMC and doing the approach on your ticket I would say that you are performing the approach even though you aren't the sole manipulator.

And, FWIW, the FAA Designee Standardization Section's Part 61 FAQ agrees with you on both counts (although the one about instrument approaches is one of the most controversial positions in the FAQ).

 

[Matterhorn]

A local FSDO inspector told us you can log the landings and approaches when you are acting as PIC. However, this does not go toward your personal currency. I agree with igneousy2 that you need to be the sole manipulator of the controls.

When I physically do a landing or approach (with a hood, in IMC, etc.) I make a remark in my comments column that I have done that toward currency. Occasionally I just have to rent a plane to get current on my own too.

 

[midlifeflyer]

A local FSDO inspector told us you can log the landings and approaches when you are acting as PIC. However, this does not go toward your personal currency.

The sole purpose of logging under 61.51 is to show the FAA that you meet the requirements for certificates, ratings or currency. Any FAA answer to "may I log" implies logging for that purpose.

Of course you can log things like don't count, like sitting is seat 16B on a 747, but if it doesn't count for anything, I can't imagine why would a FSDO inspector say you can log it (other than ignorance). Besides, I've been looking at that FAR agains and can't find a refernce to acting as PIC or "log but don't count" anywhere in the landing or instrument currency requirements.

Sounds like another of those FSDO folks who make up their own rules. The FAQ may be wrong from time to time, but every single FSDO inspector and DPE should follow it.

 

[A Squared]

>>>>>>A local FSDO inspector told us you can log the landings and approaches when you are acting as PIC. However, this does not go toward your personal currency.

Uhhh, be careful with the "log it but don't count it" concept. I can point to NTSB decisions in which pilots were having thier certificates revoked for falsifying thier logbooks. THe defense was used that the time was not actually used to qualify for a certificate or rating, thus it wasn't falsification. THe FAA's position is, it doesn't matter, if you put bogus time in your logbook, it's falsification, regardless of whether you put in on an 8710. The NTSB agrees.

>>>>>>The FAQ may be wrong from time to time, but every single FSDO inspector and DPE should follow it.

Even when it's demonstrably incorrect?

 

[midlifeflyer]

>>>>>>The FAQ may be wrong from time to time, but every single FSDO inspector and DPE should follow it.

Even when it's demonstrably incorrect?

Yes. There will always be an exception here and there, but having had some experience with people in authority who play by their own (interpretations of the) rules, I've come to the conclusion that, especially on a nationwide basis that affects many people across the country, consistency in application is more important than whether the application is technically right or not. It's one of the reasons that I'm a fan of Lynch and AFS640 even though I disagree with a bunch of stuff in the FAQ.

Let's use the approach issue as an example.

First the approach example. A CFI decides to count her student's approaches for currency. Maybe even called the local FSDO which looked to the FAQ and says it's okay. One day the pilot is flying along and has an incident in IMC. Unfortunately, the incident occurred in a different FAA region and =that= FSDO doesn't like the rule and is convinced it's wrong. So now the investigation comes and the FSDO decides to add violations of currency and logbook falsification into the mix. Whether that happens shouldn't depend on what part of the US the incident happens.

If the policy needs to be changes, it should be changed on a national basis, as it has with a number of FAQ that get revised after input from FAA Legal, not by each separate region deciding for itself whether something is "demonstrably incorrect" (whatever that means).

 

[transpac]

Yes. There will always be an exception here and there, but having had some experience with people in authority who play by their own (interpretations of the) rules, I've come to the conclusion that, especially on a nationwide basis that affects many people across the country, consistency in application is more important than whether the application is technically right or not. It's one of the reasons that I'm a fan of Lynch and AFS640 even though I disagree with a bunch of stuff in the FAQ.

Inter-FSDO standardization has been deficient for decades, and every Administrator comes into office promising to clean it up. The Handbook Standardization effort that started in the '80s was a good start. But, follow-up to the initial efforts never got the needed priority and the handbooks remain incomplete. While John Lynch's efforts are commendable, his opinions and interpretations have conflicted with published FAA guidance and legal precedents. Until such time as the FAQs are blessed by the Director of Flight Standards and the Chief Counsel, they have no legal standing and can't be used as a basis for local FSDO action or inaction.

 

[A Squared]

"demonstrably incorrect" That's a new legal term, I just made it up ... like it?

What I meant by that is the cases where John Lynch's "FAQ's" have been unambiguously in direct contradiction to a chief counsel interpretation. This has hapened, some have been fixed, I can't say for sure that any still exist, but it's ceratinly a possibility in the future. My point is this: If I were an FAA inspector faced with a potential enforcement situation and I have a Chief Counsel interpretation in one hand and John Lynch's FAQ in the other and they are contradictory, I would have a difficult time rationalizing chosing the guidance in the FAQ over the legal interepetation. That seems to be what you are suggesting.

I share your thoughts on having consistent enforcement, but I disagree that John Lynch is the answer. The problem is a result of FAA inspectors overstepping thier authority and "interpreting" based on what they think the regulations ought to mean, not what FAA counsel says they say. In that sense, John Lynch is just another part of the problem, an FAA empolyee wth no official authority taking it upon himself to issue his own interpretations.

The issue of enforcement standardization is important, but unless the soulution comes from, or is tightly coordinated with the Chief Counsel, It's just adding one more layer to the problem, not solving it.