Logging landings/approaches

[bobbysamd]

FAA pukes - present company excepted

"He also said some FSDO puke said so."


Do you think that maybe, just maybe, your chief pilot made this up? Gee, I wonder how many times this happens?????

While the Chief Pilot had lied to me about the salary I was to receive and my promotion opportunities, he did not seem to be a liar in other ways.

Considering that he likely heard this from the MCO FSDO, which was responsible for our school, and which is known for giving pilots a hard time, it wouldn't be surprising, and, in this instance, the term "puke" fits. However, in all fairness,

Thanks for the "FSDO Puke" comment. I am going to ad this to my list of names and comments.

Please don't. Some of my best experiences in aviation were with FAA personnel. For example:

I was a member of Oklahoma Wing CAP in Oklahoma City. Several of our members were FAA employees at the Monroney Center. One was a FSS instructor, who was a great pilot and flight instructor, and with whom I reconnected when she was transferred to the PRC FSS.

Another was an ASI who trained DEs at the Center. He created a CAP Check Pilot course for our wing which was essentially a condensed version of his DE course. I took the course one year and, the next year, after being named an Assistant Wing Check Pilot, helped put on the course. The training this gentleman provided was some of the best I received in aviation. It served me well when I became a stage check pilot at ERAU because I already knew how to conduct a flight examination. This gentleman retired from the FAA and is now a DE in JAX.

The manager of the PWA FSDO was known to be a tough guy. He retired and became a DE. I went to him for a practical and he treated me extremely professionally and fairly. I liked him so well that I returned for two more practicals. I sent one of my first two signoffs to him for his practical and would have sent the second to him as well, but he wasn't available. Instead, I sent the second guy to a DE whom the FAA hired shortly thereafter. This lady treated this young man well.

Finally, I had three positive experiences at the SDL FSDO. The first was when I had my logbook reviewed for my ATP written signoff. The second and third were when I renewed my CFI based on activity. I walked in with my completed 8710s both times (the first being my application for Gold Seal). Each time I was treated courteously and professionally and not hassled in any way. The two times I renewed my CFI I renewed early and was never challenged about it.

Compare these experiences with my CFI renewal with the MCO FSDO. I had resigned from FlightSafety to take a new job in California. I wanted to renew, again early, because that office was familiar with my school and I did not want to walk into a FSDO that would be neither familiar with me nor with my school. I had my 8710 and records at the ready, just as with SDL. I arrived expecting the same kind of courteous treatment that I had been afforded at SDL and PWA. I was not ready for the third degree the inspectors gave me about why I was renewing early and their demands and doubts about my identity, my school's identity, and my pass/fail record. I asked why the third degree and I was threatened with a 609 (709). Although I finally got my renewal short of having electrodes strapped to me or being 609d, that is why I characterize the MCO FSDO as "pukes."

 

[JAFI]

Bobbysamd,



I will not ad the "Puke" comment to my list to honor your request.



I wish to apologize for the bad time you had at a certain FSDO or with a specific ASI. As always it is the bad apples that give us the most trouble. It pleases me that you have had positive experiences. There is not much I can do about the bad part.



I will however copy some parts of the New Customer Service Initiative for your consideration and review. You may find them useful in the future. In short what it means is that you can always elevate a “concern” to the next higher level. Your “concern” can be many things, you decide. The phone list will assist in finding the next higher level.



Basic - Flight Standards (AVR) web site for later reference: http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/



-------On the AVR site click on:



AVR Customer Service Initiative page: http://www.faa.gov/avr/customerservice/



----------In the letter you will see under “Customer Service Principles”:





“As our customer, you can expect from us:”



ü Clear guidance on how you can elevate your concerns to the next higher level of authority





----------Now, to determine who to contact use the phone directory:





http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/fsdo/index.cfm

The chain of command (not carved in stone and depending on which department your concern is in): Inspector, Supervisor, Office Manager, Regional Manager, AFS-1 (Head of) Flight Standards, AVR-1 Associate Administrator for Regulation & Certification, and as always - Administrator of the FAA.
​

​

I hope this will assist you in elevating any concerns.
​

​

JAFI
​

 

[bobbysamd]

Thanks, JAFI

I wish to apologize for the bad time you had at a certain FSDO or with a specific ASI. As always it is the bad apples that give us the most trouble. It pleases me that you have had positive experiences. There is not much I can do about the bad part.

I appreciate it. As it turns out, one of your brethren (sisters?) more than made up for it.

This gal and I were instructors at ERAU in Prescott. She was a great pilot and flight instructor - one of the few people I have met who could land a 182 without landing flat - and someone who had also battled the regional airline hiring wars. The PDX FSDO hired her to be an ASI. She had known about my bad treatment at the MCO FSDO and offered to renew my CFI based on acquaintance. It was good of her to do that. That was my last CFI renewal.

It is too bad that the actions of a few can slur the actions of so many.

 

[midlifeflyer]

How about this? Where in your logbook do you show that the landings marked in the landing column are yours for currency? Do any of you guys do that? I've not ever differentiated between 'my" landings and the student's landings. Anybody?

61.51 starts off with:

==============================
Each person must document and record the following time in a manner acceptable to the Administrator:
(1) Training and aeronautical experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate, rating, or flight review of this part.
(2) The aeronautical experience required for meeting the recent flight experience requirements of this part.
==============================

If you treat the logbook as your official record of demonstrating these two things to the FAA on request, it's a non-issue. You have no need to differentiate anything. If the number is in the logbook, it counts for one of these two purposes. If it doesn't count for one of these two purposes, it's not in the logbook (unless it's in a special column or is a point of interest that appears in "remarks")

I'm an "official record" logger. Every number in the standard logbook columns "counts". My student's landings simply don't get put in my logbook because they don't count for anything that has to do with my currency or any certificate or rating that I might aspire to.

 

[CLR2LAN]

ok, so for the past three months, i've been logging the total landings, both i or my students have been doing. I'm going to start changing over to only what i do. What would you do about all those entries with 4+ landings that you never performed, but were PIC, and how would you explain that in an interview?

 

[midlifeflyer]

I wouldn't worry about it too much.

It probably won't be necessary, but your logbook should establish your currency when you acted as PIC on a flight with passengers over the past 3 months. I'd just make a comment in the remarks section.

Beyond that, at your stage there is no number of landings requirement in the FAR except for currency purposes.

I frankly doubt that an interviewer would care about the number of landing you made in a 172 X years ago. But if the question came up how about, "For a while I logged the landings I assisted my students with, but decided the best course was only to log my own."