Logging landings as a CFI....

[acaTerry]

Well here's the deal....
Who cares how many landings are made except for currency? Is each landing a bonus point or something? Aside from that, I have always logged every landing in the book, but sidenoted WHO did it. This makes it clear for currency, and covers my rear in cases like this:

So a student or former student is out and balls it badly in the pattern or on landing, logbook burns and you are being sued by his estate...

Lawyer: You failed to train this pilot adequately!

CFI / Former CFI: No, he was properly trained, and had more than sufficient time in traffic patterns and landings during his training.

Lawyer: Exactly how many landings were performed during this "training"?

CFI/ Former CFI: I don't know, about ___ landings...

Lawyer: ABOUT...you mean you have no idea....

CFI / Former CFI: Well, I only logged the landings that I performed...

Lawyer: How convenient! So you expect us to believe that you trained the deceased properly, yet you did not even keep record of the training you gave....

 

[woutlaw]

diarrhea in a freighter trumps.

Wow, I missed that one. Frickin' hilarious!

In case somebody else has missed this gem:

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=44435

 

[siucavflight]

How sad for you. So I supposose Eagle allows it's Captains to log landings that the FO accomplishes? You'd think that the FEDS would question two people logging landings for one flight. (I guess you could say you always do a touch and go for currency, heh?). Maintenance probably gets upset that they have to inspect the jet more often because of the landings logged too! What? You don't log them in the aicraft logbook? Just your own "personal" logbook? Hmmm. I see.
As PIC in my jet, I'm responsible for any "bent metal", but wouldn't think of logging a landing the FO does. YGBSM! You're only lying to yourself. Get real, be honest with yourself. You didn't get hired because of the number of landings in your logbook, believe me. Airlines know about flying and instructing, and know their instructors don't get to log many landings. If anything, logging an inordinant amount of landings while instructing might be questionable at some interviews.

BTW, for those of you who got it right on this thread, nice to se your posts. There may be hope for this profession after all!

Who said anything about the CA and the FO both logging landings at a 121 carrier?

As a CFI I called the dupage FSDO and asked them, and they said that I can log the landings on the aircraft that I am instructing in. Actually had them write a letter and I keep that with my log book, why the need for the big blue letters? Do you think that we will take you more serious that way?

 

[hiropilot]

Are you still responsible if the student screws up, sure. But that's the case even if you, the CFI, and a couple of your private pilot buddies are out flying around and you're dozing in the back seat when your buddy busts a TFR. Guess who's gonna get hung?

ummm, the PIC?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Well here's the deal....
Who cares how many landings are made except for currency? Is each landing a bonus point or something? Aside from that, I have always logged every landing in the book, but sidenoted WHO did it. This makes it clear for currency, and covers my rear in cases like this:

So a student or former student is out and balls it badly in the pattern or on landing, logbook burns and you are being sued by his estate...

Lawyer: You failed to train this pilot adequately!

CFI / Former CFI: No, he was properly trained, and had more than sufficient time in traffic patterns and landings during his training.

Lawyer: Exactly how many landings were performed during this "training"?

CFI/ Former CFI: I don't know, about ___ landings...

Lawyer: ABOUT...you mean you have no idea....

CFI / Former CFI: Well, I only logged the landings that I performed...

Lawyer: How convenient! So you expect us to believe that you trained the deceased properly, yet you did not even keep record of the training you gave....

Adequate records of student training is always I good idea. My method is a completely separate document. But the way you do it is just fine. So long as the logbook itself makes it clear which are for currency and which are not.

 

[CJCCapt]

I have heard of this, but haven't actually read anything on this case. Could you point me in the right direction to find any literature on this case?

Was it the FAA that brough charges against the back seat sleeper? Or was it in civil court (lawsuit) that declared the back seater responsible? Any help would be appreciated.

Let me do some research. My information comes first hand from an aviation seminar in Orlando (FSDO 15) I attended several years ago. The FSDO manager was making a presentation to part 141 flight school chief pilots and ops folks. The question was brought up about a CFI aboard the aircraft, but not in a flying seat. Who was responsible? He smiled and said, "the CFI." "What if the pilot-in-command was an ATP, in the left seat, signed for the aircraft, and the CFI was in the back seat, sleeping. Who's in charge?". He smiled again and said "We are going to have a long conversation with the CFI, in addition to the ATP." He then went on to quote a NTSB case and enforcement action. I will try to find it.

 

[CJCCapt]

...
Do you guys also log instrument approaches on instructional flights when the student is flying the approach? Do you log sim time when you're teaching someone in it? .....

g

VMC no. IMC yes.

No. I log dual given. If I occupy a pilot seat in the sim while giving instruction I don't log that either. I only log sim time if I receive instruction from an authorized instructor.

 

[CJCCapt]

ummm, the PIC?

And, if the operation is under part 91, the CFI.

 

[nosehair]

He smiled and said, "the CFI."

See - there's the fishy part - "He smiled"....I think they (the CFI police) just want to scare us up a bunch on some flukey situation that happened....

CFI's cannot live in a life of fear that we're gonna be held responsible when the law clearly states that the PIC is The Responsible One. Peroid. End of Story.

Any legal action that violates this principle is a violation of The Principle itself.

...there's probably more to the story...

 

[midlifeflyer]

Let me do some research. My information comes first hand from an aviation seminar in Orlando (FSDO 15) I attended several years ago. The FSDO manager was making a presentation to part 141 flight school chief pilots and ops folks. The question was brought up about a CFI aboard the aircraft, but not in a flying seat. Who was responsible? He smiled and said, "the CFI." "What if the pilot-in-command was an ATP, in the left seat, signed for the aircraft, and the CFI was in the back seat, sleeping. Who's in charge?". He smiled again and said "We are going to have a long conversation with the CFI, in addition to the ATP." He then went on to quote a NTSB case and enforcement action. I will try to find it.

I've been looking for about 9 years now and haven't found it. The closest I've found is one that involves a CFI who is "just a passengers" who manages to convince the low-time PIC to fly in marginal night VFR conditions with a bad attitude indicator, with the expected results.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X05581&key=1

Just going to show that if you act like an ass, you're likely to get kicked in it.

On the other hand, there's this one, where the case says that a CFI giving instruction is "always" PIC but finds that the instructor was =not= responsible for a student's bad landing, even during an instructional flight.

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4384.PDF

So much for the CFI always being responsible.

But nonsense is so much more fun.