Logging landings as a CFI....

[Lazy8]

Logging PIC as a F/O is my favorite FI thread of all time (except maybe diarrhea in a freighter).

diarrhea in a freighter trumps.

:beer:

 

[skiandsurf]

Just my take on Logging Landings....

First off, your logbook is YOUR logbook. Make any notes that you feel important, or "milestones".

Second, If I am a Required Crewmember, I log it. If I am am teaching a student pilot, I am required. If the student already has soloed, he cannot carry passengers. Therefore, the CFI is not a passenger, but a required crewmember.

When flying an RJ or Airbus, you are a required crewmember. I log them all. With 16,000 + hours, nobody has EVER questioned me on "how many landings do you have?".

As far as currency goes, if you are a flight instructor, this should not even be an issue.....providing you keep busy.

 

[Lazy8]

Just my take on Logging Landings....

First off, your logbook is YOUR logbook. Make any notes that you feel important, or "milestones".

Second, If I am a Required Crewmember, I log it. If I am am teaching a student pilot, I am required. If the student already has soloed, he cannot carry passengers. Therefore, the CFI is not a passenger, but a required crewmember.

When flying an RJ or Airbus, you are a required crewmember. I log them all. With 16,000 + hours, nobody has EVER questioned me on "how many landings do you have?".

As far as currency goes, if you are a flight instructor, this should not even be an issue.....providing you keep busy.

That's fine, but the FAR's are pretty clear that you have to be the sole manipulator for the controls to log a landing. It doesn't matter if you are required to be there or not. Am I the only one besides Mark that gets this?

Sure you can go your whole career without it being an issue because 99% of the time nobody cares about your landings... until you bend a plane at night with a student and the FSDO investigates and notices you have 5,000 landings logged with 900 hours flight time. (hmmmm....) The Denver FSDO made a point that they've busted at least one CFI on proving his currency (among other things) with that exact scenario. There's no way you'd have several thousand landings with that flight time as an instructor and it is easy to get out of night currency even if you have many students. ie. If you're living in the Denver area and just survived several months of constant snow storms this past winter you weren't flying much.

It doesn't matter to me how you folks are logging landings, but just keep in mind the FARs are cut and dry on what you can and cannot log to maintain currency. I'm only stressing this because so many students read this forum and take what we say as the gospel. May as well state the facts instead of what we feel they should be.

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

 

[skiandsurf]

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

If approach is done VMC....No. If IMC....Yes.

Teaching in the sim...No.


......you guys get too rapped around the axle on these issues. I would almost bet the if you asked 10 FSDOs on the interptation, you would get 10 different answers...........Who Cares. And by the way, FOs do not log PIC time when it is their leg.

 

[AC560]

And by the way, FOs do not log PIC time when it is their leg.

The only way this can get any better is if the FO is logging PIC in a freighter and gets diarrhea

 

[midlifeflyer]

Do you guys also log instrument approaches on instructional flights when the student is flying the approach?

Be careful of that one. There is pretty strong support for the position that if they are in IMC, student approaches are also logable by the instructor.

 

[acaTerry]

And by the way, FOs do not log PIC time when it is their leg.

HA!!! You won't believe it this, but on the regionals forum there was a multiple page argument over it because some egotistical FO's were logging PIC on their leg....that is just plain PATHETIC. I can't believe the spoiled and haughty kids that are going into the regionals these days.

 

[buckeyeflyer]

The only way this can get any better is if the FO is logging PIC in a freighter and gets diarrhea

I just about spit water all over my monitor! Bravo!

 

[Fedora]

I can't believe what I'm seeing on this thread! I'll keeep a sharp eye on the new guys from now on if this is a prevailing attitude about logging time and landings!
What could possibly motivate you to log a landing that somebody else accomplishes? I can only think of the word currency on that one.
Hey! we're talking P-51 time here big time, folks! If your concience allows you to do that and you feel you have to, I'll only say that you're lying to yourself each time you log one, and you'll eventually look at your logbook as a bunch of fictitious numbers that grows bigger all the time and something not to be very proud of. "Sole maipulator of the controls"! How can you guys interpret that any other way? You guys have some inflated view of being a CFI or PIC? I'll bet you guys log the landings of your students when you get out and give them their first solo landings, too! How sad for this profession that people feel the need to justify filling their logbook with untruths and fabrications.
Land the plane, log the landing, it's that simple, folks. You'll feel good that your logbook reflects the real truth when you walk into that interview.

"If we didn't lie, we wouldn't have to remember so much"

Will Rogers

 

[Fedora]

As a CFI I logged every landing I was in the airplane for, you are PIC, you are responsible if any metal gets bent. I went in for interviews at 6 different 121 operators, now work at Eagle, and never had anyone question it.

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!

 

[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.