Logging landings as a CFI....

[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.