Logging over 8 hrs of flight instruction

[Dirty Sanchez]

Everyone has the impression that the interviewers are going to look through your logbook and try to find things. That is BS. I have been on two interviews. On one, my logbooks were not even opened. The other they flipped through to see if the pages are full. I was offered both jobs. Just try to make your numbers match what you have on the resume.

 

[igneousy2]

Everyone has the impression that the interviewers are going to look through your logbook and try to find things. That is BS. I have been on two interviews. On one, my logbooks were not even opened. The other they flipped through to see if the pages are full. I was offered both jobs. Just try to make your numbers match what you have on the resume.

TWO whole interviews huh?

When I did interviews those were the very kinds of things I looked for, >8 hour days, along with failed checkrides.

Depending on your qualifications each airline will look at your logbook differently. The closer you are to the qualifications the more closely they will scrutinize your logs...especially if you are coming from 91. When I interviewed at American Eagle they took my logbook for a couple of hours and came back with about 10 questions. I heard that United and Southwest take your logbooks in the beginning and you don't get them back until the end.

Whatever you do, don't lie.

 

[jimtrustycfi]

Why in the world would you take a student on an 8 hour cross-country. In all my years as an instructor, I have never done that. Totally unnecessary. Overkill. He must have had a wad of paperwork that weighed 10 pounds. Book the 8.5., 8. under dual received, .5 as PIC in his log. 8.5 in yours, 8. as dual given, .5 PIC.

The attention span for someone learning is a lot shorter than 8. As an instructor, you should have been noticing little mistakes.

(Lrn2Fly)

 

[troy]

This guy is already a rated pilot, just wanted to recieve some flight instruction at the same time as he was going on a business trip. I think that he has had his ticket for 10 years, but has not flown much. The reason that it did go over our planned time is that we had to divert for fuel, which was probably the .5 or .6 mark (vectors and such).

 

[nosehair]

Be very, very careful about combining "business trips" with "flight instruction". Some, not all, but some, FAA Inspectors are very suspicious of any flying that could be concieved as "passenger carrying for hire" without a 135 certificate. No matter how you may think you can justify it, if it falls outside of the "normal" training routine, an "official investigation" of the matter will force you to have a lawyer convince an Inspector or an NTSB Judge that the flight's PRIMARY FUNCTION was flight instruction. Any transportation gain that occured was strictly coincidental and not the purpose of the flight.

And to the matter of 8 hours dual in one day. An Inspector would probably say that you don't have to continue to instruct beyond 8 hours, as in a flight that exceeds the limit because of unknown and unforcast conditions, the flight has to continue to termination, but you can stop the instruction at 8 hours. That is a willful violation of a regulation, plain and simple, black and white.

 

[Jedi_Cheese]

Be very, very careful about combining "business trips" with "flight instruction". Some, not all, but some, FAA Inspectors are very suspicious of any flying that could be concieved as "passenger carrying for hire" without a 135 certificate. No matter how you may think you can justify it, if it falls outside of the "normal" training routine, an "official investigation" of the matter will force you to have a lawyer convince an Inspector or an NTSB Judge that the flight's PRIMARY FUNCTION was flight instruction. Any transportation gain that occured was strictly coincidental and not the purpose of the flight.

If the student was legal to do the flying that was done, I wouldn't worry too much about it.

 

[Lead Sled]

Be very, very careful about combining "business trips" with "flight instruction". Some, not all, but some, FAA Inspectors are very suspicious of any flying that could be concieved as "passenger carrying for hire" without a 135 certificate. No matter how you may think you can justify it, if it falls outside of the "normal" training routine, an "official investigation" of the matter will force you to have a lawyer convince an Inspector or an NTSB Judge that the flight's PRIMARY FUNCTION was flight instruction. Any transportation gain that occured was strictly coincidental and not the purpose of the flight.

And to the matter of 8 hours dual in one day. An Inspector would probably say that you don't have to continue to instruct beyond 8 hours, as in a flight that exceeds the limit because of unknown and unforcast conditions, the flight has to continue to termination, but you can stop the instruction at 8 hours. That is a willful violation of a regulation, plain and simple, black and white.

Thank you nosehair. I don't know how many of you have been on the "receiving end" of a FAA Inspector's investigation. I haven't (thankfully), but I've known a few guys who have and it's not pretty. It's not like a civil or criminal court where you're innocent until you're proven guilty. It's like the IRS, you're guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent. Even with the facts, logic, and proper cosmic alignment on your side, you're going to have to hire an attorney (big $$$ on a CFI salary) in order to defend yourself. At that point you've lost - whatever way it goes. Any type of violation has the potiential to sink your aviation career. But assuming that you're in the right, do you have the resourses to cough up another $5K to $20K to defend your position? The point that I'm making and the point the others have tried to make is that it's difficult to justify any possible gain that you'd receive by taking any flight that could be questioned vs the possible difficulties that you'd encounter later on if you're ever looked at. Hey, how'd that soapbox get in here?

Lead Sled

 

[nosehair]

If the student was legal

Well, that is exactly what I was saying...except that an Inspector or a Judge will make that determination, not you or me.

 

[Jedi_Cheese]

Thank you nosehair. I don't know how many of you have been on the "receiving end" of a FAA Inspector's investigation. I haven't (thankfully), but I've known a few guys who have and it's not pretty. It's not like a civil or criminal court where you're innocent until you're proven guilty. It's like the IRS, you're guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent. Even with the facts, logic, and proper cosmic alignment on your side, you're going to have to hire an attorney (big $$$ on a CFI salary) in order to defend yourself. At that point you've lost - whatever way it goes. Any type of violation has the potiential to sink your aviation career. But assuming that you're in the right, do you have the resourses to cough up another $5K to $20K to defend your position? The point that I'm making and the point the others have tried to make is that it's difficult to justify any possible gain that you'd receive by taking any flight that could be questioned vs the possible difficulties that you'd encounter later on if you're ever looked at. Hey, how'd that soapbox get in here?

Lead Sled

Honestly, if you catch an inspector on a bad day you are f*cked. Do you honestly think that every pilot writes up light malfuncations in the training 172/152s? As one of the DE's in my area told a class of potential CFIs, the local hardware store sells a landing light for $20, an FAA approved aviation supply place for $70 (same light and everything). Luckily, his aircraft has never had a landing light break (in about 3k hours of use)!

Well, that is exactly what I was saying...except that an Inspector or a Judge will make that determination, not you or me.

If the student was able to do the flight by himself (EG: current medical + BFR + everything else), what exactly are you there for? It's a totally different ballgame if the student isn't able to complete the flight by himself/herself (student pilot, no medical, no current BFR).

 

[nosehair]

As one of the DE's in my area told a class of potential CFIs, the local hardware store sells a landing light for $20, an FAA approved aviation supply place for $70 (same light and everything).

Many FAA Inspectors are really good guys and would not waste their time or your tax dollars on such meaningless enforcement...BUT...there is always the nutcase waiting in the wings for just such an opportunity to "straighten you out". Power to control. They have it, and it has made some of them crazy. That is all we are talking about: The FAA Inspector on the hunt. And he will win. He has the whole United States Government Legal Defense System on his side.