Logging over 8 hrs of flight instruction

[troy]

I'm just going to have to watch my a$$, and learn for next time. Thanks for the replies

The guy just was rusty and wanted a CFI along. I figured that I'd log it as dual instruction for x-country training.

 

[7B2]

you are screwed man.
report yourself to the FAA asap. and hand in your certificates and find a new job!!!

 

[Jedi_Cheese]

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.

But nothing wrong or illegal has been done! The origional light still works, it's a miracle

If they want to go on a witch hunt and you are the hunted, you might as well take the enforcement action b/c they are going to get you on something.

 

[Lead Sled]

But nothing wrong or illegal has been done!

Sorry Jedi, but it appears as though there's some question as to whether or not something was done that wasn't quite kosher. My personal opinion (based on nearly 30 years of CFIing) is that, at the very least, he exercised questionable judgement. I'd hate to see him compound his error by making obvious attempts at covering up his error. The FAA is very adept at ferreting out these types of dodges.

Lead Sled

 

[apdsm]

On the other hand...

The type of inspector that would make a case out of this has absolutely no interest in what actually happened. What they care about, and what they will fry people on, is what the paperwork says.

If you did not instruct the entire time and the guy was legal without you, then just log the amount of time you actually instructed. Because he was a rated pilot, the only time you can log would be the instruction. The flight time and instruction time would be the same.

 

[standaman]

I think we are getting side tracked here. Who cares about what the inspector will or will not do. The fact of the matter is that if you break the rules it does not matter wether you knew about it or not. Intentional or unintentional again you still messed up. I said this is a previous post it is not every good to lie. Destroys aviation. What more will you lie about in the future if you feel a need to lie about more than 8 hours of instruction. I can only imagine. I would not want my family on board. We are all professionals here and we are all human. Eliminate the mistakes eliminate the lies.

 

[apdsm]

What more will you lie about in the future if you feel a need to lie about more than 8 hours of instruction.

If he did not actually give 8 hours of instruction, then he would not be lying!

What is the definition of instruction? On a flight with a qualified pilot at the controls am I allowed to take my instructor's hat for a portion of the flight, or am I required to instruct, and log it as such, just by my presence? What if I elect to take a litte siesta during the cruise phase? Do I have to log that as instruction?

Who cares about what the inspector will or will not do. The fact of the matter is that if you break the rules it does not matter wether you knew about it or not. Intentional or unintentional again you still messed up.

It may take some interpretation, but if he honestly did not instruct the entire flight, then he can honestly log less than the 8.5 and not be lying about it. Otherwise, he's running towards the FSDO covered with gasoline and flicking a BIC lighter.

You obviously have never had to deal with an over-zealous, FAA inspector, looking to take someone down. Most are not this way, but a few are. Those are the ones that we must protect ourselves against. I've been there and fortunately for me I was working for a company with an attorney that cut him off at the pass.

Here's the kicker. They do not play on a level playing field. They do not play fair. They do not play straight. They play by their own set of rules. They are unrealistic. They will bend and twist things to their advantage. You might even be guilty if proven innocent. (Sounds like I'm talking about the IRS!) Go talk to any reputable charter operator and ask them about it.

This type of tiny little discrepency means absolutely nothing....except to some inspector with hard on. Nobody was wronged or harmed. Nobody did anythhing unsafe. Don't give the FAA, or anyone for that matter, the rope.

I am not advocating lying. It is all about interpretation because that is where we are with that organization. Let me say it again. Do not give them the rope, ever, because they will use it in a heartbeat! Do not give them ANY rope. They will use the wrong rope, on the wrong tree, if it suits them.

As an old aviation salt once said, "When dealing with the FAA, even if you are knee deep in water, NEVER admit your feet are wet"!

Don't sweat it. Make the correction to what you actually instructed and forget about it!

 

[troy]

done.

 

[Sctt@NJA]

Someone mentioned that a CFI needs to be careful about flying along on business trips.

All is not black and white on these matters and it is certainly possible to cross over the line into part 134.5 (illegal charter)

However, when you have a fellow who is a rated and legal pilot and he either owns his own airplane or rents one and then hires a pilot (could be CFI or just a commercial pilot) to fly with him, you are operating under what is considered part 91 "pilot for hire". Same concept and legal principle as a part 91 corporate flight department.

As to whether this needs to be logged as "dual", it certainly does not. But it could be. Or a portion could be. Not more than 8 hours in 24 of course.

If an error was made in logging this time, change it. No big deal. You just wrote down the wrong number. Scratch it out and write the correct one in.

As far as being afraid of the FAA... If you are acting within the law their is no need to worry about a fanatical inspector coming around with some twisted interpretation who may be intent on busting you. First of all it isn't going to happen. Secondly in this case you would win very easily and you wouldn't need a lawyer. Just hold your ground, tell him to get lost, and thats the end of it. (well, ok, most likely anyway, in my opinion ect ect)

 

[apdsm]

However, when you have a fellow who is a rated and legal pilot and he either owns his own airplane or rents one and then hires a pilot (could be CFI or just a commercial pilot) to fly with him, you are operating under what is considered part 91 "pilot for hire". Same concept and legal principle as a part 91 corporate flight department.

He is exactly correct. The problems start when the guy paying is not rated and/or does not own the aircraft.

 

[nosehair]

(well, ok, most likely anyway, in my opinion ect ect)

'nuff said

 

[A Squared]

As far as being afraid of the FAA... If you are acting within the law their is no need to worry about a fanatical inspector coming around with some twisted interpretation who may be intent on busting you. First of all it isn't going to happen.

Ummmm yeah, ask Bob Hoover if it's might happen, or Bill Bainbridge, or how about that guy who crashed a Citation in Missouri who had been subject to such continuous, relentless ongoing harrasment by the FAA that the NTSB actually listed it as a contributing factor in the accident. It does happen. It shouldn't, but it does. If you don't think it does, you're ridiculously naive.

Secondly in this case you would win very easily and you wouldn't need a lawyer. Just hold your ground, tell him to get lost, and thats the end of it. (well, ok, most likely anyway, in my opinion ect ect)

Uhhh, yeah, tell him to get lost, yeah that will work. Too bad Hoover didn't think of that, that would have been so helpful. Like I said before, if *does* happen, and if it does, you aren't just going to duck out of it on your own. You especially aren't going to duck out of it by telling the inspector to "get lost" Recall that Hoover had the full support of the AOPA legal department *and* F. Lee Bailey, and he was still railroaded. In the end, he prevailed, but it cost him a lot of time (years) and money. So even if you do win, you still lose.

 

[Sctt@NJA]

I knew I would draw some fire!

There are some pretty bad horror stories about dealing with the FAA.

But you can't let fear of unreasonable persecution guide your actions in life. My experience seeing the FAA in action has been that individual inspectors sometimes will go after people based on faulty understanding of the law or circumstances ect.

I have seen people stand up and say "FAA guy, you are wrong. You don't know what you are talking about."

It has worked. I have seen it.

Now I am talking about cases when individual inspectors ARE wrong and off base. It happens. And except for those sensational cases the matter gets dropped quickly and quietly.

 

[Lead Sled]

It has worked. I have seen it.

You're right, it can work - I've seen it too, but it's the exception rather than the rule. Telling a Fed to "bugger off" makes about as much sense as telling donut jokes to a cop as he's writing you up. Right or wrong, you're the one that's going to have to defend yourself against the inspector's opinion. If they decide to push the matter they'll have the full weight of the Department of Justice to back them up. How thick is your wallet?

Believe me, before you know it, you'll be one of us guys that have a 5-figure logbook and a certificate full of type-ratings and you'll be grateful that you didn't screw up your career by paying little games that might only get you an extra .5 or 1.0 here and there. It's simply not worth it in the big scheme of things.

By the way, the best FAA inspector screw up that I ever heard of was the FAA aircarrier inspector who went for a walk in a general aviation ramp a few years ago and "red tagged" a Cessna 150 (I believe) that had its engine removed for overhaul. The tag read "Engine must be installed prior to next flight" (or words to that effect) Well no kidding! The guy also grounded a twin Cessna with Q-Tip propellors. Since the tips were curled they need to be inspected prior to the next flight. Double Duh!

Lead Sled

 

[Sctt@NJA]

I am not advocating playing word games with the FAA. I am advocating standing up to an inspector who is wrongfully accusing you of violating FARs.

My original post was a reaction to others posts that encouraged not just following the FARS but also avoiding legal activities that could possibly be misconstrued by someone as being illegal. My point is, if its legal go ahead and do it and don't worry about it. What is the proper reaction when confronted with a bogus accusation of wrong doing? Say you are sorry? Say you wont do it again?

No! Stand up for what is right!

Sure its not literally "bug off". But it is civilized words to the same effect.

An inspector who has an itch to violate someone is like a mag dog. Don't show fear! Growl back and show him who the Alpha is!

An individual inspector does not have the full weight of the FAA behind them. You know what they say; "ask ten faa guys at FSDO get 10 different answers"

What you need to do is put fear into the inspectors heart that he will be exposed as a fraud and as incompetent. After all in our hypothetical scenario he IS wrong. His FAA buddies wont back him if he is out in la la land and the whole FSDO is catching heat for harrasing innocent people.

Or just bend over and take what he gives you cause you are afraid of making him "mad".

Have a ways to go before I have 5 digit logbook. My personal exposure to risk of FAA violations have gone down dramatically since being with NJA, unlike a lot of on-demand charter outfits where it is a daily hazard.

 

[avbug]

Having had two lengthy interludes with FAA enforcement action, both of which saw me come out ahead, I submit that anybody who thinks the FAA is no big deal when it comes to enforcement action, is full of horse **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**.

One evoloution took a year of my career, after which the regional counsel elected to table the matter for lack of substance. Not before threatening calls to my home at ten at night by the inspector who first sought enforcement action. Not after losing work, not after suffering harm to my reputation and career. And resulting in something that followed me for years to come, despite the lack of evidence, substance, and reason.

The inspector, who had been knocked to the concrete by individuals on three separate occasions (due to his tyrannical behavior...and I wasn't one of those individuals) and had numerous complaints on record, was transferred one more time to a southern FSDO.

On the other occasion, the reason for the violation attempt wasn't me; the inspector was building a case against my employer, and used the enforcement action as an effort to apply leverage to force me to obtain evidence for him to use against the employer. I did not provide what he wanted, and eventually the matter was tabled. However, the matter carried on for several years affecting my competitive ability in employment, and insurance.

On another occasion, the inspector performing a ramp check cut a checkride he was conducting short while in flight to chase me to the airport, and began pounding on my window on the ramp before my engine was shut down, screaming and waving his for 110A (ID). Turns out the problem airplane was someone else, but he targeted me, and screamed for nearly a half-hour. That didn't result in enforcement action, quite obviously, but the inspector did depart with the note that he might bring action just for spite. He noted that I would prevail in the long run, but that it would hurt my career, that it would take nearly a year to clear up, and he might just do it for spite.

Telling off an inspector is never a good idea. In fact, it's a really stupid idea. Cooperate where you can, but never fail to realize that the purpose tha the inspector exists, his reason for existing on this earth, and his reason for being, is to violate you. Anything you say, any information you provide will be used against you. Administrative law is not civil law, and is not criminal law. You are guilty until proven innocent, and you don't get the option of proving yourself innocent before the fact. Only on appeal after the enforcement action has been taken, and only after it's already part of your FAA records as a violation. Think good and hard about that before you dole out the asinine ridiculous advice to "put fear into the inspectors heart that he will be exposed as a fraud and as incompetent". What utterly stupid advice.

Hopefully no one who reads it is that foolish.

As for logging of flight time, the poster of this thread stipulated that the recipient was receiving instruction for personal purposes. If the duration of the flight exceeded eight hours, one need only show eight hours of instruction, or provide only eight hours. Chances are that little instruction was going on for much of those eight hours; one could likely show far less instruction and adequately represent the work performed.

Such representation is common sense, and is not fraudulent. The logbook is a legal document, and is a frequent source of evidence to be used against an airman during certificate or enforcement action. It follows, therefore, that one who logs incriminating time in a legal document is foolish indeed. Fly all you want, but stop giving instruction at eight hours, and log it to show only eight hours of instruction. Simply done.

To address an earlier comment, one poster noted that logbooks are never checked during interviews. That poster had, I believe, a grand total of two interviews under his or her belt. After 30 or more interviews in the past, my own experience has included numerous logbook reviews, including some very detailed and extensive ones. Some interviews included no reference to my logs, but others did, including calls to former employers, accounting attention to various totals and cross referencing, etc.

Regardless of the degree of scrutiny that a logbook receives, it's still a hallmark of the attention to detail that you give all things in your aviation career. To suggest that it's no big deal, that nobody checks, is laxidaisical and unprofessional. Perhaps it will be viewed, perhaps not. That is not germain to the question of both legality in the logs, and the scope of detail exercised in keeping them. Ethically and professionally, keep clean, tidy logs. Never assume they won't receive the full scrutiny that may be accorded a logbook by law at any time. To suggest otherwise is to gamble, an attribute not appreciable in a professional pilot.

An individual inspector does not have the full weight of the FAA behind them. You know what they say; "ask ten faa guys at FSDO get 10 different answers"

If one understands the administrative process, one never approaches the FSDO with a question, as one should not be so ignorant as to believe the FSDO can provide it. The FSDO doesn't have the authority to provide more than an opinion.

However, the inspector at the FSDO does have the authority to initiate enforcement action, and that should merit some reflection before one opens one's trap to tell the inspector off.

 

[transpac]

As one who has a fair amount of time as an ASI-OPS (now retired), I'd like make a couple of observations:

It's difficult to get an airplane airborne without breaking at least one FAR. The regulations demand perfection and perfection is rare. If a determined FAA Inspector wants to violate someone, there's usually a legitimate violation that can be documented.

With that said, rogue inspectors with a vendetta are rarely going to get a baseless charge through the system. This is not to say it never happens, but it's not a frequent occurrence. FSDO supervisors and managers review every alleged violation for accuracy, supporting evidence, and the appropriateness of the proposed sanction. Indeed, a mini-trial wherein the reporting inspector defends his/her case usually takes place before the violation ever leaves the office. The violation package is again picked apart by non-involved inspectors and managers at the regional level before being forwarded to the lawyers. When it does arrive at legal, it receives a third review before legal action is initiated. The ultimate disposition of the violation package is in the hands of the lawyers, although Flight Standards can make a fuss if they disagree with the lawyer's conclusions.

In any event, I recommend being professional and polite to everyone, including FAA inspectors.

 

[pgcfii2002]

I had a situation like this a while back. Instructed my 2 students that day and was asked to fly as a safety pilot for another instructor's instrument student. I logged the flight as safety pilot time, but did not log it as dual given since it would have put me close to 8 hours.

Basically, you should probably log 8 hours as dual, and that's it.

 

[Seadogrun]

As for logging of flight time, the poster of this thread stipulated that the recipient was receiving instruction for personal purposes. If the duration of the flight exceeded eight hours, one need only show eight hours of instruction, or provide only eight hours. Chances are that little instruction was going on for much of those eight hours; one could likely show far less instruction and adequately represent the work performed.

Does how many hours he was paid for have any bearing on this conversation? i.e. Paid for 8.5 hrs. = 8.5 hours instruction reguardless of what he puts in his logbook.

I'm not trying to break anyone's balls but trying to add to this interesting legal discussion.

 

[nosehair]

Does how many hours he was paid for have any bearing on this conversation? i.e. Paid for 8.5 hrs. = 8.5 hours instruction reguardless of what he puts in his logbook.

If he was paid for 8.5 hous of "instruction", and only logged 8.0 hours, there *might* be a case for fraudulant logbook entry. Probably not, but for an inspector on the hunt, it would provide for an excuse to initiate an "investigation".

But, if you paid for what you actually should do, that is, 8.0 hours "instruction", and .5, or whtever, as a "safety pilot" for the remainder of the flight, then it is completely legal.