Logging over 8 hrs of flight instruction

[troy]

I took a private pilot on a x-country yesterday, the trip was planned to be under 8 hrs. We had unexpected headwinds and had to stop for fuel on the way back, which put the flight at 8.5 hrs. Is it legal to log it as 8.5 dual given? I didn't think about this when I signed his logbook last night, and put 8.5 dual recieved in his book, but haven't logged it in mine yet.

 

[JRSLim]

61.195 (a)

A flight instructor may not give more than eight hours of flight instruction in a 24 hour period.
So it looks like you went over 8 hours. You can either lie and log less than eight hours, which wouldn't match your student's log, ior you can log it correctly, bite the bullet and chalk it up to experience. You broke a rule (inadvertantly), but I think lying about it would be worse, and probably no one would hold it against you unless there had been an accident that could be contributed to 'fatigue'

 

[groundpointsix]

NASA report!
It's not likely that anything would ever come of this unless the feds happened to be auditing your log book, or you happened to be running around the airport telling people you logged over 8 hours of dual. That being said, you have nothing to lose by filling out the NASA report. This is the kind of thing it's designed for. As mentioned above, you could always go back and change your logbook, but that's dishonest and possibly illegal. (You do sign that line that says "I certify all entries on the page are true") Chalk it up to experience.

Also, you mentioned that your student was a private pilot. There's nothing in this case saying you have to log it as instruction. I'm assuming he's qualified in the aircraft as PIC. If so, that's your out for the next time it happens. Obviously, things are different if this was an IFR x-c or in a different aircraft category than he's rated for, but you're a cfi, you know how the whole logging PIC thing works by now.

 

[FracCapt]

If you did REAL flight planning(such as utilizing DUATS which plugs in winds and gives you estimated flt times, or just planned it in writing with winds figured in), you better save that information to show that it was PLANNED to be under 8 hrs. Unfortunately, there is no provision for delays due to weather(such as stronger than forecast winds), but if it comes to the point that the Feds are interested, you SHOULD be ok by showing that it was supposed to be under 8hrs, and only longer than that due to unforecast weather and/or ATC delays.

Something to think about, though.....and it's a gray area....but the regs say no more than 8 hours of FLIGHT instruction. What was your actual FLIGHT time? I don't mean block time...I mean strictly takeoff to touchdown.

edit: Disregard the comment above....I checked the wording of the regs right after I wrote this...and Part 1 defines Flight Time as:

Flight time means:
(1) Pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing

 

[Lead Sled]

If you did REAL flight planning(such as utilizing DUATS which plugs in winds and gives you estimated flt times, or just planned it in writing with winds figured in), you better save that information to show that it was PLANNED to be under 8 hrs. Unfortunately, there is no provision for delays due to weather(such as stronger than forecast winds), but if it comes to the point that the Feds are interested, you SHOULD be ok by showing that it was supposed to be under 8hrs, and only longer than that due to unforecast weather and/or ATC delays.

Personally, I think that's good advise. Just be able to show that you had legitimately planned the trip to be legal and the extension was out of your control. Forget the NASA Report - that's for inadvertent or unintentional violations. Unless you were making an oceanic crossing, you probably overflew many suitable airports prior to landing at your destination. By not landing at one of them, you chose to violate the regulation and a NASA report won't cover your fanny. You definately don't want to intentionally mislog a trip to cover up a violation - that's an entirely different matter. Don't do that!

Your best course of action now? Do what FractCapt said - keep a copy of your flight planning in case any one decides to ask questions. In the future don't be so ambitious - an 8 hour training flight with a student? What were you thinking?

Lead Sled

 

[Tired Soul]

Oh please...

A NASA form for .5?
Let's be realistic here..correct his logbook and put whatever in yours as long as it's below 8hrs dual. eg do not put the destination in but the refueling point, that's were you stopped giving him flight instruction and started being a passenger.

 

[nosehair]

Here's a thought. What you should have done, is stop instructing at the eight hour point. Of course, continue to fly, as a dead weight passenger, since he was a private pilot, he can still log the time, so the logbook entry would show a total x/c time as 8.5, but with only 8.0 dual. Some of our flights should really be logged that way anyway. The dual, like night and/or instrument, can be just a portion of the flight.

 

[troy]

I did fly some of the trip when he got tired of hand flying (the autopilot is inop). I think that for the .5, I'll not count it as dual given. The diversion was longer than that....

 

[Dirty Sanchez]

1. Why over 8 hours for a private cross-country? Your student must have been
in great shape by the end. How many nav logs did they have to fill out?
2. In my years as an instructor, I was forturnate enough to "push" the eight hour
limit every now and again. Just log the portion of your instruction given over
8 hours on another day.
3. No fed is going to come searching through your logbook to see if you broke 8
hours, they have more important things to worry about.
4. Fly what you want, log what you need!!

 

[standaman]

It is not good to lie. Let me repeat. It is not good to lie. Sharp interviewers will find it when you are looking for a job. Tell people what happened if you are every in trouble with the FAA or on an interview. That and we should not be pushing the forgery or breaking of any FARS to anybody I don't care who it is either a student pilot or 777 captain. Degrades aviation. Most people understand other people make mistakes.

My opinion

 

[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.