Logging over 8 hrs of flight instruction

[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.

 

[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.