Logging time question?

[LJ45]

My friend got hired with Turnberry to fly the Challenger 604. He had like 210 hours total flight time in recip airplanes, like 10 hours multi-engine in a Duchess. They typed him and he started flying. He asked me if he should start logging PIC. I said hell no, log like 200 SIC first. Just so later on if another company looks over his book it won't look bad, even though he's typed and certified by the FAA to act as captain Part 91.
He got type-rated on the Global like 1 year later and immediately started logging PIC in that plane.

Your Chief Pilot is wrong, you can't BOTH log PIC, just because its Part 91. But you CAN both log it if one is acting as an instructor and gives you some instruction. As long as he has an ATP.

you might want to drop the "like"

 

[AC560]

If instruction is being given by one of the type-rated and ATP rated pilots to the other type-rated pilot, they can both LEGALLY log PIC.

There is only a very small range of circumstances in which an ATP who is not an appropriately rated flight instructor can give flight instruction. Read 61.167 carefully.

 

[LJ45]

There is only a very small range of circumstances in which an ATP who is not an appropriately rated flight instructor can give flight instruction. Read 61.167 carefully.

yep...

(b) An airline transport pilot may instruct—
(1) Other pilots in air transportation service in aircraft of the category, class, and type, as applicable, for which the airline transport pilot is rated and endorse the logbook or other training record of the person to whom training has been given;

 

[Hugh Johnson]

I wouldn't fly with you.....thats some funny sh1t. What an assh0le statement to make. Like the plane is just gonna GO DOWN!!!!! Oh my god, everyone get out of the way.

Pilots....wtf!

That is what Aeroflot said to their passengers when they had the drunk pilot, "The plane flies itself!"

I wouldn't fly with you because I think you faked your experience as evidenced by your ignorance.

 

[gulfstream2345]

First of all I find it interesting that AvBug is rated in all aircraft and has flown all aircraft. Pretty impressive.

A question to everyone about two cases I had as a FAA Inspector. Tell me who is the PIC.

Case 1. Tail wheel airplane. Pilot in front seat (doesn't matter which however) does not have a tail wheel endorsement and is the aircraft owner. Pilot in back is a CFI that is conducting training for the pilot in front to get the tail wheel endorsement. The CFI does not have a medical certificate. They crash on takeoff. Who was the pilot in command?

Case 2. Another tail wheel plane. Pilot in front has no BFR or tail wheel endorsement and is the owner. Pilot in back is a current and qualifed CFI with a medical but is only along for the ride. The plane crashes. Who is the PIC?

AvBug is correct on the FAA Washington, Regional Office and local FSDO written or oral interpretations haveing no legal standing. NTSB decisions are more binding and can directly contradict the interpretations. However, that being said, if you are following an interpretation received from the FAA and you get a violation, the NTSB would likely find in your behalf.

Now the real deal is when you go to trial in a civil or criminal case related to something done while flying. Civil=Guilty if the jury finds by a "preponderance" (read 51%) of the evidence you were wrong.
Criminal=Guilty if the jury finds "beyond a reasonable doubt" you did the deed.

And to finsh this up......now I am really in trouble. My retirement job was going to be helping OJ find the real killer and now he is in jail.

end of rant

 

[LJ45]

First of all I find it interesting that AvBug is rated in all aircraft and has flown all aircraft. Pretty impressive.

A question to everyone about two cases I had as a FAA Inspector. Tell me who is the PIC.

Case 1. Tail wheel airplane. Pilot in front seat (doesn't matter which however) does not have a tail wheel endorsement and is the aircraft owner. Pilot in back is a CFI that is conducting training for the pilot in front to get the tail wheel endorsement. The CFI does not have a medical certificate. They crash on takeoff. Who was the pilot in command?

Case 2. Another tail wheel plane. Pilot in front has no BFR or tail wheel endorsement and is the owner. Pilot in back is a current and qualifed CFI with a medical but is only along for the ride. The plane crashes. Who is the PIC?

AvBug is correct on the FAA Washington, Regional Office and local FSDO written or oral interpretations haveing no legal standing. NTSB decisions are more binding and can directly contradict the interpretations. However, that being said, if you are following an interpretation received from the FAA and you get a violation, the NTSB would likely find in your behalf.

Now the real deal is when you go to trial in a civil or criminal case related to something done while flying. Civil=Guilty if the jury finds by a "preponderance" (read 51%) of the evidence you were wrong.
Criminal=Guilty if the jury finds "beyond a reasonable doubt" you did the deed.

And to finsh this up......now I am really in trouble. My retirement job was going to be helping OJ find the real killer and now he is in jail.

end of rant

I'll take a wild stab at it..

1. CFI is PIC , although Illegal without Medical because student is not properly rated in aircraft.

2. Pilot, Illegal without BFR and endorsement, assuming the CFI was unaware of this and truly just a passenger.

Note: just going by memory, you can be grandfather and not required to have the tail wheel endorsement if you had tail wheel time before a certain date.

 

[transpac]

First of all I find it interesting that AvBug is rated in all aircraft and has flown all aircraft. Pretty impressive.

A question to everyone about two cases I had as a FAA Inspector. Tell me who is the PIC.

Case 1. Tail wheel airplane. Pilot in front seat (doesn't matter which however) does not have a tail wheel endorsement and is the aircraft owner. Pilot in back is a CFI that is conducting training for the pilot in front to get the tail wheel endorsement. The CFI does not have a medical certificate. They crash on takeoff. Who was the pilot in command?

Case 2. Another tail wheel plane. Pilot in front has no BFR or tail wheel endorsement and is the owner. Pilot in back is a current and qualifed CFI with a medical but is only along for the ride. The plane crashes. Who is the PIC?

AvBug is correct on the FAA Washington, Regional Office and local FSDO written or oral interpretations haveing no legal standing. NTSB decisions are more binding and can directly contradict the interpretations. However, that being said, if you are following an interpretation received from the FAA and you get a violation, the NTSB would likely find in your behalf.

Now the real deal is when you go to trial in a civil or criminal case related to something done while flying. Civil=Guilty if the jury finds by a "preponderance" (read 51%) of the evidence you were wrong.
Criminal=Guilty if the jury finds "beyond a reasonable doubt" you did the deed.

And to finsh this up......now I am really in trouble. My retirement job was going to be helping OJ find the real killer and now he is in jail.

end of rant

You really were a FAA Inspector? General Aviation or Air Carrier? Operations, Avionics, Or Maintenance? I ask because its obvious you aren't very knowledgable about FAA flight regulations and the FAA legal process.

Number one, the PIC questions you pose would likely end up in front of an Administrative Law Judge for final determination. Law Judge findings are occasionally absurd, but at least they don't serve as precedents unless upheld through an appeals process. In the cases you cited, you didn't mention any preflight agreement between the parties. Without such an agreement, other information must be obtained before deciding which was the PIC. In case two, the owner appears to be the PIC unless conflicting information is uncovered.

Number two, there is no such thing as a FSDO legal interpretation. If a FSDO made such an interpretation there would soon be a FSDO Manager position open.

Number three, Washington and Regional legal interpretations do have legal standing and have the force of the underlying regulation unless and until they are superceded or overturned through the prescribed legal process.

Good luck tangling with Avbug! You might just get an unwanted education.

 

[avbug]

Now the real deal is when you go to trial in a civil or criminal case related to something done while flying. Civil=Guilty if the jury finds by a "preponderance" (read 51%) of the evidence you were wrong.
Criminal=Guilty if the jury finds "beyond a reasonable doubt" you did the deed.

Under administrative law, such as facing enforcement action and the subsequent appeal process, you are assumed guilty until proven innocent.

In fact, your privilege in the matter is to make an appeal...after the violation has already been issued. Not before. Your opportunity to defend comes AFTER the conviction.

Civil and criminal court, and the laws applicable thereto, are largely irrelevant to this discussion, as it involves the CFR and administrative application (specifically, the logging of flight time).

 

[sigler]

How about logging time when there are more than 2 pilots on board, such as in a long international flight? Can all 3 pilots log the time?

 

[gulfstream2345]

General Aviation and Air Carrier Operations. True, FSDO's don't issue written legal opinions and if one did, you are correct. I am very familiar with the FAA legal process. I have filed hundreds of violations during my career and only lost one case before the NTSB Administrative Law Judge. On the other side, I have represented more than 50 pilots at informal conferences and have never lost a case against the FAA. I am not an attorney but I am a retired FAA Inspector, Flight Inspection Pilot, Air Traffic Controller and a former Test Pilot for Gulfstream. The answer to the tail wheel cases were not ever adjucated by the NTSB. There were violations in both cases. The first one, both were violated, and the FAA suspendend both certificates. The second one the NTSB said the pilot in the back was PIC but the FAA said he wasn't. That will be figured out in a civil trial that has nothing to do with the FAA.

 

[transpac]

General Aviation and Air Carrier Operations. True, FSDO's don't issue written legal opinions and if one did, you are correct. I am very familiar with the FAA legal process. I have filed hundreds of violations during my career and only lost one case before the NTSB Administrative Law Judge. On the other side, I have represented more than 50 pilots at informal conferences and have never lost a case against the FAA. I am not an attorney but I am a retired FAA Inspector, Flight Inspection Pilot, Air Traffic Controller and a former Test Pilot for Gulfstream. The answer to the tail wheel cases were not ever adjucated by the NTSB. There were violations in both cases. The first one, both were violated, and the FAA suspendend both certificates. The second one the NTSB said the pilot in the back was PIC but the FAA said he wasn't. That will be figured out in a civil trial that has nothing to do with the FAA.

You were a busy Inspector! I was more typical, filing probably less than a hundred violations in 30 years. In fairness, probably half of that time was in management plus regional and HQ staff jobs.

As far as FAA legal opinions, here is the info on NTSB's required acceptance of FAA guidance and opinions (from HB 2150):

NTSB Deference to FAA.

​

​

(1) In its adjudication of certificate action and civil penalty cases, unless the NTSB finds
the FAA interpretations to be “arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not according to law,” it is
bound by (must defer to) all validly adopted interpretations of:​

•​

Laws and regulations the FAA carries out, and,
• Written FAA policy guidance available to the public related to sanctions to be
imposed.
(2) An example of NTSB deference to FAA regulatory interpretations is found where the
FAA issued a written interpretation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.123, stating that this regulation obligates
pilots to listen, hear and comply with all ATC instructions and clearances except in an
emergency, and stating that pilot inattention, carelessness or unexplained misunderstandings do
not excuse deviations from clearly transmitted clearances and instructions. 64 Fed. Reg. 15912
(1999). The NTSB is required to defer to this regulatory interpretation in its adjudication of air
safety cases where the FAA interpretation is found to be a reasonable, nonarbitrary, and lawful
construction of the regulatory language. Garvey v. NTSB, 190 F.3d 571 (D.C. Cir, 1999),​

Administrator v. Merrell​

​

, NTSB Order No. EA-4814 (2000).
(3) For NTSB deference to FAA sanction guidance, the sanction guidance table in
Appendix B of FAA Order 2150.3B has been made available to the public and thus the NTSB
must give similar deference to the FAA policies and sanction ranges set forth in it when
requested to do so by agency counsel.​

 

[ILOVEBEER]

...but I am a retired FAA Inspector, Flight Inspection Pilot, Air Traffic Controller and a former Test Pilot for Gulfstream.

Do you feel it necessary to qualify your responses by inserting your life story in almost every post you make? Ok, ok, we get it, you know everything.

 

[siucavflight]

Do you feel it necessary to qualify your responses by inserting your life story in almost every post you make? Ok, ok, we get it, you know everything.

Sometimes knowing someones experience adds credibility to their posts.

 

[LJ45]

Do you feel it necessary to qualify your responses by inserting your life story in almost every post you make? Ok, ok, we get it, you know everything.

your post is very....:smash:

 

[avbug]

Sometimes knowing someones experience adds credibility to their posts.

Not in this case.