Splitting Muti time three ways...

[TEXAN AVIATOR]

Do or have you done this? All the guys at the school I'm at, split time 3 ways; one as PIC, one as Safety pilot, and one in the back acting as MEI. Of course all pilots have either multi or MEI. Just interested to hear other's opinions.
TA

 

[jergar999]

No.

 

[Checks]

Why dont you just put 4 pilots in there. 1 flying under the hood, 1 as a safety pilot, 1 MEI in the back instructing the 1st two, another MEI in the back instructing the instructor?

Actually, if you have room you could add another one who watches over the whole operation.

 

[7B2]

throw a FAA designated examiner in there together with a FAA examiner examining the FAA designated examiner.
So that's twin time for about $20 hour.
not bad

 

[TEXAN AVIATOR]

I'm at a new FBO doing my CFI training; this is the first I've heard of logging multi in this manner. Guess it's not something new to just me. All the CFIs claim it's perfectly legal. Is this true, or not? How would you log that?

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

Some CFI's I know do this. It's BS. Guarantee the pilot flying and the safety pilot aren't having their logbooks signed by the MEI in the back. Not everyone does it.


Mr. I.

 

[A Squared]

How would you log that?

I wouldn't.

That's about as sleazy as it gets in the logging fraud theater. Ok, it's not quite as sleazy as just making up flights that you never flew, but it's in the ball park.

Is it possible to come up with a twisted regulatory rationale for doing this? probably. Does that make it ethical? Hardly.


Tell you what, ask one of these guys at your FBO if he would volunteer an explanation of how the time was logged on an airline application? i.e.: in the space for multiengine time write: 234 hours (197 hours shared between 3 pilots)

Obviously, the answer is going to be no.

OK, why not then? if there's nothing wrong with this, why wouldn't you volunteer this information? Again the answer is obvious, any interviewer worth his salt is going to be singularly unimpressed by some scheme for 3 persons to all log PIC in the same airplane at the same time.

Be aware that the regulations require that an instructor endorse the logbook of a pilot whom he instructs. A couple of enterprising young time sharing pilots who though they had figured out how to beat the system had their certificates revoked because their logbooks weren't endorsed for dual received. I can provide a link to the NTSB order if you're interested.

The regulations also require that the person under the hood note the name of the safety pilot in their logbook. So in order for this to be legal the logbook has to have an instructor's endorsement and the name of a safety pilot .... you think that your buddies comply with this? I'm betting no. If they don't, why not? Again the answer is because they don't want the true nature of the operation to be known. This of course begs the question: if there's noting wrong with doing this, why wouldn't you want the true nature of the scheme to be known to prospective employers or such?

Just a few things to think about.

 

[justmeinmsp]

You may as well pull out your pen and "scripto" in the time. That sounds like a stretch to me and I can't imagine you having 200 hours like this and being able to fly like you actually have the 200 hours.

 

[TEXAN AVIATOR]

The more I think about it, the sleazier it sounds; almost as bad as logging completely bogus time. So will I be logging multi time in this manner? Negative.

 

[upncoming]

The more I think about it, the sleazier it sounds; almost as bad as logging completely bogus time. So will I be logging multi time in this manner? Negative.

Wait, hold it right there TEXAN Aviator...do not listen to the critiques you have heard thus far. Doing this is perfectly legal and in accordance with the regs. I can spell it out if you'd like, but it's an easy enough exercise so I'll leave it to the reader for now. When these other posters start talking about MORE THAN (notice I said MORE THAN, once again MORE THAN) 3 trying to log the time, this is no longer legal under the regs, though it used to be. However comparing that (> 3) to 3 is clearly comparing apples and oranges. They are DIFFERENT animals.

I think one talked about multi time and describing it in an interview with an airline. I got this exact question and answered it truthfully, which included about 50 hours of this time splitting. They had no problems with it whatsoever. So the lesson is that if the person sitting across from the table at the interview knows the regs, then they will understand this scenario.

If however they let emotion govern their judgement of such a scenario, as virtually all of the other posters on this thread have done, then they will have a problem with it. Don't let emotion cloud the truth, log the time within the regs, be able to support your decision and life will be fine.

As others have mentioned, the logbooks must be properly endorsed, and if all parties are not willing to do this, walk away. There's nothing that says that the person under the hood has to be the one to receive the dual, that could be given to the safety pilot who might be a CFII candidate, for example.