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.

 

[501261]

Is it legal? I don’t know, I certainly think it shouldn’t be, though a persuasive argument can be made that it is legal.

Should you log it is another question though. I certainly wouldn’t! There is at least one person in aviation (me) that will NOT hire you if you have logged 3-way PIC. Why, because if I have to worry about the integrity of your logbook, what does that say about the person writing the entries!

 

[chuychanga]

There was a person in my XJT interview this week that got absolutely roasted by the interviewers in front of the whole group for some questionable time in their logbook.

 

[A Squared]

Texan Aviator,

Upncoming seems to be advanving the position that it's legal, so it must be ok. I won't dispute the question of legality, as far as I can tell it doesn't explicitly violate any regulations. The question really isn't one of legality, but of integrity. There are plenty of things which are perfectly legal but still kinda sleazy. Just an example; the "psychics" that charge dumb people for thier services. Yeah, anyone that stupid probably deserves to lose thier money, but it is still fraud, claiming to to provide something which is not what it is represented to be. Yet it is legal. It is the same with triple logging of PIC. Yeah, it is aparently legal, but you are making a false representation. By putting the time in your logbook, you are representing that you have flown an airplane when in fact you were riding in the back seat. As for upncoming's mealy mouthed rationalizations about who's instructing who .... BS! Let's step back and look at what is *really* happening.

What is the reason for flying like this? Is there some real advantage to having a safety pilot in the right seat instead of the instructor? Can the instructor somehow do a better job of instructing from the back seat as opposed to the right seat?

Obviously, the answer is no, there is nothing real gained by dong this. If there is nothing gained by doing it, why is it being done? Just as obviously, the sole reason this is being done is so that 3 persons can all claim the same flight time as PIC. In other words, the only purpose for this is to misrepresent flight time.

upncoming maintains that no one you encounter across the interview table will have the least hesitation about triple logged PIC.

Hmm...ok, lets think about that for a moment:

Take a look at the responses to this thread.

so far there have been 9 respondents.

Of those:

6 have expressed clear disaproval of the practice.

2 (Checks and 7B2) made facetious comments which I interpret as disaproval (if I am incorrect in this interpretation checks and 7B2 may correct me)

Only one (upncoming) has has clarly come out in favor of the practice. (Well of course he's gonna say it's OK, he has a logbook full of triple logged time.)

Alrighty then, ol' upncoming says he had an interviewer who was perfectly cool with it. Maybe, maybe not. Are you going to put much stock in the truth of the statements of somone with a logbook full of bogus time? I wouldn't, but that's just me. Lets ignore that and assume that his claim is true, ok so he got lucky, that guy didn't have a problem with it. Bear in mind that is just one interviewer out of thousands. So, do you want to gamble that you're going to get lucky too? What are the odds? According to the informal, unscientific statistics from this thread, 89% of the people out there think triple logging is kinda sleazy, and 11% think it's just peachy keen. Putting aside issues of integrity and legality, and just looking at the numbers it's a pretty poor bet.

On poster has already stated he wouldn't hire someone with that sort of bogus time. You can add me to that list. I have in the past been in a hiring position, and who knows, I may again someting in the future. If I know an applicant has been triple logging, they aren't getting the job.

 

[Ralgha]

There is a situation where where it's not done for the purpose of three people logging the flight time, I believe someone pointed it out already. IFR student in the left seat, CFII student in the right seat, CFII in the back seat. Flight is under VFR, so the IFR student doesn't need to be getting dual from an authorized instructor (probably wouldn't be logging dual at all in this case).

The CFII student gets to practice with an actual student, so he/she doesn't have to "pretend" that the CFII is a student and gets better practice. CFII in the back makes sure the CFII student is doing it right, just like any CFI with a student who is in the practicing stage.

I still wouldn't do it myself, but that is a perfectly legal scenario, and I really don't think it's an immoral scenario either. However, if done for the sole purpose of having 3 people log it, then yes it would be immoral in my opinion.

The only thing is that the CFII in the back seat is ultimatly responsible for the safety and outcome of the flight. You'd have to have some pretty big stones to shoulder that responsibility without access to any controls.

 

[Checks]

I logged 1.2 Multi Engine Turbine Part121 while reading this thread.

 

[upncoming]

Wow. This subject appears to evoke some emotional responses from the rank and file out there! Amazing. Claims of three pilots logging PIC as being "sleazy", compared to the behavior of psychics, and somehow jeopardizing the "integrity" of your logbook. The notation of how many random opinions presented here that were in favor vs. against was particularly irrelevant. I will not bother to quote all of these remarks because they are emotionally biased, though probably with noble intentions. I commend the general honest nature with which most of you seem to approach logging your time. However, I would gladly put my logbook up against yours anyday WRT "integrity".

Look folks, this ain't rocket science, there are five ways to log PIC, and five ways only (which have nothing to do with acting as PIC):

1) Sole manipulator
2) Sole occupant
3) As required crewmember - "Safety pilot" (part 101 def I think)
4) As CFI
5) As ATP in an operation requiring the use of the ATP certificate.

It is clear then that this practice is not only legal, but valuable given the scenario another poster mentioned regarding a pilot under-the-hood, a potential CFII candidate and a CFII in the back. Which, to the poster who said I had a logbook "full" of this time (I said 50 hours, which is out of 3500+ - yeah, that poster's remark isn't emotional or anything) is exactly the purpose of each and every minute of those 50 hours in my logbook. "Full" Yeah, right. Please try to separate yourself from emotion for just a moment here folks...

If you chose to call this practice "questionable", "sleazy", or lacking "integrity", that is your choice. However, you will have made a judgement based on emotion rather than fact. It does not degrade the integrity of any logbook nor does it represent a "scheme" such that an interviewer, the FAA or some insurance person should feel the need to dig deeper. Knowing the facts and applying them correctly will always win when the dust settles. It is knowledge and skill that defeats emotion, everytime.

I hope this helps. Please understand all of you that have bashed my comments that this was and is my intention all along, to help.

To start another argument just for funzzies:

1) I takeoff and then land at another airport 5 miles away. Can I log this as cross country?

2) I get in, start up, taxi out and I have a problem during the runup let's say. I taxi back in and shutdown. Can I log the time?

I'd be interested to hear all of you critic's answers. Know UP FRONT that my answers are per the regs, not based on emotion. Let's see if yours are.

Take care!

 

[A Squared]

Look pal, you keep yapping on about how it really is legal, uhhh, sharpen up your reading skills, noone here is claiming it isn't legal. The discussion is the ethics of 3 people all claiming PIC for the same time.

Triple logging has been around as long as I've been flying, and probably much longer, and as long as I've been in aviation the vast majority of people have considered it unethical, sleazy if you will. The comments in this thread are a reflection of the prevailing opinion of triple logging. You can yip and yap and carry on all you want about "emotions" but in the end when you're all out of breath, you're still faced with the same truth; Most people consider triple logging unethical. You may not like the fact that this is majority view, it may not suit your ego to be considered unethical, but that doesn't change the fact that most consider it unethical.

Ok, so you have 3500 hours, yipeee, good for you. Now how much did you have when you left instructing for your first non-instructing job? More to the point, how much of that all important multi time did you have at that point? 200 hours? 300 hours? just guessing, but those are typical multi times for the first non instructing position. 50 hours is a significant portion of 200 or 300 hours. perhaps you had more, i don't know, but I'm betting that your 50 hours of triple logged time was a pretty good chunk of your multi time. n'est ce pas?

as for your questions:

1) sure, just be careful what you use it to qualify for.

2) yep, but if you got 50 hours of this logged it might attract some unwelcome attention, and rightfully so

 

[TEXAN AVIATOR]

I'm enjoying the depth in which this is being discussed; it’s interesting to hear everyone's opinions. What I’ve gotten from the discussion: It's "legal", although "unethical"(different folks feel differently about it); you just have to hope that interviewers down the road either don't notice it's logged three ways, or have no problem with logging in this manner; be honest and upfront about it, hoping they don't disapprove; or simply don't participate in logging this three ways.

I now have a very good understanding of logging time three ways; I appreciate everyone's two cents.


Fly safe,
TA

 

[cvsfly]

Of course the CFI has all the training documented as such, right? What no documentation? I bet the others will not elaborate in their logbooks either. What's the name of the flight school so I can be sure to pitch all those resumes that come to me.

 

[Ralgha]

Why don't you ask to view their logbooks and then pass judgement on whether they elaborate on it or not. Sure maybe they don't, and that would be deceitful, but they also could be painstakingly documenting it making sure that they follow the letter of the law.

You and I may not approve of what they're doing, but that doesn't give you the right to pre-judge what they're doing without having seen it first hand.