Does this pass the sniff test

[TMetzinger]

the only way I've seen instruction combined with travel correctly is when the student provides the airplane.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Henning]

If Henning were a CFI, he would have learned in his CFI training that the training and the aircraft must be appropriate to the trainee's stage of training. You can't take folks out on a long XC as Lesson 1, and the fact that the "client" is being dropped off at the destination is the duck quacking loudest. As the former FAA Inspector who answered first said, "No way." You can check that with the FAA (either your local FSDO or the Chief Counsel's office) any time and get the same answer.

LOL Ron, a full third of my training flights were done with two taking off and one landing right in front of the FSDO's back window off 25L LGB.

You think they would have noticed?

It would have been half my flights except I got free rides and ME time in a BE-18 with an MEI cargo pilot I gave free rides back and forth to his boat on the shore boat. Too bad an engine failure and landing on Terminal Island cut that shot Was pretty cool though.

The reality is there is nothing prohibiting you from this as long as you can show reasonable progress towards your rating. There is nothing keeping you from doing airwork enroute. Should the FAA inspect my and my instructors logs they would see that we would take an hour+ on the flight from LGB to AVX with various notations of aeronautical experience requirements achieved during the flight and a 15-20 minute return flight in his log. This is sufficient evidence of the flights we made together were instructional flights. Since the CFI is a Commercial Pilot there is nothing to prevent me from contracting him to fulfill my obligation to get the plane returned to the FBO at the contracted time. This was made even simpler by the fact he didn't charge me for the time.

There was and is nothing illegal about this and in fact, if one can show that one is training in this fashion, they are more likely to take a positive view since it is they who are pushing situational based training.

 

[Henning]

I think it's funny that everybody assumes his intention is to run a scam rather than provide an extra value to his client and opportunity to make money while providing quality training doing exactly what he will continue doing with his mission for general aviation. People call me a cynic and I am, but at least I'm not a pessimist and y'all are; pessimism is a sickness and the worst thing is it's a sickness that effects and degrades the very information our universe is structured out of, our thoughts; the true meaning of life.

 

[N747JB]

I think it's funny that everybody assumes his intention is to run a scam rather than provide an extra value to his client and opportunity to make money while providing quality training doing exactly what he will continue doing with his mission for general aviation. People call me a cynic and I am, but at least I'm not a pessimist and y'all are; pessimism is a sickness and the worst thing is it's a sickness that effects and degrades the very information our universe is structured out of, our thoughts; the true meaning of life.

I disagree, several people have offered advice as to what would make it legal as well as what may make it illegal. IF the OP's friend is legitimately giving instruction, there shouldn't be an issue, it will pass the sniff test. I think many if not most of us see it as a way around the charter rules, but if its legit, it's legit. I find it hard to believe the CFI will have more than 1 out of 10 students that would want this type of instruction and I think that would be the ultimate test. If the CFI has 4 students and they are all "commuters" the FSDO is going to have a field day!

 

[Henning]

I disagree, several people have offered advice as to what would make it legal as well as what may make it illegal. IF the OP's friend is legitimately giving instruction, there shouldn't be an issue, it will pass the sniff test. I think many if not most of us see it as a way around the charter rules, but if its legit, it's legit. I find it hard to believe the CFI will have more than 1 out of 10 students that would want this type of instruction and I think that would be the ultimate test. If the CFI has 4 students and they are all "commuters" the FSDO is going to have a field day!

The successful CFIs I know find a niche market with money they are willing to spend to get the extra value of doing two things at once while increasing their efficiency. Businessmen on business trips fill this niche.

 

[wabower]

A local businessman bought a trainer of some kind (can't remember which, doesn't matter) and started lessons. Then he decided to combine his frequent trips to another TX city (~150 nm) with his XC and perhaps IR training, so he traded for a retrac single for this use.

The plane has proven to be unreliable (partly due to inept pre-buy, partly due to the pilot's inability to understand that brakes can be partially applied rather than feet to firewall every time) the student gripes because he doesn't feel the training is worthwhile and the CFI gripes because the student will not honor his commitments to arrive in time for en-route work. So the plane is a POS, neither the trainer or the trainee like the process and everybody involved can't wait until it's over.

 

[jonnyjetprop]

You may remember an infamous FBO out of Torrance that used to do instructual flights to Catalina. I refused to do them and it was one of the reasons why I worked out of Long Beach. The FAA finally shut them down.

I would never base the legality of an operation based on if I or someone else got caught or not. The long arm of the FAA is quite short. Generally it takes a complaint from a competitor to get them moving.

The successful CFIs I know find a niche market with money they are willing to spend to get the extra value of doing two things at once while increasing their efficiency. Businessmen on business trips fill this niche.

 

[douglas393]

I do know, and the answer is no. In any event, SBT is only recommended as one way of conducted training, not the "be-all/end-all" solution. The fact is that SBT really is harder to do well, as it requires a lot more preparation and organization. Furthermore, the PTS's remain maneuver-based. For those reasons, most of us instructors are still conducting maneuver-based rather than scenario-based training.

The PTS may be maneuver based but the checkrides are becoming scenario based as well from what I understand. To me this represents a trend, and suggests that the FAA is making their desires pretty clear. Personally, I think leaving it up to the CFI as how to train is a better idea, as long as the training is successful. Again, I am not a CFI, and so my interpretation of what is happening maybe off based and if so I stand corrected.

 

[N747JB]

The successful CFIs I know find a niche market with money they are willing to spend to get the extra value of doing two things at once while increasing their efficiency. Businessmen on business trips fill this niche.

I think your last sentence is why this won't pass the sniff test! Businessmen learning to fly is one thing, businessmen wanting to get from A to B is another. if the guy is learning to fly and working towards a rating it's all good, but I would bet the FSDO is going to get complaints if appears to be 134 1/2 and then he CFI is going to need to show what he is teaching the guys on theses trips.

 

[poadeleted20]

The PTS may be maneuver based but the checkrides are becoming scenario based as well from what I understand. To me this represents a trend, and suggests that the FAA is making their desires pretty clear. Personally, I think leaving it up to the CFI as how to train is a better idea, as long as the training is successful. Again, I am not a CFI, and so my interpretation of what is happening maybe off based and if so I stand corrected.

Examiners are encouraged to use scenarios in their tests, and in most cases (there are still some examiners out there just reading questions out of one of the oral test guide books), the ground portion is very much scenario-based. However, because of the maneuver requirements of the PTS, the flight portion, other than the initial departure and starting leg of the XC, is not -- the scenario necessary to incorporate all the required maneuvers would be just too hard to construct.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'm no expert, but I definitely remember reading something about a similar operation already going on. Maybe from Cirrus? I don't remember. Basically, you buy the plane and they train you in it while you commute. At least I think this existed....

You're thinking of Cirrus Access, where for I think $75,000 over the price of the plane, a non-pilot could buy a new Cirrus and get their own CFI/pilot for a year who would take them places as well as do training flights. (I believe this included insurance as well.)

They don't advertise this program on their site any more, and I don't think it was a resounding success, but there were quite a few people who took them up on it. You can see the old page about it here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070822005154/http://www.cirrusdesign.com/ownership/access/default.aspx

There was also the guy that Ron mentioned who was doing "flight training" in a 421 on trips and didn't last long at all. One major difference is that the pax didn't provide the airplane as they did in Cirrus Access. One nice thing with the Access program is that it didn't matter if a flight was for training or not - The CFI could function in their capacity as a commercial pilot with the owner not flying or even riding in the back seat, since the CFI wasn't providing the airplane it was strictly Part 91.

I've heard that the people who participated in the program liked it... But I guess it wasn't working the way they wanted it to, if it's not around any more.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Seems perfectly fine to me as long as it is legitimate instruction.

Is this really any different than hiring an instructor to fly right seat with you into Oshkosh or SnF?

Depends on your stage of training. If you're at the dual XC stage and doing it in the type in which you've been training, mighty fine. For your first lesson, and in something big and complex, not hardly.

Not mighty fine. The Airventure NOTAM specifically prohibits student pilot training at OSH during the time the NOTAM is in effect (generally for the entire length of the show plus a few days beforehand). I would guess that the SnF NOTAM contains a similar restriction.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I got a lot of training early that people on here boo-hooed because it didn't follow what was "normal." My first lesson may not have been a long XC, but my second lesson was. With IMC, no less. I hand flew all of it, and not once (other than landing) did my instructor touch the controls. With 1 hour total time, not bad.

Amen. I shot my first ILS at 10 hours. Different people learn differently, and some of us like to jump right into the deep end. I'm also reminded of flying with Tony Condon and Matt Sawhill... That flight was Matt's first tricycle gear, first high performance, first complex, and first actual IMC time. As a bonus, it was his first unforecast icing encounter as well. I bet he learned more on that flight than he would have on 100 traditional "training" flights.

There's some research being done at the University of Wisconsin that I believe will be pretty damning to the traditional methods. They're testing the theory that by NOT getting into as much real-world flying during training, that we are creating pilots who are much more likely to experience the all-too-common VFR into IMC accident. The scenario they're having people fly is a typical get-there-itis type of thing in somewhat marginal VFR weather. Three groups (post-solo student pilots, non-instrument rated private pilots, and instrument-rated pilots) flew the same scenario in the simulator. They start with a full FSS briefing (real data from a particular day), and with the scenario presented plus the "well, it's good enough" type weather at the beginning of the flight.

*EVERY SINGLE ONE* of the private pilots crashed. Every last one. In a fully-operational (although simulated) airplane. And while a scenario was presented, there certainly was no real-world get-there-itis pressure. (FWIW, I diverted to a field halfway to the destination and landed safely.)

So, I submit that a flight training program that gets students into as many real-world situations as possible is a GREAT thing.

If the OP's friend *only* wants to fly trips - That's a problem. But if the FAA has a problem with him conducting training on longer trips, then we all have a problem.

Point is... Instructors should listen to the needs of their students and be able to provide them what they need. Within the letter of the law, of course, but what that entails is not one size fits all.

Amen, Ted.

 

[Ted]

I would submit that the kind of real-world training I got is why I'm not dead.

 

[poadeleted20]

Not mighty fine. The Airventure NOTAM specifically prohibits student pilot training at OSH during the time the NOTAM is in effect (generally for the entire length of the show plus a few days beforehand). I would guess that the SnF NOTAM contains a similar restriction.

Thanks for pointing that out. I had not considered that aspect, and since the AirVenture NOTAM is an FDC NOTAM (i.e., regulatory in nature), it would be mandatory. However, the violation there would be for violating that NOTAM, and would be regardless of the legitimacy of the training, not for the Part 119/135 aspects under discussion.