Got a pilot deviation today

sferguson524 said:
Well, this thing is behind me.. I am the OP in this mess. Got the call from the FAA inspector on Friday. Was a very cordial call, he asked me a few questions, we talked flying, and where I am in my IR training. He said there was going to be no enforcement action for me or my CFI, not even an unkind word in our files. Just a small talking to, and chalk it up to lessons learned. He also said there is a fine line as a CFI between letting your student learn from their mistakes, and getting a deviation. So, all in all a great learning experience, and thanks everyone for all your input
Click to expand...

Great to hear. :cheers:
 
Walboy said:
So what was the lesson you learned?

I'm in agreement with the others, seems like the CFI let you down. But who knows? There might be "the rest of the story" to this boondoggle.
Click to expand...

Somebody wasn't coaching properly.
 
Well, the happy ending that was told to me by FAA is a lot different now.. CFII got a certified letter to take a 44709 ride and teach the instrument PTS.
 
No, he's not too thrilled... but wants to fly that departure with me some more and make sure i have it right
 
sferguson524 said:
No, he's not too thrilled... but wants to fly that departure with me some more and make sure i have it right
Click to expand...
He screwed up, so he wants to fly it with you so you have it right? Seems like this guy might just not be getting it. Not sure I'd keep flying with him.
 
Salty said:
He screwed up, so he wants to fly it with you so you have it right? Seems like this guy might just not be getting it. Not sure I'd keep flying with him.
Click to expand...
Actually it sounds like the CFII is using the OP to help him prepare for the 44709 ride, since the teaching is part of what the ride will cover. If he has any integrity, he won't charge for the dual time.
 
denverpilot said:
Ugh. I wonder what got stuck in their craw about it in their discussions with him?
Click to expand...
We don't know. Could be something that came up. Or it might be nothing more than a preference for "show us" when it comes to CFIs, at least with respect to certain activities. @sferguson524 hasn't told us whether his CFI's 709 is a flight or ground. It could be either.

On top of that, the FAA does not consider 709 rides to be punitive or even an "enforcement" action, so they are OK under the Compliance Philosopy.
 
azure said:
Actually it sounds like the CFII is using the OP to help him prepare for the 44709 ride, since the teaching is part of what the ride will cover. If he has any integrity, he won't charge for the dual time.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this expresses my thought better than my post did.
 
@midlifeflyer, he didn't say. According to him, his call with FAA was very confrontational, and the inspector read him the riot act. Which was 180 degrees off from the interaction I had with the inspector.
 
sferguson524 said:
@midlifeflyer, he didn't say. According to him, his call with FAA was very confrontational, and the inspector read him the riot act. Which was 180 degrees off from the interaction I had with the inspector.
Click to expand...
The difference may be due to what’s on his pilot certifications vs what’s on yours.
 
I am PIC due to category and class. He was PIC, because we were on an IFR flight plan, and I am not IR
 
sferguson524 said:
I am PIC due to category and class. He was PIC, because we were on an IFR flight plan, and I am not IR
Click to expand...
If you were on an IFR flight plan, then he deserves 100% of the heat. You none. As seems to be occurring. JMO

I bet you only got a call as a witness to provide details.
 
I still feel like a shet because i was the loose nut behind the yoke that didn't fly the clearance, though, a good bit of mess goes on him for not instructing.
 
I can sympathize. It bothers me when my screw ups have negative consequences for others.
 
sferguson524 said:
I still feel like a shet because i was the loose nut behind the yoke that didn't fly the clearance, though, a good bit of mess goes on him for not instructing.
Click to expand...
Nope, it's on him as he was instructing, he's supposed to know what's happening while you are learning what will happen. He's supposed to keep you in line and legal.
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
Who was PIC during the flight? Maybe both?
Click to expand...
Only one person can be PIC a any given time (more than one may log PIC, but that's a completely different thing).

In terms of an instructional flight, it wouldn't matter that much. An instructor is held to a high standard. The NTSB has said an instructor "is always PIC" on an instructional flight, but since there are times CFIs cannot be PIC, I've always termed it as an standard of instructional responsibility equivalent to the responsibilities of PIC.

I would expect that. i an instructional flight, particularly an instrument training lesson done under IFR with a non-instrument-rated student, the type of deviation described would come down most heavily on the instructor. Make it a recurrent training session with an instrument-rated and current student, and the student would probably come in for closer scrutiny.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Doesn’t really matter. It was an instructional flight.
Click to expand...
Let me explore that a bit with a few scenarios.

1. Buddy is a flight instructor in right seat. Gave me some pointers, but he never touched the controls and doesn't sign log book. I commit a violation.
2. Same as 1 but he signs log book or demonstrates something during the flight.
3. I commit a violation during a FR, with paid instructor in right seat. I'm clearly PIC.

Seems to me PIC matters. Maybe not in this particular scenario.
 
sferguson524 said:
I am PIC due to category and class. He was PIC, because we were on an IFR flight plan, and I am not IR
Click to expand...
Right, and you (the student) took the initial responsibility instead of him, when it should have been him who made the call. I'm not surprised the FAA came down harder on the CFII.
 
Salty said:
Let me explore that a bit with a few scenarios.

1. Buddy is a flight instructor in right seat. Gave me some pointers, but he never touched the controls and doesn't sign log book. I commit a violation.
2. Same as 1 but he signs log book or demonstrates something during the flight.
3. I commit a violation during a FR, with paid instructor in right seat. I'm clearly PIC.

Seems to me PIC matters. Maybe not in this particular scenario.
Click to expand...
Why "clearly"? Is that a statement of the actual roles during the flight for the purpose of your Scenario #3. Or are you saying during a flight review the trainee is always PIC? I'm not challenging. I just didn't understand what you were saying.

Yes PIC matters. Point is, other things matter as well (#3 in my signature block). Change the scenario, you change the responsibilities. In your #3, with a relatively current trainee, I'd expect both to get some static in the case of a deviation and, if serious enough to warrant enforcement action, both may well be the target.
 
sferguson524 said:
I am PIC due to category and class. He was PIC, because we were on an IFR flight plan, and I am not IR
Click to expand...
No. You may log PIC time because you are rated in category and class. Your CFI was the only person was as PIC on the flight.

The authority FAR given to us to write a number in the PIC column of our logbooks when rated in category and class, but not rated for the operation, not endorsed for the aircraft, not current, and while under medical deficiency does not make us the person (not persons) "with final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight."
 
midlifeflyer said:
Why "clearly"? Is that a statement of the actual roles during the flight for the purpose of your Scenario #3. Or are you saying during a flight review the trainee is always PIC? I'm not challenging. I just didn't understand what you were saying.

Yes PIC matters. Point is, other things matter as well (#3 in my signature block). Change the scenario, you change the responsibilities. In your #3, with a relatively current trainee, I'd expect both to get some static in the case of a deviation and, if serious enough to warrant enforcement action, both may well be the target.
Click to expand...
Your point is made.

Under what conditions would the instructor during a FR be the PIC? It seemed to me like that would never be the case.
 
First. learn to slow the plane. You do not have to fly at 75% throttle.
Second. Learn to use ATC. If you get behind the plane, tell ATC. Ask for vectors and a chance to reset or catch up. Works every time. I even used it on my IR check ride when the examiner threw too many changes at me (she "pretended" to be ATC and kept throwing crap at me until I could not keep up).

Tim
 
Salty said:
Let me explore that a bit with a few scenarios.

1. Buddy is a flight instructor in right seat. Gave me some pointers, but he never touched the controls and doesn't sign log book. I commit a violation.
2. Same as 1 but he signs log book or demonstrates something during the flight.
3. I commit a violation during a FR, with paid instructor in right seat. I'm clearly PIC.

Seems to me PIC matters. Maybe not in this particular scenario.
Click to expand...

I know a CFI that was riding in the back of a four seat ac with two rated noncfi’s up front. They did some stupid pilot stuff and violated the 500’ away from people rules. He was not cool with it but ultimately shut up because he wasn’t pic. He was violated too. FAA felt like he should have been more proactive in preventing the activity. I’m careful who I fly with... the cfi rating is a significant responsibility
 
Salty said:
Your point is made.

Under what conditions would the instructor during a FR be the PIC? It seemed to me like that would never be the case.
Click to expand...
  1. Trainee is no longer current (FR expired).
  2. Trainee is under a medical deficiency or medical expired.
  3. FR is combined with a rental checkout.
  4. FR is combined with training for a HP, complex or tailwheel endorsement.
Those are just the ones I've been personally involved in as either student or instructor. There are probably others.
 
midlifeflyer said:
No. You may log PIC time because you are rated in category and class. Your CFI was the only person was as PIC on the flight.

The authority FAR given to us to write a number in the PIC column of our logbooks when rated in category and class, but not rated for the operation, not endorsed for the aircraft, not current, and while under medical deficiency does not make us the person (not persons) "with final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight."
Click to expand...
Thank you for clarifying Mark. I guess the overwhelming concensus here is I should learn from this and not feel like an ass.
 
sferguson524 said:
Thank you for clarifying Mark. I guess the overwhelming concensus here is I should learn from this and not feel like an ass.
Click to expand...
I'm definitely part of that consensus. Your main job as a student is not vast knowledge and procedural perfection. It is to learn, make mistakes and missteps along the way and learn from them. Honestly, that applies to seasoned pilots too. You've no doubt learned the phrase, "license to learn." That's a lifetime commitment.
 
midlifeflyer said:
  1. Trainee is no longer current (FR expired).
  2. Trainee is under a medical deficiency or medical expired.
  3. FR is combined with a rental checkout.
  4. FR is combined with training for a HP, complex or tailwheel endorsement.
Those are just the ones I've been personally involved in as either student or instructor. There are probably others.
Click to expand...
Duh. Thanks.
 
Just to be contrary you should feel like an ass!

Kidding. I know at one point in my IR training I go so overwhelmed by stacked approaches that had we been in a different location the same thing could have happened. Almost all of my instructors let me get to the point of screwing up before jumping in. Luckily it wasnt often and they didnt let it get too far but sometimes things just happen.

Learn from it and move on.
 
azure said:
I do, and my CFII was quite clear that I was supposed to put his name and contact info down. It doesn't really change anything, it's still the CFII's responsibility, but it is a technical point that could earn the OP a wrist slap if the ASI is somehow swayed that the CFII instructed the OP correctly and the OP put down his own name anyway. If I had wanted to eff my CFII over that way I could have, as he trusted me and never double checked the name on the flight plan. That's just one more little legal point they can burn the CFII on, how badly depends on whether he tries to weasel his way out of it.
Click to expand...

You can put your dog's name on the flight plan. Clearance is given to an airplane, not to a person. The PIC of the airplane is responsible for executing the flight. In this case, the CFI was clearly the PIC.
 
EdFred said:
Just to be contrary you should feel like an ass!

Kidding. I know at one point in my IR training I go so overwhelmed by stacked approaches that had we been in a different location the same thing could have happened. Almost all of my instructors let me get to the point of screwing up before jumping in. Luckily it wasnt often and they didnt let it get too far but sometimes things just happen.

Learn from it and move on.
Click to expand...
Thanks Ed.. :) he knows he let things go way too far.. apparently when they talked to him they talked about loss of separation from a SWA flight.. which was news to me.. they only told me about terrain
 
sarangan said:
You can put your dog's name on the flight plan. Clearance is given to an airplane, not to a person. The PIC of the airplane is responsible for executing the flight. In this case, the CFI was clearly the PIC.
Click to expand...
Reference? :D

Seriously, this is not about the clearance, it's about the info on the flight plan and whether the FAA takes it seriously in determining who was PIC. I really don't know the answer to that, and if you do, I'd appreciate knowing the source. I do know that my CFII was very explicit about it: I was to use his name, not mine, and doing otherwise could get him or me in a heap of trouble.

And yes, I agree, the CFI was PIC and the FAA apparently came to the reasonable conclusion in this case.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top