How to lose your CFI in 5 minutes on the ground...

N

no name

Guest
Background: first flight with this CFI(he is retired and it is a volunteer thing), trying to get checked out(+ HP endorsement) on 182T. After a conclusion of a mostly uneventful flight, the CFI is entering info into my logbook and takes an issue with one of my entries

CFI: I see you have logged .5 hours PIC in this plane before[I flew in it a few months ago with another non-CFI person and he let me practice in it]. You can't log it as PIC.

Note: He brought it up before the flight when i said i have experience in this plane, but I mostly let it go at that time.

Me: Why can't I log it like that? It is how FAA wants to log the time. It is spelled out in FAR that if i am rated in the plane and sole manipulator of the controls, i can log it as PIC time. But that's ok. Log how you want it to log, it makes no difference for the purpose of today's flight.

Note: This went back and forth a couple of time.

CFI: Your opinion is wrong and you are making bad entries in your logbook. FAA says that you cannot log this time as PIC on this plane because you are not qualified to be pilot in command on it because you do not have the endorsement. I gave you a dual time for today's flight and struck out the space for PIC so that you cannot enter the time into it because you are not allowed to.

At this point, I'm getting annoyed, so i pull out my phone, google FAR and quote FAR 61.51 to him and tell him that FAA clarified this issue relatively recently.

He smiles, looks at this other person(we both know him) and does not answer me.....while this other person looks at me and says: "Well, you just lost your instructor".

Me: What? Really? Turning to CFI: Did i really lose my instructor?
CFI: We will talk later.

And this is how i lost my CFI :)... and maybe the entire volunteer thing along with it
 
Were you REALLY sole manipulator?

A lot of rental outfits get rather upset if an unqualified pilot flies left seat with a non-instructor acting as PIC in the right seat, and does takeoffs and landings.

The FAA allows you to log under those circumstances, but just about no one lets those circumstances happen, outside the context of instruction.

And honestly, if your instructor doesn't understand 61.51, he has no business instructing. You got what you paid for.

Why is this anonymous? Even if it were illegal, the FAA wouldn't do anything about it unless you applied for a new certificate that depended on it, and removing the offending entries made a difference.
 
MAKG1 said:
Were you REALLY sole manipulator?

A lot of rental outfits get rather upset if an unqualified pilot flies left seat with a non-instructor acting as PIC in the right seat, and does takeoffs and landings.

The FAA allows you to log under those circumstances, but just about no one lets those circumstances happen, outside the context of instruction.

And honestly, if your instructor doesn't understand 61.51, he has no business instructing. You got what you paid for.

Why is this anonymous? Even if it were illegal, the FAA wouldn't do anything about it unless you applied for a new certificate that depended on it, and removing the offending entries made a difference.
Click to expand...

Yes I was. This is neither a rental outfit, nor it matters for how i log it. Anonymous so as to not get any of the people involved outed. I don't want to fully burn bridges yet.

First time i was in the right seat. I made a few practice turns, set up for an approach. No take-off, No landings. Nothing critical. This time the flight was instructional and i was in the left seat.

No argument on the instructor part
 
The FAA really ought to add questions on the written test about logging time. At least to the CFI test. And get rid of some of the stupid ones. My guess is more people misunderstand than understand how to log time properly.
 
no name said:
.....and quote FAR 61.51 to him and tell him that FAA clarified this issue relatively recently
Click to expand...
(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A sport, recreational, private, commercial, or airline transport pilot may log pilot in command flight time for flights-

(i) When the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, or has sport pilot privileges for that category and class of aircraft, if the aircraft class rating is appropriate;

The quote does not support your position.
 
Last time I checked the 182 is an ASEL and doesn't require a type rating. You are an ASEL pilot. That CFI doesn't know what he's talking about.
 
bbchien said:
(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A sport, recreational, private, commercial, or airline transport pilot may log pilot in command flight time for flights-

(i) When the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, or has sport pilot privileges for that category and class of aircraft, if the aircraft class rating is appropriate;

The quote does not support your position.
Click to expand...
If you have a single engine land rating on your pilot certificate, you're rated. The endorsement is only required to ACT as PIC.
 
If this is true, how can one log their check ride as PIC when they aren't yet "rated" for the aircraft flown? You aren't really "rated" until you land, taxi back and handshakes are presented, right? I mean they say that the DPE is your first passenger right?
 
According to AOPA...

Rated,by FAA interpretation, means that the pilot has the appropriate category, class, and type (if required) privileges on his/her pilot certificate for the aircraft being operated. Period. Note that "rated" does not require the pilot to have an instrument rating, a current medical, recency of experience, flight review, or required endorsements (such as tailwheel or high performance).
 
IMO the instructor in question in the OP is not only wrong but also an *******. [Voluntarily removed.]
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A sport, recreational, private, commercial, or airline transport pilot may log pilot in command flight time for flights-

(i) When the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, or has sport pilot privileges for that category and class of aircraft, if the aircraft class rating is appropriate;

The quote does not support your position.
Click to expand...

You should delete your post, because it's wrong.
 
DaleB said:
According to AOPA...

Rated,by FAA interpretation, means that the pilot has the appropriate category, class, and type (if required) privileges on his/her pilot certificate for the aircraft being operated. Period. Note that "rated" does not require the pilot to have an instrument rating, a current medical, recency of experience, flight review, or required endorsements (such as tailwheel or high performance).
Click to expand...

^ This. Feeling a little unsure after the fact, i went on to check what "rated" means. The above statement is correct and since 182 has no type-rating and I have ASEL, I am legally rated in it.

Although, i don't IR application is entirely accurate, but it is irrelevant in this scenario.

Endorsements do not play any part in 61.51(e)(1)(i). Thus I can log PIC. Both flights.

I, however, cannot act as a pilot in command (a captain) on either of these flights.

Logic notwithstanding, the rules are pretty well spelled out
 
bbchien said:
(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A sport, recreational, private, commercial, or airline transport pilot may log pilot in command flight time for flights-

(i) When the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, or has sport pilot privileges for that category and class of aircraft, if the aircraft class rating is appropriate;

The quote does not support your position.
Click to expand...

CN893PUVAAAMNpE.jpg
 
dmspilot said:
IMO the instructor in question in the OP is not only wrong but also an *******. Par for the course for CAP from my experience.
Click to expand...

Well, mine has been rather different. I took my instrument instructor from CAP ranks, and got a rental so he could be paid for it. My 182 transition was from a different CAP instructor -- in a non-CAP 182. Both were quite good, and worth every penny. I've worked with about half a dozen other CAP instructors, and none have behaved like the OP describes.

Just because it's a 182T doesn't mean it's CAP. There are other 182Ts around. And, honestly, there is no reason on God's green earth why a CAP 182 transition must be done on CAP aircraft. It's actually discouraged as it's rather hard on the airframe, and sucks up a lot of scarce instructor time. Not even a Form 5 must be on CAP aircraft, though a G1000 Form 5 must be on a G1000 aircraft (yes, there are G1000 182s around outside of CAP).

My advice to the OP is to pay an instructor. Not buying "not an option."
 
Flying for the CAP or working for free has no bearing on whether the CFI is going to be right or wrong about any particular question.
 
dms pilot, you should reconsider your 1:45pm post:

The documents the OP needs are attached. His CFI was correct. See Herman, 5/21/2009, , top of page 2 underlined in blue. and the subsequent reaffirmation thereof, Richards.
So much BS and bluster here. So little fact. Reminds me of why this user, User #5, doesn't come here much anymore.

Have a nice life.
 

Attachments

  • HermanOpinion.pdf
    286.3 KB · Views: 589
  • Richards.pdf
    64.7 KB · Views: 453
  • Collater.Interps..pdf
    138.7 KB · Views: 461
Last edited:
bbchien said:
dms pilot:

The documents the OP needs are attached. His CFI was correct. See Herman, 5/21/2009, and the subsequent reaffirmation thereof, Richards.
So much BS and bluster here. So little fact.
Click to expand...

Bruce, kindly help me out as I am clearly missing something here? The attachments seem to support the OP's premise that he may not ACT as PIC, but can certainly LOG his time as the sole manipulator as PIC time even without the HP endorsement. The pertinent sencence is right after what you underlined in the Herman opinion.
 
I'm a bit baffled here. I'm ASEL in a fixed prop, fixed gear. I don't have an endorsement for 200+ HP so how can I legally log PIC time in a 182? I should point out that I do have logged time in a 185 but not PIC time. The owner/pilot designated me "the autopilot" for
most of the trip.
 
bbchien said:
dms pilot, you should reconsider your 1:45pm post:

The documents the OP needs are attached. His CFI was correct. See Herman, 5/21/2009, , top of page 2 underlined in blue. and the subsequent reaffirmation thereof, Richards.
So much BS and bluster here. So little fact. Reminds me of why this user, User #5, doesn't come here much anymore.

Have a nice life.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Logging and acting as PIC are completely separate things. You just need to be rated to log. A 182 is ASEL which doesn't require a type rating. The OP is at least a PPASEL so he is able to log the flight. However, since the OP doesn't have his HP endorsement yet, he CANNOT ACT AS PIC. He can LOG PIC all day.
 
murphey said:
I'm a bit baffled here. I'm ASEL in a fixed prop, fixed gear. I don't have an endorsement for 200+ HP so how can I legally log PIC time in a 182?
Click to expand...
You're an ASEL pilot right? What is a 182? ASEL right? You are rated for the aircraft. There's one of these threads every few months. Do a search and look at the FAA's interpretation. The instructor is wrong.
 
Murphy, you were endorsed if you took your ride in a hip-perf, of PIC'd prior to IIRC 1987.
jordane93 didn't read the files, because it is all about logging vs. being legal PIC.
The key is, are you rated for an aircraft (ASEL, hip perf) w/o having the endorsement? Sure, it's an ASEL, but to rated in it, you have to be endorsed in it....or the guy in the right seat has to be a current CFI and log it as instruction, which was NOT the case for the OP.


sigh.
 
jordane93 said:
You're an ASEL pilot right? What is a 182? ASEL right? You are rated for the aircraft. There's one of these threads every few months. Do a search and look at the FAA's interpretation. The instructor is wrong.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between logging the time and logging PIC time.
 
bbchien said:
dms pilot, you should reconsider your 1:45pm post:

The documents the OP needs are attached. His CFI was correct. See Herman, 5/21/2009, , top of page 2 underlined in blue. and the subsequent reaffirmation thereof, Richards.
So much BS and bluster here. So little fact.
Click to expand...

Are you f****** kidding me? I looked at your copy of the Herman opinion. For ****** sake, you underlined the wrong sentence. The very next sentence after that one contradicts your argument.

"Accordingly, in your examples, the pilot may log PIC time if that pilot is properly rated for the aircraft flown even though that pilot does not have the required endorsements to act as PIC." (My bold.)

bbchien said:
Reminds me of why this user, User #5, doesn't come here much anymore.

Have a nice life.
Click to expand...

Seems like the people who leave have one thing in common; an authority complex.
 
bbchien said:
Murphy, you were endorsed if you took your ride in a hip-perf, of PIC'd prior to IIRC 1987.
Click to expand...
Nope, it was 2010 or so. That's why I logged the XC time but not PIC time because I didn't (and still don't) have the HP endorsement.
jordane93 didn't read the files, because it is all about logging vs. being legal PIC.
The key is, are you rated for an aircraft (ASEL, hip perf) w/o having the endorsement? Sure, it's an ASEL, but to rated in it, you have to be endorsed in it....or the guy in the right seat has to be a current CFI and log it as instruction, which was NOT the case for the OP.


sigh.
Click to expand...
 
bbchien said:
dms pilot, you should reconsider your 1:45pm post:

The documents the OP needs are attached. His CFI was correct. See Herman, 5/21/2009, , top of page 2 underlined in blue. and the subsequent reaffirmation thereof, Richards.
So much BS and bluster here. So little fact. Reminds me of why this user, User #5, doesn't come here much anymore.

Have a nice life.
Click to expand...

This Herman Opinion is exactly what I was looking for as a clarification. Bruce, i think you are misinterpreting the opinion.

3rd paragraph in part(my emphasis):

"Sections 61.31(e) and (f) establish additional training and endorsement requirements before acting as a PIC of a complex of high-performance airplane, respectively. Although these endorsements are required before a pilot may act as a PIC of a high-performance and/or complex airplane, they are not required to log PIC time if the pilot is rated for and is the sole manipulator of the controls of the aircraft."
 
Thank you, no name. The FAA then decided this one, and you can, he is wrong.
The point is, get the source data. Not just scream.

So, show that pic parag 3 of Herman. ALWAYS go to the source (even if I did get it wrong), at least you can prove your position. :).
 
bbchien said:
Murphy, you were endorsed if you took your ride in a hip-perf, of PIC'd prior to IIRC 1987.
jordane93 didn't read the files, because it is all about logging vs. being legal PIC.
The key is, are you rated for an aircraft (ASEL, hip perf) w/o having the endorsement? Sure, it's an ASEL, but to rated in it, you have to be endorsed in it....or the guy in the right seat has to be a current CFI and log it as instruction, which was NOT the case for the OP.


sigh.
Click to expand...
Read the interpretations again.
 
jordane93 said:
And what do you need to log PIC time? You must be properly rated. You are an ASEL pilot. You can log PIC under sole manipulator.
Click to expand...
Nope, can't log PIC time, not rated in a HP airplane. But I can log the time. Subtle or not so subtle difference in terminology and/or interpretation.

But for 11 hours (of my thousand or so) I'm not going to worry about it. Should the FAA complain on my CFI checkride, I'll happily mark thru those 11 hours, aint gonna cause me any worries.
 
bbchien said:
Thank you, no name. The FAA then decided this one, and you can, he is wrong.
The point is, get the source data. Not just scream.

So, show that pic parag 3 of Herman. ALWAYS go to the source (even if I did get it wrong), at least you can prove your position. :).
Click to expand...

I didn't remember what to look for, so the only thing i had was FAR 61.51 at the moment.

Nobody was screaming, but i don't think it mattered. It would take far more time that neither him nor I would be willing to spend(for different reasons) to find, read, and come to agreement(if at all possible) on this. Nor I would win anything by doing so. I probably went to far to begin with.

The only reason i knew I was correct was because i read this forum and it has been beaten to death around here.
 
MAKG1 said:
I disagree on the free part.

It's not hard at all to imagine a lazier approach to free work.
Click to expand...
I disagree that it's a given, besides, I was talking about the chance of being right or wrong on any particular question, like this one.
 
bbchien said:
Thank you, no name. The FAA then decided this one, and you can, he is wrong.
The point is, get the source data. Not just scream.

So, show that pic parag 3 of Herman. ALWAYS go to the source (even if I did get it wrong), at least you can prove your position. :).
Click to expand...

Herman, para. 3: (Orange and red underlining mine.)
murphy para 3 properly underlined.png


para. 4: (Blue underlining yours, red mine.)
murphy properly underlined.png
 
Last edited:
If some instructor for any reason changed an entry I made in MY logbook, the instructor would certainly have lost a student.

He's entitled to his (incorrect) opinion, but he has no business defacing my log book entries.
 
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