Pilot landed gear up with CFI on board

kayoh190 said:
To violate can mean to break a rule.
Click to expand...
I know this definition but the common saying is the FAA is going to do the violating. I would be the only one violating anything since I broke the rule. The FAA would be the one giving notice of violation.
 
TommyG said:
I have heard the 5 hours required by a few people. The only regulations I know of requiring 5 hours is for multi engine.
Click to expand...
61.195 actually says...
(f) Training received in a multiengine airplane, a helicopter, or a powered-lift. A flight instructor may not give training required for the issuance of a certificate or rating in a multiengine airplane, a helicopter, or a powered-lift unless that flight instructor has at least 5 flight hours of pilot-in-command time in the specific make and model of multiengine airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift, as appropriate.
Click to expand...
Note where it says "for the issuance of a certificate or rating. So a CFI without 5 hours of PIC in the specific make and model can give other types of instruction, for a checkout for instance.
 
Everskyward said:
61.195 actually says...

Note where it says "for the issuance of a certificate or rating. So a CFI without 5 hours of PIC in the specific make and model can give other types of instruction, for a checkout for instance.
Click to expand...

So a nothing for a single engine airplane requires 5 hours in specific make and model.
 
Tom-D said:
What IF:::
The CFI was getting a check out in make and model? remember the CFI can't instruct in make and model until they have 5 hours in that make and model.
Click to expand...
That is true for twins but I am almost certain it does not apply to singles.
 
Everskyward said:
61.195 actually says...

Note where it says "for the issuance of a certificate or rating. So a CFI without 5 hours of PIC in the specific make and model can give other types of instruction, for a checkout for instance.
Click to expand...

Which even leaves the Flight Review possible in that aircraft, which some might find an odd thing to allow, considering an FR could be signing someone who hasn't flown in a decade back into the sky. A CFI could do that for a new airplane owner with zero time in type. Weird.
 
denverpilot said:
Which even leaves the Flight Review possible in that aircraft, which some might find an odd thing to allow, considering an FR could be signing someone who hasn't flown in a decade back into the sky. A CFI could do that for a new airplane owner with zero time in type. Weird.
Click to expand...
Just don't bring that up with a letter to the chief council, LOL. I think the reg is pretty clear, though.
 
TommyG said:
I have heard the 5 hours required by a few people. The only regulations I know of requiring 5 hours is for multi engine.
Click to expand...
My CFI was required to have 5 hours in my plane (Saratoga II TC) by my insurance to be able to sign me off in it. He has 1000s of hours, muti, hp and complex. Several in a cherokee 6 years ago, but they wanted that specific model. The broker was apologetic about it and realized it was a silly requirement. My CFI didn't mind because he was able to learn a few of the idiosyncrasies of the plane and he enjoys the plane as much as I do.
 
48dodge said:
My CFI was required to have 5 hours in my plane (Saratoga II TC) by my insurance to be able to sign me off in it. He has 1000s of hours, muti, hp and complex. Several in a cherokee 6 years ago, but they wanted that specific model. The broker was apologetic about it and realized it was a silly requirement. My CFI didn't mind because he was able to learn a few of the idiosyncrasies of the plane and he enjoys the plane as much as I do.
Click to expand...

Insurance requirements usually want more than 5 on certain planes. But nowhere in the Regs is it required for single engine as some think.
 
My transition instructor had to have 25 hrs in type as required by insurance company.
 
kevmor99 said:
A pilot who is a private pilot lands on the runway gear up because he forgot to put down the gear while receiving dual instruction. He was flying a typical traffic pattern in a plane he owns and has many hours in.

The pilot had a current flight review at the time but a discussion wasn't had to who was acting as PIC. Is the CFI responsible for damages or the pilot? If there were more incidents that happened with this CFI, would you report this to the FSDO?

Also, the CFI didn't sign the logbook after the flight.
Click to expand...
If he was receiving dual instruction, the CFI could also be cited by the FSDO for not signing the logbook.

FSDO should have been notified of the gear up landing. Most airport managers will automatically call FSDO for permission to move the aircraft after an "accident".
 
kevmor99 said:
A pilot who is a private pilot lands on the runway gear up because he forgot to put down the gear while receiving dual instruction. He was flying a typical traffic pattern in a plane he owns and has many hours in.

The pilot had a current flight review at the time but a discussion wasn't had to who was acting as PIC. Is the CFI responsible for damages or the pilot? If there were more incidents that happened with this CFI, would you report this to the FSDO?

Also, the CFI didn't sign the logbook after the flight.
Click to expand...

They were both logging PIC. This was a glaring oversight. The pilot should know to put his gear down in his own plane, but with a CFI on board too... GUMPS anybody?
 
Actually, the FAA will likely go after whoever they can harm more. If you have a working flight instructor and a recreational pilot, they'll hit up the instructor. If you have a working pilot and a moonlighting flight instructor, they'll hit up the working pilot.
 
Some years back at the Spanaway Airport S44 in WA a chap gave his pal a ride in his pretty red Luscombe. His pal happened to be a CFI. They snagged the fence on final and wound up upside down on the runway. Both were violated.
 
NTSB Identification: ANC93FA128
HISTORY OF FLIGHT

On July 27, 1993, at 1217 mountain daylight time, a Convair 240, N156PA, owned by Cool Air Inc., of Spannaway, WA, and operated by Renoun Aviation, a 14 CFR Part 121 supplemental air carrier of Santa Maria, CA, landed with all landing gear retracted, during a simulated single engine ILS approach Gowen Field, Boise Air Terminal, at Boise, ID. The flight was being operated under 14 CFR Part 91 during a Part 61 flight check for an initial airline pilot's rating and CV240 type rating. An FAA air carrier operations inspector was conducting the flight check and occupied the copilot's seat. The airplane had departed Boise at approximately 1106 on a local VFR flight plan in visual meteorological conditions. The pilot, check pilot and jumpseat observer were not injured. The airplane sustained substantial damage and the airport runway sustained damage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top