Pvt Pilot as Passenger local day Part 91 Sightseeing Flt (not 135). Gets to fly and logs it all PIC?

[Palmpilot]

NOTE: You want to be a CFI get your instrument, commercial and CFI (from Pvt pilot a total of 4 written exams, 3 check rides, and 250 hrs).

Many of the people you have been arguing with here are CFIs.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Why couldn't you fly passengers too?

Because he hasn’t got six hours of instruction to include 3 takeoffs and landings, 6 approaches, holds, intercepting, and tracking in the last 90 days in an identically-equipped 182 (but not that specific one.)

 

[dmspilot]

It's been thoroughly explained to you in this thread, and there's references elsewhere on the forum, but you insist on continuing to make incorrect statements. All the while claiming the high ground and boasting about your qualifications. And yet you accuse other members of being patronizing, pedantic, and argumentative. I've noticed the same pattern in most of the threads you start. Maybe that indicates something.

Slight correction. He accused other members of being pagans.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Slight correction. He accused other members of being pagans.

Actually, no. He accused others of making others pagans.

 

[dmspilot]

My interpretation controls and is final as PIC and CFI.

Bolding and color and size changes for emphasis only work when it's on a few words, not the majority of a post. I am wondering how you ended up logbook cop, considering the flight has nothing to do with you. Is that a position anyone can apply for?

 

[Lindberg]

Why couldn't you fly passengers too?

The screaming always distracts me.

 

[BillTIZ]

Hey guys and gals WOW... You all can really "debate". I talked to my student and we both agree, he was not current, qualified.

He was not current in 3 takeoffs and landings in last 90 days and therefore can not fly with a non instructor and legally log it with passengers, in my opinion and my student agrees. In both cases there were passengers in plane. Lack of high performance endorsement, factor or not, it's another questionable issue.

My student has no knowledge (a PIC should have) of C182, CS Prop, Cowl Flaps, weights, power settings and did not manipulate the controls the full time as logged. The non commercial private pilot erroneously advised him to log it all, thinking he was doing him a favor to build hours. Further the student does not have a high performance endorsement.​

Well meaning Non-CFI played flight instructor (illegal) and allowed a passenger (my student, non current Pvt pilot who never flow high performance aircraft) to manipulate controls. Sound Safe? Legal? Maybe/No/Grey Area. PIC (pilot authorized to use CLUB plane) violated club rules. More over when he let my student to fly the aircraft was a passenger. I GET IT, people let kids fly. Fine but they don't LOG IT.​

​

My student has no pilot knowledge (a PIC should have) of PA-28-235, CS Prop, Cowl Flaps, limitations, weights, power settings and did not manipulate the controls the full time as logged. The commercial pilot, not a CFI, made the log book entry (not the student) and credited the full flight in students log book, and he did sloppily and incorrectly. Again student does not have high performance endorsement.​

Commercial flight FOR HIRE for $$$$ with a PIC being a commercial non CFI pilot allowed a passenger (my student, non current Pvt pilot who never flew a high performance aircraft) to manipulate controls with PASSNGERS! OK. But if an accident happened I am 100% sure lawsuits and FAA sanctions would happen guaranteed. ​

​

​

NOTE: You want to be a CFI get your instrument, commercial and CFI (from Pvt pilot a total of 4 written exams, 3 check rides, and 250 hrs). When a NON current pilot fly's with a CFI and gets current during that flight (take off landings, flight review) they can log it as PIC. It is like Pvt Pilot Check Ride. After successful completion you can log check ride as PIC. ​

YOU CAN NOT FLY (PIC) WITH A NON CFI if you are NOT CURRENT and log it, period... That is my story and sticking to it. Post all the FAR's about sole manipulator you want. Read all of the regulations, as I have for 39 yrs. My interpretation controls and is final as PIC and CFI. We can agree to disagree.​

We , my student and I, his instructor, have decided that the log book entries are not proper or needed and redacted. As a Captain who has done hiring interviews at airlines, I can tell you log book entries like this will get you out the door not the job. Joy ride away if you are a GA private pilot and log all the P-51 time you like. If you want a pilot career be righteous and meticulous of how and what you log hours. I have seen this kind of "time" rejected by airlines and DPE's. Also do NOT let someone other than a CFI log time in you book. Neatness counts.

Falsification of log book per FAR's (14 CFR 61.59) SUSPENSION or REVOCATION OF YOUR AIRMAN CERTIFICATE... Do not take advice from people on line. We (student and instructor) are taking the proper course in our judgement, even if it's conservative and you disagree. Sorry.

Tme logged does NOTHING to help my student get his Instrument Pilot Rating, no simulated instrument, no cross country, no new skill or meaningful experience. As his instructor with my students concurrence, after much thought and the comments above, the time has been removed and fortunately was never totaled. That is the final decision. I am out. You all have fun arguing and good grief. If you want to troll me go ahead. I am not reading this thread again. Go for it.

PS New Pilots BE CAREFUL who you fly with, who may want to show off or play CFI or play loose with the FAR's. They may tell you things (how to wink wink nod nod build hours) and have you do things (watch this) that ARE NOT SAFE or LEGAL. Don't be too eager to fly with people you don't know. They see a newly minted Pvt and think I am going to impress them. I think and HOPE this is rare. In the above two examples I think intentions were good and not unsafe. If you want to transition to a new aircraft make/model in Cat/class of aircraft you are qualified and current in, study, get the POH/AFM and find a qualified experienced CFI. Logging hours in planes you know nothing of may be fun and in many cases OK to log, but not always. Nuff Said.

Your "Student" agrees with you because he is a freshly minted Private Pilot and does not know any better. Plus as you are his Instrument instructor, he knows he better agree with you or life with you as an instructor and any future in the club would be pure "****".

 

[EdFred]

I didn't know you could be special needs and a CFI. But reading the posts by the thread author, I stand corrected.

It's the only logical explanation. Or he's an idiot savant with no special skills.

 

[Ryan F.]

I talked to my student and we both agree, he was not current, qualified.

Unfortunately, you came to an erroneous conclusion on this subject.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Your "Student" agrees with you because he is a freshly minted Private Pilot and does not know any better. Plus as you are his Instrument instructor, he knows he better agree with you or life with you as an instructor and any future in the club would be pure "****".

As clearly stated by the OP…

My interpretation controls and is final as PIC and CFI.

 

[Brad Z]

Many of the people you have been arguing with here are CFIs.

Some of them even write, issue guidance for and interpret these very regulations.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Some of them even write, issue guidance for and interpret these very regulations.

But…

My interpretation controls and is final as PIC and CFI.

 

[Brad Z]

But…

i suppose once the student is back in the ground, the flight is over, and Capn Bligh is no longer in command, the student can go back and correct his logbook for all of the flight time that the OP will most invariably log incorrectly.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Of course, what I find truly interesting is that the only reason an instructor can log PIC is due to a specific carve-out in 61.51, the reg studiously avoided by the OP.

 

[flyingron]

Again, the FAA has ruled many times on this. 61.51 means what it says.
It doesn't say "Log PIC when you are the PIC."
It doesn't say "You must be qualified to be PIC to log PIC."

Being PIC (or even qualified to be PIC) is not a necessary nor sufficient condition to log PIC.

 

[Half Fast]

Many of the people you have been arguing with here are CFIs.

...and DPEs and FAA personnel and airline pilots.

 

[ateamer]

OP, can you post contact info for your student so someone can clue him in to get a new instructor?

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

http://www.sidnaw.org/LoggingPIC.pdf

 

[Lindberg]

...and DPEs and FAA personnel and airline pilots.

And other people who know how to read.

 

[darthanubis]

OP, can you post contact info for your student so someone can clue him in to get a new instructor?

He bugged out. He said he wasn't going to read the comments in response to the fit he threw. That kid needs help that isn't so tightly guarding an ego.

 

[Racerx]

Hey guys and gals WOW... You all can really "debate".

You must be new here. Welcome to POA

 

[TCABM]

You must be new here. Welcome to POA

He’s not. I put the OP on ignore during his diatribe on the G5 not indicating a level horizon on the ground and in level flight.

Then he brought an FAA reference that was superseded in the 90s into the discussion to prove his point.

 

[dbahn]

I don't blame the OP for pouting out of the room. When you blatantly make so many false statements while at the same time thumping your chest about your credentials, what else can you do?

(BTW, he's probably just outside the room, still eavesdropping on the conversation.)

 

[fly4usa]

I do have a high performance endorsement, but I know jack s*** about constant speed props or cowl flaps. I wonder if I could log time in a 182? I guess not if you were my CFI, despite the fact that I could legally fly one solo.

Reading comprehension much. Yes if with a CFI you could as I stated log noth PIC both dual. No you can not fly legally solo as PIC a C182 w/o high performance endorsement. READ the regulation (unless grandfathered in).

I have done +30 high performance and complex SEL endorsements. Hi Perf take 1 to 2 hours, some take 5 hours and others 10 hrs. My typical student 2 hours HP, 5 hrs Complex (often required min by insurance).

There are things called common sense standards (See ACS). If you can NOT fly safely, smoothly within standards, you need more practice regardless of "legal". Kapish. I use the "would I let a family member fly with you alone" test. It's very egalitarian and straight forward. So unbunch. Good news I will never fly with you. Ha ha.

 

[fly4usa]

I don't blame the OP for pouting out of the room. When you blatantly make so many false statements while at the same time thumping your chest about your credentials, what else can you do?

(BTW, he's probably just outside the room, still eavesdropping on the conversation.)

Troll much? What false statement be spacific? I am busy. I actually fly planes at work, one I own and club planes. You are a waste of my time. His log book is cleaned up. Done. Questions?What is your point ? Are you sad need a hug? I'm happy and trolls matter not.

 

[dbahn]

Troll much? What false statement be spacific? I am busy. I actually fly planes at work, one I own and club planes. You are a waste of my time. His log book is cleaned up. Done. Questions?What is your point ? Are you sad need a hug? I'm happy and trolls matter not.

LOL. You are too funny. You post a bunch of statements that don't make sense to educated pilots, then you profess that you are done with this thread. I only threw out the lure to prove that you were wrong about that, too.

I actually saved your own words, because so many people who are agonizingly wrong tend to delete them and claim that's not what they said.

That is the final decision. I am out. You all have fun arguing and good grief. If you want to troll me go ahead. I am not reading this thread again. Go for it.

 

[Half Fast]

 

[midlifeflyer]

It's funny. Those of us who have been in online forums for a long time are reminiscing about the "logging wars" when most people online had never been exposed to the rules, assumed one could not possibly be allowed to log PIC without current medical, flight review, endorsements. Most CFIs didn't understand the rules and some who did would nevertheless prohibit it, apparently thinking they were more authoritative than the FAA. (And many of their students fixed their logbooks after the fact; I did too)

The percentages have changed through the years, mostly because of online groups which would point to the official references. Most understand at this point there is a difference between the authority to log time and the authority to act as PIC or required crew, even if they sometime get stuck on the details.

 

[Lindberg]

I do have a high performance endorsement, but I know jack s*** about constant speed props or cowl flaps. I wonder if I could log time in a 182? I guess not if you were my CFI, despite the fact that I could legally fly one solo.

Reading comprehension much. Yes if with a CFI you could as I stated log noth (sic) PIC both (sic) dual. No you can not fly legally solo as PIC a C182 w/o high performance endorsement. READ the regulation (unless grandfathered in).

Yeah, I guess I'm the one with a reading-comprehension problem.

 

[dmspilot]

He’s not. I put the OP on ignore during his diatribe on the G5 not indicating a level horizon on the ground and in level flight.

Then he brought an FAA reference that was superseded in the 90s into the discussion to prove his point.

I didn't realize it was the same person. That explains a lot.

 

[MauleSkinner]

There are things called common sense standards (See ACS).

Now THAT’s funny!

I use the "would I let a family member fly with you alone" test.

And it’s even funnier when go on to state that you apply requirements in excess of the ACS.

 

[dbahn]

And it’s even funnier when go on to state that you apply requirements in excess of the ACS.

And it's negligent and borderline criminal when you apply those requirements in lieu of ACS standards. It's not a "standard" when you make it up entirely on subjective reasoning, which that is.

 

[Ryan F.]

Not looking to ruffle any feathers, but since the OP has definitively stated he is not returning to the thread, I'll share the following opinion...

This young pilot might miss out on a couple of hours of loggable time, which isn't the biggest loss in the world. Of greater consequence is the confusion this misinformation will cause downstream. Perpetuated forward, this will continue for at least another cycle, especially if this learner becomes a CFI himself one day. The other regrettable casualty is instructor professionalism. CFIs should not attempt to act as the "controlling" or "deciding" influence in this sort of scenario - they should be a humble conduit to understanding and enlightenment. Flight instructors, please remember that you're our role models for the next generation of airmen.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Sigh... Even though @fly4usa apparently can't be bothered to change his mind on anything, I'm going to try again for anyone who might encounter this thread in the future...

Hey guys and gals WOW... You all can really "debate". I talked to my student and we both agree, he was not current, qualified.

Does. Not. Matter.

There is always one, and only one, acting Pilot In Command. They're the person with the sole responsibility and authority for the flight. And that is completely irrelevant here, since logging PIC and acting as PIC are two different things. See the Herman Interpretation and the Carpenter Interpretation for a couple of examples.

He was not current in 3 takeoffs and landings in last 90 days and therefore can not fly with a non instructor and legally log it with passengers, in my opinion and my student agrees. In both cases there were passengers in plane.

Let's read the regulation:

§ 61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in command.​

(a) General experience.​

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers or of an aircraft certificated for more than one pilot flight crewmember unless that person has made at least three takeoffs and three landings within the preceding 90 days​

Note that it says no person may *ACT* as pilot in commmand... Nothing about logging, which is governed by 61.51(e) as already quoted above.

Lack of high performance endorsement, factor or not, it's another questionable issue.

Nope. Not questionable at all. This is specifically addressed by the Herman interpretation linked above.

My student has no knowledge (a PIC should have) of C182, CS Prop, Cowl Flaps, weights, power settings and did not manipulate the controls the full time as logged. The non commercial private pilot erroneously advised him to log it all, thinking he was doing him a favor to build hours. Further the student does not have a high performance endorsement.​

OK, the only issue here is the "log it all". Your student can only log the time that they are the sole manipulator of the flight controls, NOT the entire flight.

My student has no pilot knowledge (a PIC should have) of PA-28-235, CS Prop, Cowl Flaps, limitations, weights, power settings and did not manipulate the controls the full time as logged. The commercial pilot, not a CFI, made the log book entry (not the student) and credited the full flight in students log book, and he did sloppily and incorrectly. Again student does not have high performance endorsement.​

Commercial flight FOR HIRE for $$$$ with a PIC being a commercial non CFI pilot allowed a passenger (my student, non current Pvt pilot who never flew a high performance aircraft) to manipulate controls with PASSNGERS! OK. But if an accident happened I am 100% sure lawsuits and FAA sanctions would happen guaranteed. ​

Again, the only issue here is if more time was logged than the time your student was the one at the controls. I personally wouldn't let anyone else make an entry in my logbook, but some instructors do that for their students and so that's normal for some people. It should be corrected to the sole manipulator time, but it does not need to be removed entirely.

NOTE: You want to be a CFI get your instrument, commercial and CFI (from Pvt pilot a total of 4 written exams, 3 check rides, and 250 hrs).

Yup.

When a NON current pilot fly's with a CFI and gets current during that flight (take off landings, flight review) they can log it as PIC.

Yes, except they don't have to get current during that flight. They log it as sole manipulator whether or not they get current.

YOU CAN NOT FLY (PIC) WITH A NON CFI if you are NOT CURRENT and log it, period...

As long as there is one person aboard who is qualified, current, and otherwise legal to act as pilot in command, sure you can.

That is my story and sticking to it. Post all the FAR's about sole manipulator you want. Read all of the regulations, as I have for 39 yrs. My interpretation controls and is final as PIC and CFI. We can agree to disagree.

That's not true at all. It is the FAA's interpretation that is final.

In addition, you're exhibiting at least two hazardous attitudes before you've even gotten in a plane. I feel bad for your students.

We , my student and I, his instructor, have decided that the log book entries are not proper or needed and redacted.

Maybe not needed, but they're not improper. Nothing says you HAVE to log anything aside from demonstrating currency, but to remove legally loggable flights from his book is a disservice.

As a Captain who has done hiring interviews at airlines, I can tell you log book entries like this will get you out the door not the job.

If you can't be bothered to look up well-documented regulations and policies from the FAA, chances are you are the same way when it comes to OpSpecs, FOM, SOPs, etc as well, and I probably don't want to fly for your airline.

Joy ride away if you are a GA private pilot and log all the P-51 time you like.

Gladly. Not too many left with dual controls like this one:

If you want a pilot career be righteous and meticulous of how and what you log hours. I have seen this kind of "time" rejected by airlines and DPE's. Also do NOT let someone other than a CFI log time in you book. Neatness counts.

Falsification of log book per FAR's (14 CFR 61.59) SUSPENSION or REVOCATION OF YOUR AIRMAN CERTIFICATE... Do not take advice from people on line. We (student and instructor) are taking the proper course in our judgement, even if it's conservative and you disagree. Sorry.

Finally, some good advice. But "meticulous" involves doing things to the absolute letter of the law, so there is nothing wrong with logging flight time that the FARs specifically allow you to log. Lucky for you and your student, there's also nothing wrong with NOT logging a flight even if it's perfectly legal to log.

 

[fly4usa]

Sigh... Even though @fly4usa apparently can't be bothered to change his mind on anything, I'm going to try again for anyone who might encounter this thread in the future...

Does. Not. Matter.

There is always one, and only one, acting Pilot In Command. They're the person with the sole responsibility and authority for the flight. And that is completely irrelevant here, since logging PIC and acting as PIC are two different things. See the Herman Interpretation and the Carpenter Interpretation for a couple of examples.

Let's read the regulation:

§ 61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in command.​

(a) General experience.​

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers or of an aircraft certificated for more than one pilot flight crewmember unless that person has made at least three takeoffs and three landings within the preceding 90 days​

Note that it says no person may *ACT* as pilot in commmand... Nothing about logging, which is governed by 61.51(e) as already quoted above.

Nope. Not questionable at all. This is specifically addressed by the Herman interpretation linked above.

OK, the only issue here is the "log it all". Your student can only log the time that they are the sole manipulator of the flight controls, NOT the entire flight.

Again, the only issue here is if more time was logged than the time your student was the one at the controls. I personally wouldn't let anyone else make an entry in my logbook, but some instructors do that for their students and so that's normal for some people. It should be corrected to the sole manipulator time, but it does not need to be removed entirely.

Yup.

Yes, except they don't have to get current during that flight. They log it as sole manipulator whether or not they get current.

As long as there is one person aboard who is qualified, current, and otherwise legal to act as pilot in command, sure you can.

That's not true at all. It is the FAA's interpretation that is final.

In addition, you're exhibiting at least two hazardous attitudes before you've even gotten in a plane. I feel bad for your students.

Maybe not needed, but they're not improper. Nothing says you HAVE to log anything aside from demonstrating currency, but to remove legally loggable flights from his book is a disservice.

If you can't be bothered to look up well-documented regulations and policies from the FAA, chances are you are the same way when it comes to OpSpecs, FOM, SOPs, etc as well, and I probably don't want to fly for your airline.

Gladly. Not too many left with dual controls like this one:


Finally, some good advice. But "meticulous" involves doing things to the absolute letter of the law, so there is nothing wrong with logging flight time that the FARs specifically allow you to log. Lucky for you and your student, there's also nothing wrong with NOT logging a flight even if it's perfectly legal to log.

Your gratuities tolling full of self promotion (your face can not be unseen), massive strawman argument and non sequitur is spectacular. You are a master debater, clearly. We are talking a young pilot being lead astray by a beach bum in Hawaii who does part time part 91 sight seeing ("sure kid" you can log it), and local pilot who thinks he is a CFI. Again he was not current and both PIC's were not CFI's. You are anti authority and likely FAR's mean nothing to you. Good luck.

Change my mind? Ha ha. No you change your mind. ha ha. Good grief. Look the sloppy log entries have ZERO benefit to my student and dubious legality. They are gone. Done. Deal with it. Need a hug? My student already was questioning them and he agrees. I left it up to him. Get over it.

BTW I have built two vans RV's and did IAC sportsman aerobatics when I owned my Decathlon. Now I just do perfect loops in my RV-7 not your egg shaped abominations... Ha ha. Burn... you want a flame war> You would lose. But I got things to do. Bye.

 

[MauleSkinner]

You are anti authority and likely FAR's mean nothing to you.

You have claimed to be THE authority, and have disregarded the plain English of regulations. Pot calling the shiny stainless steel black, appears to me.