Part 135 issues notwithstanding, that's not an FAA issue. As long as that instructor is giving you training and signs your logbook for the training given, the FAA will be OK. Whether your dad's friend's accountant or the IRS will be OK is another story entirely, but that's between your dad's friend and your dad's friend's accountant.
Unless you were a designated co-pilot for that company, your "freight guy" was violating 14 CFR 135.115:
...and your logbook with his signature would be the documentary proof of that violation. Or was this some sort of "fly-by-night" outfit operating without a certificate?
It did -- it was in the regs even when I was flying 135 ten years before that.
This.
Amazing how many pilots, both the 135-certified guys and the "time builders" looking to log the time don't know that. I recently reviewed the logbooks of an ATP applicant who had copilot time on charter trips and SIC time in jets for which he didn't have the requisite 61.55 training. His response was, "you mean if somebody asks me to fly copilot with him, I have to know whether I can do it or not?"Not sure if that existed 25 years ago, I sure didn't know about it back then, and all the DPE did was chuckle over it.
Amazing how many pilots, both the 135-certified guys and the "time builders" looking to log the time don't know that. I recently reviewed the logbooks of an ATP applicant who had copilot time on charter trips and SIC time in jets for which he didn't have the requisite 61.55 training. His response was, "you mean if somebody asks me to fly copilot with him, I have to know whether I can do it or not?"
Not sure if that existed 25 years ago, I sure didn't know about it back then, and all the DPE did was chuckle over it.
Amazing how many pilots, both the 135-certified guys and the "time builders" looking to log the time don't know that. I recently reviewed the logbooks of an ATP applicant who had copilot time on charter trips and SIC time in jets for which he didn't have the requisite 61.55 training. His response was, "you mean if somebody asks me to fly copilot with him, I have to know whether I can do it or not?"
Me, too. But night freight operators don't fly empty very often.As long as the 'instruction' flights were dead-heads (no people/cargo for hire on board), then you were operating Part 91 and it is OK. That is how I did it
Even more fun, if henning used any of that time for his rating requirement he obtained it illegally, it would call for a revocation of all of his certificates.
Be careful what you are admitting.........
I think we all know the PIC in that situation is violating 135.115, but which regulation does the passenger who manipulates the controls violate either by manipulating the controls or applying that time to FAA certificate/rating aeronautical experience requirements?
I'm not saying I think it shows good moral character for someone who knows the rules to be doing what Henning did (and as a Student Pilot at the time, one would not expect him to know those rules), but for someone other than an ATP (which IIRC Henning is not anyway)...
I'm not saying I think it shows good moral character for someone who knows the rules to be doing what Henning did (and as a Student Pilot at the time, one would not expect him to know those rules), but for someone other than an ATP (which IIRC Henning is not anyway)...
The PIC might be violating 135.115 regarding manipulation of the controls, but I don't see how a passenger not assigned as a crewmember would be violating 135.293 regarding pilot testing requirements by touching the controls with the PIC's permission (that permission being necessary to avoid a 135.120 "interfering" violation on the passenger's part).
As for 61.59, I'm not seeing any falsification there, either -- Henning really was receiving training from that instructor in that aircraft. I don't see how the fact that Part 135 was being violated by that instructor affects the legality of Henning's logging of the time IAW 61.51 on pilot logbooks. Would a Student Pilot be violating 61.59 if s/he logged the time while flying solo with less than 3 miles visibility? Yes, the 61.87 limitations on Student Pilots were violated, and probably 61.155 regarding VFR flight weather mins, too, but there was no falsification involved -- s/he really did fly that time, just as Henning really did receive that training from an authorized instructor, even if some Part 135 rules (but no Part 61 rules) were being violated by that instructor in doing so.
So maybe that's why the DPE who saw his logbook just chuckled and moved on.
I don't see any violation of Part 135 there, either, as long as nobody but the assigned pilot touches anything. Whether that constitutes legitimate training is a rather more subjective discussion, but the Aviation Instructor's Handbook does include the Explanation and Demonstration phases (which do not involve the training doing anything but watching and listening) in the Demonstration-Performance method of instruction, and that's what it sounds like you're describing -- just stopping short of the Student Performance phase.
What's false about the entry? Henning was receiving training from an authorized instructor. The fact that the instructor was violating a Part 135 regulation doesn't play into it in any way I can see.
I'm looking in 61.51 where it says that one cannot log time while considered a passenger, but I can't find it. OTOH, there's a lot of interpretations on the point of logging time under 61.51 without being a crewmember, i.e., while technically a passenger.
I'd be interested to read that case. Was that "right seat pilot" an employee of the 135 operator? And what regulation was cited as being violated, and on what basis?
I agree with you 100% on that.The reality of this is it does happen. My point being if someone did this I damn sure wouldn't be on the internet broadcasting it.
Those section of Part 135 may apply to the PIC giving the training, but do they apply to the recipient of the training? I see nothing in Part 61 which either the instructor or the recipient would be violating. IOW, if a 135 pilot lets a passenger fly the plane, would an enforcement action be initiated against the passenger? I kind of doubt it.
I can't find any regulation which says "no". Perhaps you can point to one in Part 61 which specifically addresses that question.
I agree that might possibly be considered falsification by the PIC/CFI signing the entry, but not the Student Pilot trainee, who cannot be expected to know the regulations of Part 135.
I'm still not seeing how that regulation applies to the passenger touching the controls when that passenger is not an employee of the operator and not a "crewmember" as defined in the regulations:
It appears those pilots were employees of the operator, which I believe puts them in a different legal position (specifically, a crewmember, as defined above) rather than a mere passenger, as Henning was.
You've pointed out a regulation you say the Student Pilot is violating (61.59), but not how that violation is being regulated by that Student Pilot who is not an employee of the operator, i.e., how that entry constitutes falsification, since it appears to be compliant with 61.51 regarding pilot logbooks. That's the part I'm not following.
That I do not accept. As I said before, if a passenger (not an employee of the operator) were sitting in the other control seat (permissible under some conditions under 135), and the PIC says "Here, take the controls", is the passenger really violating the regulations by doing so? Can you show me anything in writing from either AGC or AFS, or any precedent case which suggests so?
