2 CFIs getting night current together

G

Goatsac

Well-Known Member
We have to maintain currency at the school I teach at and it is up to us to fit it in our schedules. My question is this: If 2 CFIs need to get night current and neither one is, would the one not flying at the time be considered a passenger and thus prohibited from the flight?

I have found the letter from the FAA regarding currency toward teaching while not current but nothing about the above mentioned scenario.

My chief needs an official source, with FAA letterhead, to change this policy.

Has anyone seen this floating around or heard of this question asked before?
 
You are either giving dual or you are not. If you are not then the other person is a passenger, dont care what their ratings are.
 
word302 said:
If you want to get current with another instructor, one of you needs to log dual given, and the other dual received. Then you don't have to worry about currency, as a student is not considered a passenger.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with this interpretation. Unfortunately, I don't work for the FAA, and I doubt word302 does either. It would be a great question to send to the FAA though. That's probably the only way you'll get something official.
 
Chief Captain said:
I tend to agree with this interpretation. Unfortunately, I don't work for the FAA, and I doubt word302 does either. It would be a great question to send to the FAA though. That's probably the only way you'll get something official.
Click to expand...

??? I think it's pretty cut and dry in the regs. Students are not passengers. What could possibly be wrong with one cfi showing another a few tricks in the pattern? I have a hard time finding any interpretation of the regs where this could be questioned.
 
Yeah this is how we do it. Generally we try to keep currency before it actually expires. However, two instructors will get 1.2 hours in an airplane. The two instructors split it up into 0.6 hours each. During the first 0.6, one instructor is flying, the other instructing. Then the roles switch. I have to admit, I always enjoy the currency flights, especially when I get to get my multi-engine currency and single engine currency back to back in the same night. It's generally the most stick time I get in the last...90 days! :D

As long as you do your landings before your currency expires, then neither of the instructors have to worry about it.
 
If the OP is referencing the LOI that I've seen (with the 2nd student in the back seat), then they ruled that the 2nd student is not actively receiving instruction, and is thus a passenger. I wouldn't want to be in a situation where I have to defend my reading of the regs. Like I said, I agree with you, but it would be nice to have this sort of thing in writing.
 
word302 said:
??? I think it's pretty cut and dry in the regs. Students are not passengers. What could possibly be wrong with one cfi showing another a few tricks in the pattern? I have a hard time finding any interpretation of the regs where this could be questioned.
Click to expand...
(Underlined text) Nothing. But is that what they are doing? It's certainly not what the OP asked.

The only concern I can think of offhand is (if the issue came up at all) is a view by the FAA that this was not really an instructional flight - that it was nothing but two pilots trying to get current together and calling it "instruction" to get around the need to go up separately.

A "bogus instruction" enforcement action would be rare but it has happened in extreme circumstances - the two CFIs who built mufti time by giving a whole lot of "instruction" to each other on a regular basis so that they could both log it comes to mind.

Personally, I think it's a great idea for 2 CFIs to share the ride for currency. But why wait until after currency for both expired? Why not when at least one of them was on day 89?
 
If you're just worried about teaching students at night, legally, I don't think either one of you needs to be current. If you're flying passengers at night, well then someone who is able to PIC has to be current (usually the instructor, unless the student is a rated pilot).

Legal vs. Safe, right?
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
A "bogus instruction" enforcement action would be rare but it has happened in extreme circumstances - the two CFIs who built mufti time by giving a whole lot of "instruction" to each other on a regular basis so that they could both log it comes to mind.
Click to expand...

I agree except I've never seen an enforcement of two CFI's flying together and calling it training. I'm not saying it has never happened, but I've never seen it and I can't imagine the FAA being concerned about it enough to attempt enforcement. What I have seen done is the 134 and a half operator who will give anyone instruction from A to B of their choosing. That is the more relative enforcement event.
 
Houston said:
I agree except I've never seen an enforcement of two CFI's flying together and calling it training.
Click to expand...
I thought you were familiar with the multi case I mentioned. It's been cited in a few posts here and there. Here it is: http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4008.PDF

==============================

The falsification charges resulted from the examination of both respondents' logbooks by FAA aviation inspector Donald Bennett during the investigation of an accident that occurred on 10 April 1992 involving respondents' Piper Apache aircraft. The inspector testified that the two logbooks were mirror-images of each other for over 200 flights. Both respondents were listed as pilot-in-command (PIC) for these flights and it was unclear when, whether, and what type of flight instruction was given.

Respondents testified that they were co-owners of the aircraft, N3494P, and always flew the aircraft together, splitting the time 50/50, in an effort to build PIC time. They also flew together and logged identical time in a Mooney M20E, N6933U. They asserted that the act of logging identical PIC time on each flight was permissible since when one was operating the controls of the aircraft, the other was instructing.
==============================

The NTSB report of the accident is here: http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/AccidentReports/wqemvfjqv3oeuo3upyfjco551/O01282013120000.pdf

You can see why I referred to "extreme circumstances." I've always wondered what the back-story was., even with the ice encounter. Maybe there was a really bad attitude by the one (or both?) after the accident. Maybe they had different stories about which one was playing "instructor" on this flight.

There's a lot of logbook issues that the FAA is not likely to be concerned about - unless something happens to make the FAA take notice. In which case, all bets are off and, depending on what happened and the pilots' attitude toward it, the FAA might choose to take the revocation path - which is the standard penalty for logbook falsification (and what happened to both of those CFIs).
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
Personally, I think it's a great idea for 2 CFIs to share the ride for currency. But why wait until after currency for both expired? Why not when at least one of them was on day 89?
Click to expand...

Why not just make the policy such that non-night-current instructors must regain currency with an instructor? Solves your problem right there (you could not longer make a case that the CFI was not giving instruction).

Nothing in the regs says I can't be more comfortable regaining currency with an instructor (even if it is not required). I can't imagine the FAA having an issue with an out-of-currency pilot (instructor, or not) preferring to regain currency with an instructor there.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
Why not just make the policy such that non-night-current instructors must regain currency with an instructor? Solves your problem right there (you could not longer make a case that the CFI was not giving instruction).

Nothing in the regs says I can't be more comfortable regaining currency with an instructor (even if it is not required). I can't imagine the FAA having an issue with an out-of-currency pilot (instructor, or not) preferring to regain currency with an instructor there.
Click to expand...
I pretty much agree, which is why I point this out as a potential issue to be aware of. Although I'm not as confident as you that a policy statement is a guarantied pass if one of those "extreme circumstances" comes up.
 
If there are two CFI's on board, just make sure one logs it as dual given and signs the other one's log book. Demonstrate 3, then the other guy flies 3... reminder discussions on the issues regarding night flight and quiz each other on lighting systems while on the downwind, .6 in the book and everyone's happy and legal. Simple.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
I thought you were familiar with the multi case I mentioned. It's been cited in a few posts here and there. Here it is: http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4008.PDF

==============================

The falsification charges resulted from the examination of both respondents' logbooks by FAA aviation inspector Donald Bennett during the investigation of an accident that occurred on 10 April 1992 involving respondents' Piper Apache aircraft. The inspector testified that the two logbooks were mirror-images of each other for over 200 flights. Both respondents were listed as pilot-in-command (PIC) for these flights and it was unclear when, whether, and what type of flight instruction was given.

Respondents testified that they were co-owners of the aircraft, N3494P, and always flew the aircraft together, splitting the time 50/50, in an effort to build PIC time. They also flew together and logged identical time in a Mooney M20E, N6933U. They asserted that the act of logging identical PIC time on each flight was permissible since when one was operating the controls of the aircraft, the other was instructing.
==============================

The NTSB report of the accident is here: http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/AccidentReports/wqemvfjqv3oeuo3upyfjco551/O01282013120000.pdf

You can see why I referred to "extreme circumstances." I've always wondered what the back-story was., even with the ice encounter. Maybe there was a really bad attitude by the one (or both?) after the accident. Maybe they had different stories about which one was playing "instructor" on this flight.

There's a lot of logbook issues that the FAA is not likely to be concerned about - unless something happens to make the FAA take notice. In which case, all bets are off and, depending on what happened and the pilots' attitude toward it, the FAA might choose to take the revocation path - which is the standard penalty for logbook falsification (and what happened to both of those CFIs).
Click to expand...

It seems to me like the FAA would have been OK with scenario if it had been properly logged. If they were mirror images, that means that they were both logging dual given. I can only guess, but maybe if they logged it and documented the training they were doing, it wouldn't have been an issue.
 
mojo6911 said:
It seems to me like the FAA would have been OK with scenario if it had been properly logged. If they were mirror images, that means that they were both logging dual given. I can only guess, but maybe if they logged it and documented the training they were doing, it wouldn't have been an issue.
Click to expand...
I know folks have read it that way. My own speculation based on reading this kind of stuff for a long time is that making the proper entries for the 200 shared instructional flights would have made no difference in the outcome. IOW it's not a "form" case, it's a "substance" one.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
Here it is: http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4008.PDF
Click to expand...
Thanks for the references to the case and the accident and thanks for taking the time to answer my question so thoroughly.

There is no doubt that there are some things that are definitely going to be a violation and some things that are definitely not going to be a violation and a whole lot of "it depends" between those two extremes. I suspect, as you suggested, that there is more to the story than what one reads on the surface.[/quote]
 
I recently got night current in a friend's Cherokee with a private pilot. I gave him dual (and it was real dual, I made him do one of them with a simulated electrical failure and quizzed him on the procedures at our airport after the tower closes before we went), he did 3 and I demonstrated 3 and we both left night current.
 
Just go get night current on your own. If your school has a policy that you have to stay current, and is forcing you to do it with another CFI, it raises red flags for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top