Dual given with an ATP

Calvin and Hobbs Meter

Calvin and Hobbs Meter

Well-Known Member
I've heard multiple people say they know it's possible to log dual given under an ATP even if that ATP isn't a CFI, but none of them can point the reg out so I can look into it, and I can't find it.

Point in case, I have never logged a single hour in the CJ2 that I fly right seat in (contract pay) when our customers want a second body in the cockpit (I'm typed in a different aircraft operated by the company). I've been directed to log the time in the CJ2 by multiple co-workers and friends, but the only way I would consider doing so is under the dual given scenario (signed off by the ATP pilot who is typed in the aircraft). I regularly takeoff and hand fly all of the empty legs until we are in RVSM in the CJ2.

Again I haven't logged a single hour, because mainly, I'm not legally allowed to log SIC (single pilot type aircraft), and I'm not typed. Second, often times when I am asked to ride along I do not have 3 take off and landings the the required 90 days in that airframe (which doesn't mean I can't fly from the right seat with a qualified person acting as PIC). Also, I never log anything other than "total flight experience" (vs "total experience"). I'm not racing to get hours at this point anyways, but would like to show that I have experience in that airframe.
 
61.167(b)




As far a "dual given" goes. There needs to some actual dual given going on. Some sort of training needs to be documented. This can happen in a few ways. The authorized ATP can endorse your logbook for the dual, or there might be some sort of company documentation. This is the most common.
 
Why not take one of those blank columns in your logbook and use it to keep track of that CJ2 time? Don't add it in any other column(s), and don't try to use it as anything other than what it is - a record of the time that you spent flying a CJ2 that cannot be logged anywhere else. Just make sure that you label it such that no one will accuse you of trying to slip one past them and there will never be an issue. The people that might have an interest in that time will appreciate knowing of your experience because they know that it will ease your transition through an initial type rating when compared to someone with similar total time that has never seen the front end of a business jet, and everyone else won't be impressed and won't care as long as you don't try to pass it off as something it is not.

I take that back - I suppose that there could be an issue somewhere down the road when someone is going over your logbook with a fine toothed comb, but I wouldn't want to work with/for that person anyway, and I'd suggest that you don't either.

Don't let people get you too wrapped around the axle about what you write in your logbook. It's YOUR logbook, go ahead and record anything and everything that you want. The only caveat is to make sure that you do not misrepresent anything as something it is not...ever.

edit to add: as an employer I would be more impressed with someone that had a resume that listed 200 hours of "unloggable CJ2" time than I would if it listed that same 200 hours as "dual given" in a CJ2. Don't try to stretch the truth and you will always come across better in the end.
 
Think of you logbook as your diary, nothing more nothing less. Today if I flew in the right seat of a CJ2 and performed the duties of an SIC, then that is exactly how I would log it (3.2 Jet, MEL, SIC).

The key is to make sure that no one can accuse you of logging something that you did not fly.
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
Well that's certainly a long, non cellphone friendly document :)
Click to expand...

Yep, and to add insult to injury, it is written by an organization (the FAA) that has a policy that all correspondence have a 7th grade reading level complexity. It makes me wonder if I skipped that grade or something.
 
Houston said:
If and only if you were a required crew member.
Click to expand...

Nope, I'll log whatever I want so long as I am not misrepresenting myself.

The only thing I need to log is 3 landings every 90 days and 6 approaches and a hold every 6 months. Everything else is for my personal amusement.
 
USMCmech said:
Nope, I'll log whatever I want so long as I am not misrepresenting myself.

The only thing I need to log is 3 landings every 90 days and 6 approaches and a hold every 6 months. Everything else is for my personal amusement.
Click to expand...

Those are two unrelated statements and the first one would be falsification if you are not a required crew member. The second one has nothing to do with what I wrote.
 
Houston said:
,, the first one would be falsification if you are not a required crew member.
Click to expand...

according to whom?

You can log anything you want, even 777 passenger time, in your logbook. The only way you will run affowl of the feds is if you use (or can be accused of intending to use) that time towards a certificate or rating.
 
Houston said:
........ and you base that opinion on what?
Click to expand...

You can "keep track" of what ever you want in your logbook. As long as it's clearly stated and doesn't falsely state compliance or currency.

If you get caught lying on an airman application, you could say goodbye to your certificates... Claiming ignorance doesn't work either. I ended up working for a company because the applicant before me did just that. He was combining his ATP initial with his 135.293 and got popped by the FAA inspector giving the check ride. Out of his appx. 500 hrs ME, 300 of which was claimed as SIC. The ME SIC time turned out to be in a C90, while operating pt 91. He was not a safety pilot.... They got him on 61.59 and revoked his certificates.

I didn't believe it either until I spoke to the inspector who did it. His reasoning was that if he was applying for the ATP rating, he should know better. Claiming ignorance and that the "captain said it was OK" was not a demonstration of "good moral character". I think the guy's attitude might have played a part in the ordeal from what it sounded like.
 
TwoTwoLeft said:
Out of his appx. 500 hrs ME, 300 of which was claimed as SIC. The ME SIC time turned out to be in a C90, while operating pt 91. He was not a safety pilot.... They got him on 61.59 and revoked his certificates.
Click to expand...

To add to your post, there is absolutely nothing wrong with recording your time in the right seat of a C90. Where this guy went wrong was using it toward a certificate, or misrepresenting himself as PIC when he wasn't.
 
USMCmech said:
To add to your post, there is absolutely nothing wrong with recording your time in the right seat of a C90. Where this guy went wrong was using it toward a certificate, or misrepresenting himself as PIC when he wasn't.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The funny part is that he actually put the time in the SIC column of the 8710... That's what tipped the inspector off to start digging through his logbook.
 
USMCmech said:
according to whom?

You can log anything you want, even 777 passenger time, in your logbook. The only way you will run affowl of the feds is if you use (or can be accused of intending to use) that time towards a certificate or rating.
Click to expand...

14 CFR 61.59(a)(2).

Yes, you can put passenger time in your logbook. That is not a false entry. You just can't record fictitious SIC or any other kind of time in there.

Whether you would "run affowl" (or afoul) of the feds (i.e., get caught) is not the question. There are a great many things a person can do and not get caught.
 
TwoTwoLeft said:
You can "keep track" of what ever you want in your logbook. As long as it's clearly stated and doesn't falsely state compliance or currency.

If you get caught lying on an airman application, you could say goodbye to your certificates... Claiming ignorance doesn't work either. I ended up working for a company because the applicant before me did just that. He was combining his ATP initial with his 135.293 and got popped by the FAA inspector giving the check ride. Out of his appx. 500 hrs ME, 300 of which was claimed as SIC. The ME SIC time turned out to be in a C90, while operating pt 91. He was not a safety pilot.... They got him on 61.59 and revoked his certificates.

I didn't believe it either until I spoke to the inspector who did it. His reasoning was that if he was applying for the ATP rating, he should know better. Claiming ignorance and that the "captain said it was OK" was not a demonstration of "good moral character". I think the guy's attitude might have played a part in the ordeal from what it sounded like.
Click to expand...

You are correct that you can keep track of whatever you want in a logbook as long as it isn't a false entry. However, when someone makes an intentional false entry, regardless of what they do with it after that, they are in violation of 14 CFR 61.59(a)(2).

As far as the story of the C90 issue, I suspect there was more to it than met the eye. I find that many one sided stories do something akin to an aileron roll when you hear the other side of the story. I suspect your observation regarding an attitude issue played into the story. However, even if the inspector went forward with a falsification enforcement, my bet would be that the enforcement would not have stuck if the airman has pursued a defense. In fact, I'd bet there isn't an FAA lawyer anywhere who would take a case like that to court.

That is my bet under the way things used to be. However, the cases discussed in this link:

http://www.aerolegalservices.com/Ar...st Intentional Falsification 2009-12-29.shtml

have caused a bit of a sea change in the assumptions regarding "intentional."
 
So, the takeaway is, you can put something in your logbook that doesn't fit with the regs so long as no one (especially the faa) looking at it, without explanation from you, will think it counts for anything. Not certificates, not ratings, not currency, not qualification.

So, I guess it's ok to think of your logbook as a diary or scrapbook. My question is, why bother?
 
Houston said:
That is my bet under the way things used to be. However, the cases discussed in this link:

http://www.aerolegalservices.com/Ar...st Intentional Falsification 2009-12-29.shtml

have caused a bit of a sea change in the assumptions regarding "intentional."
Click to expand...

Not that much. The Court applied a generally-accepted standard for specific intent. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the pilot was ultimately violated in both cases.

As Greg said in his comment
What does this mean for airmen? Well, neither of these cases precludes an ALJ or the NTSB from finding that an airman did, in fact, understand that a question required a "yes" answer when the airman actually answered "no". Further, if an airman is successful in convincing an ALJ that he or she lacked intent, the Board may still reverse the ALJ's credibility determination, provided that it uses the appropriate standard, or the Board may make factual determinations contrary to those of the ALJ is they are supported by substantial evidence.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top