Horror Stories

[ QUOTE ]
On a side note, I personally will only log a landing if I actually have the controls, or if I had to take control in order to save a landing.

[/ QUOTE ]Good idea since that's what the regulation specifically requires : "sole manipulator of the controls" in order to count a landing for currency purposes.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems that the point came up that the pilots were logging Hobbs time and the judge (again, he was not a pilot) thought they should only be allowed to log engine tachometer time.

[/ QUOTE ]Nah. I've read the case. There's no reference to a Hobbs meter even being in the airplane.

Besides, the discrepancies between tach time and logged time, although talked about, really has little to do with the case. It really involves two CFIs who came up with a strategy for building flight time - they did over 200 flights together in which they each always logged PIC time for the whole flight. They claimed this was okay because whenever they weren't flying they were instructing each other. Of course, they couldn't come up with a good reason why two highly proficient pilots intimately familiar with the airplanes, needed so much instruction from each other (you'd think aftyer all that unsuccessful instruction, they'd get a new CFI to make them into better pilots). And it certainly didn't help that they never logged dual until they started changing entries after they were caught!

http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4008.PDF
 
Actually, that is the case I was refering to earlier. I somehow replaced the Traumahawk with a Katana, look a lot alike, never mind the fact that the Katana didn't exist back then!
grin.gif
You'll notice if you look back at my post that I also mentioned the fact that the CFI was exhonerated in the end.

I think you are missing the point of the original question, can one be violated even when not acting as an instructor. The CFI in this situation may have ultimately been let off the hook, but he was in fact violated, suspended, and had to appeal twice in order to win in the end. That's certainly an emotional, stressful, and financial horror story in my book, even if he won in the end!

The point I'm trying to make is that regardless of what the situation may appear to be at first, these things, like this thread, take on a life of their own, and when outside parties, meaning inspectors, attorneys, civil law judges, etc. get involved what started as an understanding between two friends can become something else entirely. As a sensible professional in any business it is important to look at the actual risk involved in a situation, balance the risk against the benefit, and then do everything you reasonably can to protect yourself without getting crazy about it.

In the other case the reference to the Hobbs meter is again my own substitution for the "clock time" in Yodice's article. The judge did not agree with the logging of "clock time" which is the same as "Hobbs Time". Hobbs time is in essence clock time since a "Hobbs" meter is nothing but a clock device connected to the master switch or an oil pressure sensor. Tach time is usually based on the engine developing enough RPM to activate the timer or a squat switch on the gear. The whole clock time issue was only a small part of the overall case and did not make it into the legal brief published by the court.

The final NTSB case briefings you are looking at are very straight forward, sterile descriptions of the ultimate outcome, Yodice gave a little more insight. If you have ever had the misfortune to be involved in one of these cases, in any capacity, you have seen the effect it has on the lives of the accused.

The moral of the story is the same: be careful, be thorough, follow the regs, document, document, document, and have fun (If there's time left)
smirk.gif
!

Mark-I agree 100% with your statement about 135 operators, it's a shame. I'll try to be more careful in the future too and not substitute items when making posts! I haven't gotten my new free sample of magic memory pills I ordered from that infomercial yet, at least not that I can recall!!!
insane.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think you are missing the point of the original question, can one be violated even when not acting as an instructor. The CFI in this situation may have ultimately been let off the hook, but he was in fact violated, suspended, and had to appeal twice in order to win in the end.

[/ QUOTE ]I understood the point. I cited a couple of NTSB reports myself that ilustrate it.

But my point about the case was that the case isn't about a CFI being treated as an instructor when he was not. The CFI in the Tomahawk case =was= acting as an instructor. Based on the facts that the decision refers to (I didn't listen to the evidence myself) there's no doubt about it.

Pilot: Gee. I'm new to this country. In my country we require checkouts whenever we fly a new type airplane.

CFI: Nah. In the US, we let people take airplanes all the time without being checked out of taking a lesson in them.

(If you know of any places in the US that will let you rent a Tomahawk when you only have 152 experience, let me know)

Pilot: Well, maybe. But I'm unfamiliar with the airplane, so would you go with me?

CFI: Sure. But just treat me like I don't know what I'm doing either. I'm not going to teach you squat about the airplane. I'm am not going to act as a CFI and this is in no way whatsoever an instructional flight.

Yeah, sure. For anyone who believes it happened that way, I understand Ken Lay still has a few shares of Enron he's trying to sell.
 
[ QUOTE ]
This might be an old urban legend, but I had to ask.

I've heard stories of CFIs riding as passengers in GA aircraft being violated after an accident, even though they weren't giving instruction on the flight. As a newly-minted CFI, this is kind of strange to hear (and a bit unnerving). Any truth to such reports?


[/ QUOTE ]
I had an instructor who was riding along in a Cherokee 235 as a passenger. On takeoff from a touch & go, the aircraft lost power and the PIC froze. My friend took the controls and got it on the ground, but they ran off the runway and into a ditch severing the front landing gear and one of the mains along with bending the prop pretty good.

The F.A.A. cited the PIC and NOT my buddy because as they saw it, he was only a passenger and was not acting in the capacity of an instructor.

The reason why the plane lost power? The PIC forgot to switch tanks = fuel starvation.
 
That CFI should have been given a commendation for saving the other guy's life!

If you can't tell yet, I've got waaaay too much time on my hands this weekend
grin.gif
!

Mark, what I was simply trying to show was case in which the CFI thought he had made it clear what his role was. The CFI's understanding was that he was only a passenger and agreed to accompany the other pilot in only that capacity. The CFI presumably wasn't paid for the flight and had no intention of logging dual or "signing off" an insurance proficiency check. So it could be arqued that in the instructor's mind, he was not acting in the professional capacity of a CFI. Would that not then make the CFI a passenger only. Nowhere in the FARS does it state that a 152 Commercial Pilot must recieve instruction to be qualified to be PIC in a Tomahawk. Interestingly enough, the FAA/NTSB agreed with the CFI that no check out was required, as the pilot was current and qualified in the class and category. The JAA pilot was familiar with the area, and had performed his FAA conversions with the school that operated the Tomahawk. The aircraft owner/flight school was prepared to let him fly the airplane back to their base on his own. AC checkouts are insurance mandated, not regulatory, when it comes to light, low performance, non-complex, single engine aircraft.

Again, I'm only playing Devils' Advocate and showing one example of a possible misunderstanding of passneger vs. CFI role.

I've never rented a Tomahawk myself, but two weeks ago I walked into a small, central Georgia airport FBO for the first time, and rented a C-172, without being asked for any ID, licenses, checkout, or logs. The woman running the desk simply asked me if I wanted a C-152, C-172 or a C-182. She pointed toward the ramp and said "Take your pick and go, we leave the keys in them all the time so you can just take one any time it's not scheduled."

Pretty handy for me, but kind of insane in this day and age.

Since we are using dramatic license, here's a different scenerio:

Flight school owner needs a way to get airplane back to school for revenue flights. Looks around, spots Yorgi Iwannaflyalot, 350 Commercial Pilot, working on CFI. Hmmmm, thinks owner, Yorgi's a bit of a moron (remembers what happened LAST time), but I've got to get this airplane back to the school.

Owner: Hey Yorgi! Would you fly this Tomahawk back over to the school for me.

Yorgi: Gee, I'd love to (free flight time, woohoo!), but I've never flown a Tomahawk.

Owner: No problem Yorgi, you've got 200 hours of 150 time, this thing flies just like a 150, you'll be fine and you'll be helping out of a jam.

Yorgi: Okay, your right, I'm a good pilot, I want to keep you happy because I want towork for you as a CFI soon, besides, what could go wrong???

Yorgi gets ready to leave and suddenly thinks "hey maybe this wasn't such a great idea." Yorgi finds CFI Bob hanging around the airport and asks CFI Bob to volunteer to come along with him and consider it a checkout.

CFI Bob: (Thinking to self-I've heard this guy's a moron and can't fly a paper airplane, ohboy) Yorgi, I'm kind of busy today, and after all, you don't need a checkout in that airplane.

Yorgi: Pleeeaaaase, I'd feel better if you came along, I've never flown a new model without a checkout before.

CFI Bob: (reluctantly) Well, alright, but I'm only going along to make you happy, this IS NOT an instructional flight or a checkout. (Thinking-no way I want my name in this guys logbook)

Yorgi proceeds to try to kill them while landing the airplane. CFI Bob takes over to save his bacon, like the above post. CFI Bob gets violated and has to make several appeals to clear his name.

Was CFI Bob just doing a fellow pilot a favor or was CFI Bob officially acting as an Instructor???

Before you say this wouldn't happen, I've been asked by a previous boss to sign off another instructor's solo student to fly an unfamiliar airplane, cross country, back to our airport from maintnenance.

I worked for another school that had a Piper Lance. At the time I had Warrior and Archer experience, but not Lance time. We had a customer come in that wanted a Lance checkout right away. My boss at the time, A DPE and Master CFI, told me to do the checkout. I didn't want to do to my lack of experience. My boss said "Don't be silly, you have a high performance endorsement, the Lance is just like a Warrior, just add 10kts to all your speeds and you'll be fine." It was made clear to me that refusing to go would be in direct conflict with my future as a CFI at that school.
 
[ QUOTE ]
If you can't tell yet, I've got waaaay too much time on my hands this weekend
grin.gif
!

[/ QUOTE ]We both do![ QUOTE ]
Mark, what I was simply trying to show was case in which the CFI thought he had made it clear what his role was. The CFI's understanding was that he was only a passenger and agreed to accompany the other pilot in only that capacity.

[/ QUOTE ]That is an excellent point. It also ties into the same kind of analysis as the NTSB case with the failed AI. Notice in the decision that what ultimately leads the NTSB to say that it was "more likely than not" that Strobel was acting a s CFI was the "student's" perception:

==============================
It seems clear from the facts in this case, even as related
by [Strobel, the CFI], that Mr. Lambon viewed the flight in question as a
check-out flight during which [Strobel] would be acting in the
capacity of a flight instructor. Notwithstanding that no such
check-out was required under the regulations, and that respondent
apparently did not want to serve as an instructor on the flight, [Strobel] ultimately relented and acceded to Lambon's request
and accompanied him on the flight. [Strobel] concedes that this
probably caused Mr. Lambon to believe that he was on board as an
instructor, and acknowledges that Mr. Lambon demonstrated several
maneuvers typical of a check-out ride.

Thus, despite respondent's reluctance, the preponderance of
the evidence indicates that [Strobel] was indeed serving as Mr.
Lambon's flight instructor during the flight in question.
==============================

It's not enough to make it clear to yourself that you are not acting as a CFI. It's absolutely necessary to make it clear to everyone else.
 
You know, even if you're jumpseating on an aircraft and they're involved in a violation, the FAA will most certainly violate you as well.

Probably be something like "Well, didn't you hear ATC give the flight a descent to 15,000?"

"Sure!"

"What did you do when they continued down to 11,000?"

"Nothing, I'm not flying the jet!"

"So you knowingly, as an extra crew member as per your jumpseat form says, allowed the flight crew to risk a loss of traffic seperation which could have resulted in thousands of lives?"

"Yup!"

"Hand 'em over! That's right, gimme the tickets!"
smile.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
You know, even if you're jumpseating on an aircraft and they're involved in a violation, the FAA will most certainly violate you as well.

[/ QUOTE ]That's what people think based on the urban legend. You're in the biz. Are you aware of one real case where this actually happened? (No, "well, my cousin's best friend has an aunt whose next door neighbor met a guy at a singles dance who said he had a roommate back in college who had a brother who was dating this girl who's grandfather was on a Greyhound from Cincinnati to Milwaukee and was sitting next to a guy who said...")
wink.gif
 
I dunno, more or less a professional assumption.

Can I cite a single case? I dunno, but feel free to google it!
smile.gif
 
We've talked about this before.

I am trying to remember the incident, but I believe it happened to a jumpseater on an American A300 as they descended in to San Juan. Apparently everyone on board thought it was international waters so they could exceed 250 kts below 10,000. All three crewmembers, including the jumpseater, were issued a letter from the FAA. I do not know if any violations resulted.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I am trying to remember the incident, but I believe it happened to a jumpseater on an American A300 as they descended in to San Juan. Apparently everyone on board thought it was international waters so they could exceed 250 kts below 10,000. All three crewmembers, including the jumpseater, were issued a letter from the FAA. I do not know if any violations resulted.

[/ QUOTE ]I have no doubt at all that letters of investigation would be sent to all occupants of the cockpit as part of the normal investigatory process, whether or not they were active crewmembers at the time of the flight. They were all either participants in or witnesses to the events.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top