Logbook question

[PhotoPilot]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One more note: If you are a CFI, are qualified in the aircraft and you can reach the controls, even from the back seat - you will be considered as PIC in the court case following any accident or incident.


[/ QUOTE ]Do you have a reference for that other than the well-known urban legend?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't know if this is what you were looking for, but:

61.51 (e)(3)

An authorized instructor may log pilot-in-command time all flight time while acting as an authorized instructor.

I assume that this means you can log all instructional time as PIC, but if you are not ACTING as an instructor, you are not able to log, nor are you considered, PIC unless you meet the other requirements for PIC as described in the FARs. I doubt that a pilot in the backseat, instructor or not, would in any way qualify as PIC according to the FAA.

That said, a jury of our "peers" might see things in a different light. I suppose that it's possible an instructor could be held to a higher standard by a court and therefore be responsible in situations beyond the scope of the FARs . . .

-PhotoPilot

 

[Mr_Creepy]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have a reference for that other than the well-known urban legend?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen it in several court cases involving friends of mine. It's not an urban legend, ask your insurance agent.

 

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
Recently I made an attempt to complete my long solo xc. I got about 10 miles from my first destination and had to divert back to my origin aiport because of low clouds at the destination. (The distance I covered was about 60 miles each way, so I know I have the distance requirement down)
My question is if I can log the time as cross country time even though I did not land at the intended airport and had to divert to my home field?

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you trying to do? You took off and landed at the same field. Not XC. In fact, if you wanna get technical, the Voyager's flight around the world wasn't loggable as XC.

 

[EatSleepFly]

Yeah, I wonder if the FAA was at least decent enough to waiver that for them...

 

[DanTheMan]

Wonder how you would find that out. Anyone have Burt Rutan's phone number?

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have a reference for that other than the well-known urban legend?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen it in several court cases involving friends of mine.

[/ QUOTE ]Several? And all involving people you know personally? Must be pretty common. Name one. Some paperwork? Specific circumstances? Link to online site that has an academic legal discussion of the issues raised? Westlaw or Lexis cite? Lower court case number? NTSB report? Law review? Aviation periodical?

I've seen this "case" discussed for about 10 years not and no one has ever pointed to it.

 

[Mr_Creepy]

I will not discuss details of any FAA board of review cases on a public forum. I do not have written permission from anyone involved.

Here is a brief synopsis of one of the incidents:

Two CFI's were flying in the back of a six-seat single while the owner and another CFI were in the front. They were flying around building time. The owner made a bad landing and had a runway excursion. The aircraft received damage to the landing gear, prop and engine. The CFI with the most hours (in the back) was fined, and all three were charged with the incident.

I know about this particular case because I gave counseling to the three CFIs afterwards, as an ASC.

If lawyerese doesn't cover ASC, it means "Aviation Safety Counselor."

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

[ QUOTE ]

Here is a brief synopsis of one of the incidents:

Two CFI's were flying in the back of a six-seat single while the owner and another CFI were in the front. They were flying around building time.

[/ QUOTE ]Don't tell me. The three got together before hand and came up with a scheme to allow all three of them to log time. The owner was under the hood and got to log PIC by being sole manipulator. The CFI in the right seat wasn't giving instruction; he was just acting as PIC/Safety Pilot and logging PIC as that. The CFI in the back took on the role of "instructor" for the flight so he could log PIC as well.

They had an accident, the FAA put it all together and zapped the CFIs for being a$$holes.

Am I close?

If I am, that doesn't stand for the proposition that a CFI's ticket is in danger whenever he gets into an airplane. It stands for the proposition that people who are jerks sometimes get what they deserve.

 

[Mr_Creepy]

No you are not close.

They were alternating giving instruction and only logging the time they were in the front seat.

I have said enough.

 

[EatSleepFly]

I can see how an insurance company, or lawsuit could go after the high time guy in the back seat, but the FAA? That doesn't make much sense. We had an FAA seminar up here recently for CFI's, and part of it dealt with CFI liability. They studied a similar case in which several other parties went after the high time guy with lawsuits, but the FAA could not take enforcement action against him, as he is essentially a passenger. I'm not saying you are wrong, it just doesn't make sense to me- what grounds does the FAA have to take enforcement action on a passenger, unless it is a violation of 91.11 or something like that?

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

[ QUOTE ]
I can see how an insurance company, or lawsuit could go after the high time guy in the back seat, but the FAA? That doesn't make much sense.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree. The story sounds like a load of BS. Obviously it's not a reported decision or there wouldn't be any privacy issues surrounding it*. If it isn't BS, most likely (1) either these where a bunch of CFIs who were trying to get away with something and got caught or (2) they ran into the FSDO equivalent of the cop on the beat who harass people just for the heck of it and caved in.

There are enough highly qualified people out there who are unnecessarily afraid of being active CFIs because of imaginary liability issues (there are, of course, a few real ones) without adding more nonsense.

*And even with privacy issues, there's no reason to not go into detail as to what actually happened, unless, of course, the situation was so unusual that everyone would recognize who was being talked about.

 

[Mr_Creepy]

MidlifeFlyer, you may choose to disclose client's confidential information but I don't. What's more, I don't appreciate your language or your attitude. At any rate, I don't feel any pressing need to tell you any details.

I'm not discouraging CFIs. Just remember that once you are a CFI you stay a CFI until your certificate expires, etc.

I'm an active CFI and I don't let it deter me. I have arranged a liability policy with my insurance agent and it was not nearly as expensive as I had feared.

I recommend you talk to an aviation insurance agent about CFI liability. You will be surprised at how affordable it is.

ESF, it truly was the FAA. If you have been in any FAA proceedings (and I have been in too many) you will see that they do a "shotgun" approach of issuing violations for every single incident of every FAR (or 14 CFR) that they even think might have been violated. Then they settle on just one or two. This particular CFI was fined $10,000 (later reduced to $2,000) and all four pilots involved were charged with the accident. I was told there was a lot of discussion as to how the two CFIs in the back could be responsible, but I was not in that particular conference, so I cannot tell you how that went. I was there only as ASC, so I was in the preliminary hearing and the disciplinary hearing that followed.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Sorry you don't appreciate my disbelief in the situation you describe as an example of anything other than a bunch of CFIs trying to mess with the system and getting exactly what they deserved. The initial $10,000 fine levied says everything that needs to be said about the situation. And there's a pretty good chance that I know at least as much about confidentiality issues as you do.

Of course I have CFI insurance. Had it since the day I became one.

 

[Mr_Creepy]

No, I don't appreciate being called a liar by someone with a foul mouth.

I don't think anyone would, do you?

 

[EatSleepFly]

Well, I'm not going to say your wrong, because then I feel obligated to prove my point, and I'm busy today. I will just say that I'm sorry, I still can't believe that. And since you're not willing to disclose any details, I guess that its going to stay that way.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I don't appreciate being called a liar by someone with a foul mouth.I don't think anyone would, do you?

[/ QUOTE ]Sorry, but[ QUOTE ]
One more note: If you are a CFI, are qualified in the aircraft and you can reach the controls, even from the back seat - you will be considered as PIC in the court case following any accident or incident. (emphasis added)

[/ QUOTE ] definitely sounds like an unqualified statement that a CFI who just happened to be innocently taking a ride in an airplane as a pure passenger is not only at risk but certain to be held accountable for anything that happens in the airplane, just because he happens to be a CFI. I'm sure that I was not the only one who read your statement that way.

Following it up with [ QUOTE ]
I've seen it in several court cases involving friends of mine.

[/ QUOTE ] goes no to suggest that this poor innocent CFI being wrongly accused is a real big problem.

On the other hand, everything you posted after being pressed for details indicates that there was one case (and not a court case nor even an adminitrative proceeding that made it far enough in the process to reach the status of a public record) in which a group of CFIs tried to mess with the system and got caught.

Sorry to offend you, but I find that just a wee bit misleading.

 

[EatSleepFly]

[ QUOTE ]
One more note: If you are a CFI, are qualified in the aircraft and you can reach the controls, even from the back seat - you will be considered as PIC in the court case following any accident or incident.


[/ QUOTE ]

By the way, you are contradicting yourself. I'd like to see someone reach the rudder pedals from the backseat.

I agree with MidlifeFlyer, I've heard this one before too, and never seen it. Sounds like a load of B.S. to me.

 

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One more note: If you are a CFI, are qualified in the aircraft and you can reach the controls, even from the back seat - you will be considered as PIC in the court case following any accident or incident.


[/ QUOTE ]

By the way, you are contradicting yourself. I'd like to see someone reach the rudder pedals from the backseat.

I agree with MidlifeFlyer, I've heard this one before too, and never seen it. Sounds like a load of B.S. to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Makes one glad to only fly a single-seat aircraft.

 

[Mr_Creepy]

So you are calling me a liar! Ok well now that we have that out of the way ...

I see no contradictions in what I said. Yes, if you are a CFI riding in the backseat of a small airplane which you are current and qualified in, you may be held liable for any adverse actions. That is the point I am making. Get it?

The lawyers and the FAA (or the FAA's lawyers, more to the point) will pursue action and liability against all qualified pilots on board, as long as they can reach a yoke or a throttle. Rudder pedals don't count! I've seen it more than once.

Whether you choose to believe me is up to you.

On the other hand, maybe I'm a psycho who likes to make up awful stories? I don't think so! But obviously you do! Hello? Anyone awake upstairs?

EFS I was not aiming any remarks at you. You were (until the last post) quite polite and respectful, which sets you apart from someone else in this conversation!

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

[ QUOTE ]
So you are calling me a liar!

[/ QUOTE ]Not necessarily. It's possible for someone to be honestly mistaken in their recollection of events. Or, someone can look at a set of facts and a result and reach an inaccurate legal conclusion that he honestly believes. All I saw was an absolute assertion that a CFI in an airplane =will= be treated as PIC and =will= be held accountable for anything that happens in it, whether the CFI was in any way involved or not.

I did not believe that this was a correct statement of any existing legal principle or FAA reality. I still don't. The few details that you have given us have not convinced me that your assertion was accurate. Quite the opposite, for some of the reasons I and others have mentioned, as well as others.

I'm not a mind reader. Only you know whether your statement was based on an honest misinterpretation or was intentionally misleading.