Logbook question

[Mr_Creepy]

Oh so now I'm feeble minded?

This is getting ridicuolous. It's like arguing with an answering machine.

This is my final statement and there will be no other replies from me on this subject:

Everything I said is true and backed up by recent experience, within the last 9 years. I became an ASC in 1994. I have been working at it very hard the last 2 years.

It is not a problem with "my recollection." I have an excellent memory, just ask my wife!

You may be considered PIC if you are the highest time CFI in the aircraft, even if in the back seat.

End of statement.

 

[EatSleepFly]

[ QUOTE ]
You may be considered PIC if you are the highest time CFI in the aircraft, even if in the back seat.


[/ QUOTE ]

This statement just blows my mind. It just seems utterly rediculous to me.

And I apologize, I did not mean to be disrespectful. I think you are getting un-necessarily defensive. Can you really expect me/us to sit here and believe something you are saying that seemingly contradicts everything in the FAR's, without putting out any fact to back it up?

I can only see a couple of scenarios where what you are saying can happen:

1.) The guy in the back seat (the high time CFI) gave out bad endorsements to the other two pilots, or falsified records in some other way relating to them, and this only came to light as a direct result of investigation into the incident.

2.) 91.11- The guy in the back interfered with the other two in flight to cause the incident. Or somehow intimidated the other CFI into instructing the pilot to do something illegal.

3.) Or, as I said in #1, something else illegal that the back seater had done in relation to one or both of the other two pilots, that only came to light as a result of the investigation.

Other than that, I still don't believe it, and will continue not to until you, or at least someone, can prove it possible. We had this entire discussion at that seminar I referred to, and we were told, BY THE FAA, that only insurance companies, and other third parties could even attempt to take action against the most experienced pilot in the airplane- and even then, only lawsuits.

But, like you said, you're done posting on the subject. Why delve into something that could *potentially* (on the off chance that its possible) have an impact on someone's career, when you can just sit there and say "it can happen, because I say it can." ??

 

[ananoman]

One thing that some of you should realize is that the FAA is not necessarily there to help you. They have some very good employees who try very hard to do the right thing, and some not so good employees that can ruin your life. The biggest mistake a pilot can make (other than flying into a mountain) is to get into a 'heated dispute' with the FAA. Even if you win, it will cost you time and money you will never recover.

I cannot comment on the CFI in the back seat thing, since I have no knowledge of it. But there have been several recent cases that make the point well enough. Both were covered by AOPA.

The first involved a student who took an aircraft to the FAA for a checkride that was not equipped with brakes on the right side. This is common in older aircraft and these aircraft have long been found to comply with the 'dual controls' rule for checkrides. The flight school who owned the aircraft was involved in a dispute with a local FAA inspector. When the student went on his checkride he was issued a pink slip (failure) for not bringing a suitable aircraft for his checkride. After several months and AOPA involvement, the FAA Chief Council issued the opinion that the aircraft did not require brakes in each pilot position. I am not sure what happened with the students record. It doubt the failure was removed.

The next example involved a University flight program. Issues were found with the maintenance records, so the FAA required the Chief Pilot to take a recertification ride (I believe they are called a '409 Ride'). He rightly protested that maintenance records had nothing to do with pilot competency and that the ride was not warranted. Since the FAA lost this battle they proceded to try to take other action against him over improperly giving a multi-engine checkride The FAA claimed he was not qualified to give the checkride. He was a designated examiner and I never found out if there was any truth to this. The pilot later crashed a Citation and was killed. His wife said he was complaining of fatigue and was being persecuted by the FAA. While the crash can only be blamed on the pilot (That whole IM SAFE thing) who should not have been flying if he was that tired, the GAO investigated the incident and found the FAA at fault. They blamed the FAA for improperly harrasing the pilot.

The CFI story may be an Urban Legend, but I would not be so quick to discount it. Even if there is no paperwork to support it. It is not uncommon to 'take a plea' just like in criminal cases to avoid a very unpleasant sanction. If you look at criminal court records, what someone is actually convicted of can have almost no relation to what they were originally charged with. If you are just riding in the back of an aircraft, it would be hard to believe this could happen. But, I do not think that it is entirely impossible.

 

[Mr_Creepy]

I had heard about that ER Citation guy. It's a 709 ride by the way. Years ago it was 609 but they promoted it