Logging Time as an Instructor with a Friend as a Pictomertry Pilot

snOOp

snOOp

Well-Known Member
I joined in a discussion between 3 pilots who were having a discussion about logging Flight Instructor Time.

A flight instructor and his friend worked at a pictometry vendor flying Cessna 210s, in which they flew many flights together. One pilot was a commercial pilot who had no CFI certificates, and the other was a qualified CFI and commercial pilot. The CFI would log the flights as Dual given and PIC, while the commercial pilot logged the flights as PIC and Dual Received. The CFI would assist his friend, answer radios, and aid in decision making when monitoring from the right seat.

I found this scenario interesting, but was curious if this would be legal and a moral way of building flight time?
 
As long as dual received was logged and the CFI signed off on it, it's legal.

As for moral, I'd say no unless they were really doing some proficiency exercises in that time. It sounds to me like they are abusing a very good regulation.
 
14 CFR 61.51 (e) (3) says:

A certificated flight instructor may log pilot in command flight time for all flight time while serving as the authorized instructor in an operation if the instructor is rated to act as pilot in command of that aircraft.

So the question would be, was the CFI serving as an instructor or not. Where that line exists is certainly open for debate. One element would be if the CFI signed th other pilot's logbook IAW 14 CFR 61.51 (h)(1) and (2) and 14 CFR 61.189 (a).

Moral? Well, that is also a subjective question.
 
snOOp said:
I joined in a discussion between 3 pilots who were having a discussion about logging Flight Instructor Time.

A flight instructor and his friend worked at a pictometry vendor flying Cessna 210s, in which they flew many flights together. One pilot was a commercial pilot who had no CFI certificates, and the other was a qualified CFI and commercial pilot. The CFI would log the flights as Dual given and PIC, while the commercial pilot logged the flights as PIC and Dual Received. The CFI would assist his friend, answer radios, and aid in decision making when monitoring from the right seat.

I found this scenario interesting, but was curious if this would be legal and a moral way of building flight time?
Click to expand...
Well since pictometry vendors all fly 172's with a couple pa23's thrown in... and single pilot at that. I'd say ever hour of 210 time they logged is BS. Either of them.
 
HAHAHAHA, they're both full of it! The pictometry rig would not work in a 210, unless they changed the setup. :)

Either way, if that situation actually happened. Who gives a crap? Just log it. There's a saying in the survey world. "Fly when you can, log what you need" :D
 
UAL747400 said:
Either way, if that situation actually happened. Who gives a crap? Just log it. There's a saying in the flying. "Fly when you can, log what you need" :D
Click to expand...
FTFY :eek:

But ya, if you're going to make crap up, at least make it possible to have happened.
 
Lol yeh it was definitely an interesting discussion.

"Either way, if that situation actually happened. Who gives a crap? Just log it. There's a saying in the survey world. "Fly when you can, log what you need" :D[/quote]

That quote is pretty awesome :bounce:
 
Logging too much consecutive dual received time doesn't make you look good in an interview.
 
Were they working towards a rating or giving actual instruction for something like camera system training, IPC/BFR? If not, then it's really not an excuse to log dual given.

We have this same problem at our company. No way for the person in the right seat to log dual given unless there's actual instruction going on. You could almost claim safety pilot time, but you'd have to put the PIC under the hood while you're shooting photo missions.

I tried a few times to get an interpretation from our FSDO concerning this. I asked that since it's a company requirement to have two pilots in a single pilot aircraft for safety reasons, could the PM log the time under TT but not PIC? I got an answer back saying that there is no way to legally do this.

That being said, we've had pilots log all the time they ever sat in one of our 206's as PM. Have they moved on and done just fine with no inquiries into their logbooks, you bet. It comes down to a moral issue. If I logged all of my right seat 206 time, I'd have another 800hrs under my belt. Unfortunately, I don't feel right doing that.
 
snOOp said:
Lol yeh it was definitely an interesting discussion.

"Either way, if that situation actually happened. Who gives a crap? Just log it. There's a saying in the survey world. "Fly when you can, log what you need" :D
Click to expand...

That quote is pretty awesome :bounce:[/quote]

"Yeah, sure, I shot 3 approaches today for currency!" :)
 
During my photo flying I actually added an extra column to my logbook and titled it "Pilot Monitoring". I kept track of how long the flight was and where we took off and landed. I didn't include it in total time or any other column even though I'm a CFI. It was for my own edification and not actually added anywhere for applications. Put what you want in your logbook, but I think that 400+ hours of dual given on photo flights would raise a red flag during an interview.
 
Landis said:
During my photo flying I actually added an extra column to my logbook and titled it "Pilot Monitoring". I kept track of how long the flight was and where we took off and landed. I didn't include it in total time or any other column even though I'm a CFI. It was for my own edification and not actually added anywhere for applications. Put what you want in your logbook, but I think that 400+ hours of dual given on photo flights would raise a red flag during an interview.
Click to expand...
...and THE OPERATOR required your presence.
 
Tux_1987 said:
couldn't you log SIC time then? 61.51 & 61.55 at least how i would interpret those 2.
Click to expand...

(f) Logging second-in-command flight time. A person may log second-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person:
(1) Is qualified in accordance with the second-in-command requirements of §61.55 of this part, and occupies a crewmember station in an aircraft that requires more than one pilot by the aircraft's type certificate; or​
(2) Holds the appropriate category, class, and instrument rating (if an instrument rating is required for the flight) for the aircraft being flown, and more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted.​

None of those apply to a second pilot flying survey. The aircraft doesn't require a second pilot and the regulations being operated under dont require a second pilot, so no.

 
rframe said:
(f) Logging second-in-command flight time. A person may log second-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person:
(1) Is qualified in accordance with the second-in-command requirements of §61.55 of this part, and occupies a crewmember station in an aircraft that requires more than one pilot by the aircraft's type certificate; or​
(2) Holds the appropriate category, class, and instrument rating (if an instrument rating is required for the flight) for the aircraft being flown, and more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted.​

None of those apply to a second pilot flying survey. The aircraft doesn't require a second pilot and the regulations being operated under dont require a second pilot, so no.
Click to expand...

What rframe said is exactly what the FSDO told me. There is no way getting around it. Sitting right seat while shooting photo missions in a single pilot aircraft is not log-able time.
 
I never log instruction unless I'm actually instructing, with at least some educational objective and plan for the lesson.

The reg states "while serving as the authorized instructor in an operation..." Using a ridiculously loose notion of what it means to "serve" as an authorized instructor in order to log the time strikes me as fraudulent in a definitional sense, even though it's permitted categorically.

Last I checked, CFIs routinely struggle for professional respect and treatment, and therefore are often in the position of having to argue that their services are indeed professional and valuable. Applying a minimal standard of what it means to be an instructor just in order to log some time is not consistent with this reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top