Two CFIs logging Time

greezergriff7

greezergriff7

New Member
What do you guys think about two CFIs flying cross country and both logging the time? One flight one CFI log as dual given..next leg log it as dual received..both legs PIC. Is it legit or would it be the topic of laughter at an airline interview?
insane.gif
 
IMO, I'd go with the second one. Unless instruction is actually being given, then I don't see how you could legally log dual recieved/dual given. Now, if the other guy needed a BFR or an IPC, then it would be okay.
 
This is one of those many grey areas in the rules.

How experienced are each of you, what type of aircraft is it in, and what sort of conditions would you experience on the trip?

I once did an out and back IFR XC with a fellow CFI in an Arrow. I was legally instrument current, but not proficient. The other CFI had very low time in Arrows. He gave me dual on the first leg for IFR procedures, and I gave him dual on the return leg for Arrow systems operations. Both of us had legit reasons for being onboard.

Now, if you're both 2000 hour CFIs flying VFR in a 152, that would be a different story.

I would just make sure you have a remotely legit reason for logging it. I'd be liberal with the reason...going into busy airspace or unfamiliar airspace, for instance. Some small reason that would make you feel better having a CFI watch your back. Whatever the case, make sure you at least have _some_ reason to count it as instruction.
 
Ask yourself:

1. Is this
(a) legitimate instruction
(b) just a smart way to build some time?

2. f you answered (a) to Question 1, explain in 100 words or less why you think it was legitimate instruction. (Your answer is being read at the informal conference after the FAA has sent you a letter saying it is considering certificate action for logbook falsification - although the FAA tends to do those on an emergency basis)

3. If you are satisfied with your answer, read this case NTSB case (pdf) where two CFIs got all of their certificates revoked:

http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4008.PDF
 
Midlife, where were you in the CFII thread
grin.gif


[ QUOTE ]
Respondents, in turn, argue
that it was permissible for Crow to give instrument instruction
in a multi-engine aircraft because he had a multi-engine rating
on his commercial certificate and an instrument rating on his
flight instructor certificate. Respondents have attached a page
from Administrator's Order 8700.1, change 8, 1 March 1992, to
support their argument. On brief, the Administrator agrees that
"FAA Order 8700.1 offers guidance that appears to be contrary to
the ALJ's determination."11

[/ QUOTE ]

That would've settled that debate previously.

Interesting case too, high five for that one.
 
[ QUOTE ]
That would've settled that debate previously


[/ QUOTE ]I was there. I don't think so. Couple of reasons:

1. It's just another FAA policy statement that contradicts still other FAA policy statements.

2. The FAA was already arguing the opposite of the language in the Order.

3. The Order may have been changed since 1992 (I don't know; don't know the specific language they were pointing to.

4. Sometimes the Inspector's handbook is a it out of line with the regs - the most current version still talks about ATP applicants taking their checkrides before their 23rd birthday even though that was specifically changed by regulation almost 8 years ago.

5. (we can probably keep going...)
laugh.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top