“Time Building Partner”

eman1200 said:
I just put a placard on my panel that states "this plane requires a two-pilot crew", then everyone can log everything.
Click to expand...

“The guy in the left seat doesn’t know what he’s doing, you’re PIC”. :)
 
GoFly said:
Surprised somebody hasn’t tried to put a couple of yokes in the back of a 172 and let 4 people log time. Skinny people that is
Click to expand...
What if they just sat in the back and made airplane noises, that counts, right?
 
Salty said:
So? If that's a problem it should be fixed regardless.
Click to expand...
So combining lack of experience with low testing standards results in ****ty pilots. Neither the FAA nor the pilot population thinks either or both is a problem, so we will continue to see ****ty pilots, and the recent CRJ landing issues are just the tip of the iceberg.
 
MauleSkinner said:
The ACSs are a low enough standard that it probably doesn’t matter.
Click to expand...
Is the problem the standard or instructors/examiners being too lenient when teaching/applying it? "Simulated braking" somehow became a thing within the past 5 years, though pilot mills have been teaching short-field landings like regular (or sometimes more like "long-field") landings for longer than that.
 
Salty said:
I fail to see how flying the same hour long flight 1500 times makes the situation any better.
Click to expand...
I don’t necessarily disagree, but since becoming a CFI, you’d be surprised how much you learn teaching. I had 13xx and some odd hours by the time I earned the CFI&CFII, so much of my time was XC, and real world experience, but the CFI’ing has made me a much better pilot for sure.

I’d honestly argue that staying ahead of a new student and the airplane teaching basic skills is more valuable than needlessly burning holes in the sky.
 
I often wonder if the safety pilot who is logging PIC is really exercising "final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight."
 
RyanB said:
I don’t necessarily disagree, but since becoming a CFI, you’d be surprised how much you learn teaching. I had 13xx and some odd hours by the time I earned the CFI&CFII, so much of my time was XC, and real world experience, but the CFI’ing has made me a much better pilot for sure.

I’d honestly argue that staying ahead of a new student and the airplane teaching basic skills is more valuable than needlessly burning holes in the sky.
Click to expand...
That doesn't surprise me at all. Although, I know a few CFI/CFII's with 1500 hours that I would not want flying an airliner.

Bottom line hours doesn't mean squat IMO.

How about make candidates pass the same check ride with 3 different DPE's with 30 days between them? No hour restriction. If it weren't for the DPE shortage, that seems a better way to do it.
 
EdFred said:
Reading the decision, had they just filled out the logbooks correctly after each flight/week they probably/maybe would have been OK.
Click to expand...
You’re not the first to think that. Maybe, but I don’t think so. It smells like, “this is BS” from the FAA standpoint and they would have found a way. The failure to log just made it easier.
 
Palmpilot said:
I often wonder if the safety pilot who is logging PIC is really exercising "final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight."
Click to expand...
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I used to fly regularly with a buddy, exchanging safety pilot duties. Our SOP was, “whoever can see out the window is in charge.” I worked well and even came into play a few times.
 
dmspilot said:
Is the problem the standard or instructors/examiners being too lenient when teaching/applying it? "Simulated braking" somehow became a thing within the past 5 years, though pilot mills have been teaching short-field landings like regular (or sometimes more like "long-field") landings for longer than that.
Click to expand...
Probably some of both, but the general expectation is that one should peak on a checkride, and it is then acceptable to regress rapidly until the next checkride.

Combine that with training for the checkride rather than flying in general, and if you bust a maneuver or two on the checkride you just do a little monkey see, monkey do, and try it again. It’s not uncommon for someone to bust a checkride and walk out within a day or so with whatever certification/rating they were testing for.

Honestly, I think Salty’s comment would be as worthwhile as anything in solving the problem, as it would require maintaining proficiency over time, so actually learning would become more important.
Salty said:
How about make candidates pass the same check ride with 3 different DPE's with 30 days between them?
Click to expand...
and while I agree that hours in a logbook mean nothing, I don’t agree that discarding flight time requirements would be beneficial. Unfortunately even if you could find a way to regulate a requirement for “quality” hours, people would still find a way to bypass it. At least requiring the time might thin the herd a little bit.
 
Last edited:
eman1200 said:
I just put a placard on my panel that states "this plane requires a two-pilot crew", then everyone can log everything.
Click to expand...
You should create an STC to put that placard in a Cub. You’ll be rich.
 
I've acted as a safety pilot enough to know that it isn't very mentally stimulating. I won't say it's useless hours, because there is some value, but it's not the same as actually being behind the controls commanding the aircraft. My point is, the guy's out there who are 'splitting time' aren't doing themselves as big of a favor as they think by padding their logbook in a sub-honest way.
 
RyanB said:
I've acted as a safety pilot enough to know that it isn't very mentally stimulating. I won't say it's useless hours, because there is some value, but it's not the same as actually being behind the controls commanding the aircraft. My point is, the guy's out there who are 'splitting time' aren't doing themselves as big of a favor as they think by padding their logbook in a sub-honest way.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I like being safety pilot, especially if you aren't just droning along, but actually doing approaches and fixes and holds. If you put your mind to it, you get a better mental picture of what's happening outside when you are the one under the hood. It's kind of like moving maps and magenta lines. You can mindlessly follow the magenta line, or you can spend the whole time correlating towns, roads, lakes, terrain, and such with the depictions on our sectional and feel like if you ever lost your GPS, you'd at least have an idea where you were. Maybe if you're droning along as a safety pilot while your friend is under the hood, be looking at the terrain in the area, and have a plan for what you'd do if you were in actual and lost an engine.
 
RyanB said:
I've acted as a safety pilot enough to know that it isn't very mentally stimulating. I won't say it's useless hours, because there is some value, but it's not the same as actually being behind the controls commanding the aircraft.
Click to expand...
Haha. I let my photo pilot fly the cross country legs, for sure, but when we are on target, I'm 100% flying the airplane with my brain and my mouth, and trying to communicate to him what we need to do to be the right radius and angle from the target. If it was just the pilot, I wouldn't be able to swap the pilot out, or fly with a backup when he's sick or on a leave of absence and still achieve similar results. I never ever log photo target time, but it's 100% as good as instructing from my perspective. It's sort of like flight training in that you're trying to talk your student into a perfect landing, while helping them understand at the same time. You can definitely be "flying" an airplane without tactile control.
 
RyanB said:
I've acted as a safety pilot enough to know that it isn't very mentally stimulating. I won't say it's useless hours, because there is some value, but it's not the same as actually being behind the controls commanding the aircraft. My point is, the guy's out there who are 'splitting time' aren't doing themselves as big of a favor as they think by padding their logbook in a sub-honest way.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don’t call following the rules “sub-honest.”

And “mentally simulating” is a reflection of the mind in question and the amount of engagement it chooses.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
Sorry, I don’t call following the rules “sub-honest.”

And “mentally simulating” is a reflection of the mind in question and the amount of engagement it chooses.
Click to expand...
I am not referring to legitimate safety pilot time. What I am referring to are these guys out there splitting time where they’re both logging PIC and trying to play under the safety pilot umbrella to make it appear legal which is certainly what a lot of these people are doing in those kinds of set ups for hundreds of hours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tai
RyanB said:
I am not referring to legitimate safety pilot time. What I am referring to are these guys out there splitting time where they’re both logging PIC and trying to play under the safety pilot umbrella to make it appear legal which is certainly what a lot of these people are doing in those kinds of set ups for hundreds of hours.
Click to expand...
That's back to the beginning of the thread when I said I'm not seeing what you are seeing.
 
RyanB said:
I don’t necessarily disagree, but since becoming a CFI, you’d be surprised how much you learn teaching. I had 13xx and some odd hours by the time I earned the CFI&CFII, so much of my time was XC, and real world experience, but the CFI’ing has made me a much better pilot for sure.

I’d honestly argue that staying ahead of a new student and the airplane teaching basic skills is more valuable than needlessly burning holes in the sky.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I learned more instructing than all my time as a student.

There are only so many mistakes you can make. When you are instructing, you get exposed to wide range of people with ALL their own mistakes. :D
 
  • Love
Reactions: Tai
RyanB said:
I am not referring to legitimate safety pilot time. What I am referring to are these guys out there splitting time where they’re both logging PIC and trying to play under the safety pilot umbrella to make it appear legal which is certainly what a lot of these people are doing in those kinds of set ups for hundreds of hours.
Click to expand...
How do you know people are doing this? Have you?

Why wouldn't the pilot flying actually wear the vision limiting device? Instrument flying is not hard to do.
 
Pinecone said:
How do you know people are doing this? Have you?

Why wouldn't the pilot flying actually wear the vision limiting device? Instrument flying is not hard to do.
Click to expand...
Simulated instrument is not hard, but for me, it's painful. Literally. Keeping my head at an angle so I don't cheat where I can't see over the glare-shield wearing either foggles or a hood, my neck muscles light up like on fire. After about an hour I'm done. Actual instrument in the clouds, I can fly for 3+ hours without issue. No AP, so I'm actually hand flying.
 
Serious question, I don’t really log any flight time. If someone wanted to put 100LL(even 1/2), in my plane, could we fly together & they log it? Is it one of those deals where you can only split the cost of the flight?

Maybe I’m even just asking for a friend?
 
Pinecone said:
How do you know people are doing this? Have you?

Why wouldn't the pilot flying actually wear the vision limiting device? Instrument flying is not hard to do.
Click to expand...
No I have not. I do know good and well that these people aren’t under the hood for hundreds of hours. Common sense man.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Doubt it. There's entire programs built on this.

I'm sure that there are plenty of people who don't bother with the hood, though... Just like there are plenty of airline crews who didn't have one pilot go on oxygen above FL350 prior to 2020 (when it changed to FL410).

I'm sure questions get asked in some cases, but most people who would do that know the rules well enough to lie and get away with it, and if they didn't have the hood on, they already lied, so...


There was one case where a pair of CFIs were caught logging the same flights and logging as dual given/received but they never signed each others' logbooks and such which made it not count as "instruction". And yes, I believe their certs were revoked.
Click to expand...
Docket SE-12800, SE-12803 DAVID R. HINSON v. CHARLES R. CROW, and ERIK J. PEARSON, (19 October, 1993) ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top