61.3(d) question

[poadeleted20]

Can you recall such a case in your vast knowledge of certificate actions?

No. I did hear of a case in which a CFI asleep in the back was found liable for damages to other passengers when a PP flying his own plane (with the CFI as a noncrew passenger) did something dumb and crashed. The jury decided the CFI, with his vastly superior experience and knowledge should have realized what was happening and done his best to talk the PP out of doing whatever it was he did. However, that's not germane to the issue of certificate actions.

 

[dsffdssdf]

Who is PIC by default?

I don't follow...
What does being PIC have anything to do with it? We're talking about strictly giving instruction...

No. I did hear of a case in which a CFI asleep in the back was found liable for damages to other passengers when a PP flying his own plane (with the CFI as a noncrew passenger) did something dumb and crashed. The jury decided the CFI, with his vastly superior experience and knowledge should have realized what was happening and done his best to talk the PP out of doing whatever it was he did. However, that's not germane to the issue of certificate actions.

Theres got to be more to it than that... Maybe the pilot asked the instructor for assistance and the instructor refused? I have a hard time believing the FAA will hold any CFI onboard responsible if something goes wrong regardless of whether or not that are a crew member. Otherwise, whats to stop the FAA from busting an airline passenger who happens to hold a CFI when the airliner runs off the runway or something? What if that airliner happened to be a charter full of CFI's on their way to an instructor convention?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I don't follow...
Otherwise, whats to stop the FAA from busting an airline passenger who happens to hold a CFI when the airliner runs off the runway or something? What if that airliner happened to be a charter full of CFI's on their way to an instructor convention?

That is taking it to an absurd conclusion.

In those types of operations, a PIC is designated by regulation. It does not matter who is behind the cockpit door.

 

[dsffdssdf]

That is taking it to an absurd conclusion.

In those types of operations, a PIC is designated by regulation. It does not matter who is behind the cockpit door.

That was my point. In the scenario mentioned by forum user "Ron Levy", the CFI was held accountable not because he was a crew member, but because he was simply onboard.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

That was my point. In the scenario mentioned by forum user "Ron Levy", the CFI was held accountable not because he was a crew member, but because he was simply onboard.

Well, that is kind of a gray scenario. In the private world, there is no mandated PIC. The waters are kind of muddy in that regard. But I tend to agree that even in that case the finding is rather absurd.

 

[Skip Miller]

Theres got to be more to it than that...

Not necessarily true. Find a Naval line officer and ask him to explain the liabilities of being SOPA. It is not directly applicable to aviation, but it is surely a close parallel. The SOPA (senior officer present afloat) gets nailed as being ultimately responsible even if he didn't know he was the SOPA.

I remember a case where a Seaman Deuce smashed a launch into the pier, sinking it. Everybody looked to the commander in the boat but by the time everyone got fished out of the water, it turned out the Commander was in the Chaplain Corps. Oops, not a line officer, can't be SOPA. Feces ran down hill from there, and a Boats first class got tagged as SOPA and was punished for not stepping in and preventing the collision. Thems the rules.

-Skip

 

[midlifeflyer]

Can you recall such a case in your vast knowledge of certificate actions?

I may have read it in one of the periodicals as well. I'll give AOPA and NAFI a call later to look for something.

Let me know if you find it. I've been looking for that one since sometime in 1998 or 1999.

 

[midlifeflyer]

No. I did hear of a case in which a CFI asleep in the back was found liable for damages to other passengers when a PP flying his own plane (with the CFI as a noncrew passenger) did something dumb and crashed. The jury decided the CFI, with his vastly superior experience and knowledge should have realized what was happening and done his best to talk the PP out of doing whatever it was he did. However, that's not germane to the issue of certificate actions.

Citation? I'm definitely looking for that one.

 

[poadeleted20]

Theres got to be more to it than that... Maybe the pilot asked the instructor for assistance and the instructor refused? I have a hard time believing the FAA will hold any CFI onboard responsible if something goes wrong regardless of whether or not that are a crew member. Otherwise, whats to stop the FAA from busting an airline passenger who happens to hold a CFI when the airliner runs off the runway or something? What if that airliner happened to be a charter full of CFI's on their way to an instructor convention?

Read the post again -- it had nothing to do with the FAA.

 

[poadeleted20]

That was my point. In the scenario mentioned by forum user "Ron Levy", the CFI was held accountable not because he was a crew member, but because he was simply onboard.

He was held accountable because the jury decided that as a CFI in an airplane with a relatively inexperienced pilot he had a duty to exercise care (specifically, to provide advice), he failed to fulfill that duty, his failure was a proximate cause of the accident, and others were injured as a result. It was not "because he was simply onboard." I'd suggest you find a few aviation law books and do a little reading about administrative law and procedure, the concepts of negligence and liability, and the civil court system. Here are two to get you started:

Practical Aviation Law, 4th ed., by J. Scott Hamilton
Aviation and the Law, 4th ed., by Laurence E. Gesell

After you've read one or both those books, you may then understand the legal concepts being discussed here.

 

[poadeleted20]

Citation? I'm definitely looking for that one.

Don't have it, and I no longer have the Lexis/Nexis legal library access I had at the university. But it's no more farfetched than the infamous Newberger v. Pokrass, in which a non-pilot passenger asleep in the right seat was found partially liable for an aircraft accident.

 

[dsffdssdf]

Read the post again -- it had nothing to do with the FAA.

So you're sating it was a civil court where the pilot's family sued the instructor (or a similar situation)? That doesn't surprise me. I thought you were referring to the FAA holding the instructor liable.

But anyways, this thread has wondered off topic. The real question at hand here is under what conditions are you ever acting as a CFI in an airplane, as opposed to just a pilot giving tips? Is it just an "intent to log the flight"? If so, what are some cases that support this idea? What some factors that go into determining "intent to log"?

 

[dmccormack]

So you're sating it was a civil court where the pilot's family sued the instructor (or a similar situation)? That doesn't surprise me. I thought you were referring to the FAA holding the instructor liable.

But anyways, this thread has wondered off topic. The real question at hand here is under what conditions are you ever acting as a CFI in an airplane, as opposed to just a pilot giving tips? Is it just an "intent to log the flight"? If so, what are some cases that support this idea? What some factors that go into determining "intent to log"?

Holy Flippin' Cow.

 

[RotorAndWing]

So you're sating it was a civil court where the pilot's family sued the instructor (or a similar situation)? That doesn't surprise me. I thought you were referring to the FAA holding the instructor liable.

But anyways, this thread has wondered off topic. The real question at hand here is under what conditions are you ever acting as a CFI in an airplane, as opposed to just a pilot giving tips? Is it just an "intent to log the flight"? If so, what are some cases that support this idea? What some factors that go into determining "intent to log"?

What is so difficult about having a CFI certificate on you when you are giving flight instruction?????

 

[poadeleted20]

So you're sating it was a civil court where the pilot's family sued the instructor (or a similar situation)? That doesn't surprise me. I thought you were referring to the FAA holding the instructor liable.

Reading carefully what I'd written would have avoided that misconception.

But anyways, this thread has wondered off topic. The real question at hand here is under what conditions are you ever acting as a CFI in an airplane, as opposed to just a pilot giving tips? Is it just an "intent to log the flight"? If so, what are some cases that support this idea? What some factors that go into determining "intent to log"?

Are you familiar with the "duck test"? Y'know, the old rule that says, "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, then most likely it's a duck, not a bluejay." The FAA tends to think like that.

 

[dsffdssdf]

What is so difficult about having a CFI certificate on you when you are giving flight instruction?????

for about the 5th time, this thread is not about giving instruction without a certificate on board with you. It is about the FAA invoking the idea of "acting as flight instructor in an airplane".

If the FAA made a regulation that states that you must have your commercial pilot certificate on board with you when you exercise those privileges on a boat, will your response be "whats so hard about carrying your commercial license on board with you when acting as a commercial pilot on a boat?"

Reading carefully what I'd written would have avoided that misconception.

Or maybe if you had responded to the topic at hand, instead of throwing out a completely unrelated civil court case, the misconception wouldn't have happened either.

Are you familiar with the "duck test"? Y'know, the old rule that says, "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, then most likely it's a duck, not a bluejay." The FAA tends to think like that.

If I'm in a twin-engine airplane with a former student, riding along having fun, not intending to log any of the flight as dual (since I don't have a MEI), I'm not a duck, right? The FAA could very well come in and it could appear to them that I was indeed giving instruction. In other words, it is very possible that they think I'm a duck. The problem here is that the FAA has no where in the regs defined what a "duck" even is.

Do you agree with me that a commercial pilot who does not hold a CFI certificate can go up in an airplane with a non-pilot and give instruction to them legally? If so, what's to stop a commercial pilot, who happens to hold a CFI certificate from doing the same thing? Where in the regulations, or case law is that "privilege" removed?

Do you understand what I mean by "capitol I" Instruction and "lowercase i" instruction? How is it possible for a CFI to give "lowercase i" instruction?

Lets say a part 91 corporate flight department buys a brand new Lear. The old Lear the company owned had a older GPS unit, whereas the new Lear has a fancy new color Garmin one in it. The Captain has never flown with the new type of GPS, but the non-type rated FO has flown a bunch with that particular unit.

If the FO has a CFI certificate, and he teaches the captain how to use the GPS unit in flight, is he violating 61.195(b)(2)? In 61.195.(b)(2), it straight up says you must not give instruction in an airplane when if you don't have a type rating. Is the FO in violation? He looks pretty much like a duck to me...

The way I understand it, the FO is giving "lowercase i" instruction, so no regulations are violated. From what I understand, what makes the instruction "lowercase i" instruction is the fact the the CFI FO never signed the captains logbook.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm through discussing this with dsffdssdf. Anyone else has a question, please feel free.

 

[dsffdssdf]

I'm through discussing this with dsffdssdf.

Why? Because you don't know the answer, or otherwise?

Anyone else has a question, please feel free.

uh... so this is your thread now?

 

[RotorAndWing]

I'm through discussing this with dsffdssdf. Anyone else has a question, please feel free.

I have to agree. This is one of the more inane threads I've come across in a long time.

 

[dsffdssdf]

I have to agree. This is one of the more inane threads I've come across in a long time.

thats too bad, your contributions will be sorely missed...

 

[Greg Bockelman]

It is about the FAA invoking the idea of "acting as flight instructor in an airplane".

"If it walks like a duck and talks..."

If the FAA made a regulation that states that you must have your commercial pilot certificate on board with you when you exercise those privileges on a boat, will your response be "whats so hard about carrying your commercial license on board with you when acting as a commercial pilot on a boat?"

Isn't that rather absurd?

Or maybe if you had responded to the topic at hand, instead of throwing out a completely unrelated civil court case, the misconception wouldn't have happened either.

Maybe that is because between the OP and now it has become rather difficult to determine just WHAT the topic at hand is.

If I'm in a twin-engine airplane with a former student, riding along having fun, not intending to log any of the flight as dual (since I don't have a MEI), I'm not a duck, right?

I would think not.

The FAA could very well come in and it could appear to them that I was indeed giving instruction. In other words, it is very possible that they think I'm a duck. The problem here is that the FAA has no where in the regs defined what a "duck" even is.

Why would they do that?

Do you agree with me that a commercial pilot who does not hold a CFI certificate can go up in an airplane with a non-pilot and give instruction to them legally?

Well, if by little i instruction, you mean SUGGESTIONS on technique, helpful hints and the like, yes, but if it does not show up in either logbook, why would the FAA care?

If so, what's to stop a commercial pilot, who happens to hold a CFI certificate from doing the same thing?

Well, I am not sure why, if the CFI was giving lower case instruction, he wouldn't just go ahead and make it upper case Instruction and make it official. What is the down side?

Where in the regulations, or case law is that "privilege" removed?

It is hard to prove a negative. If I understand what you are saying, it isn't there.

Do you understand what I mean by "capitol I" Instruction and "lowercase i" instruction? How is it possible for a CFI to give "lowercase i" instruction?

I believe so. Unofficial vs. official.

Lets say a part 91 corporate flight department buys a brand new Lear. The old Lear the company owned had a older GPS unit, whereas the new Lear has a fancy new color Garmin one in it. The Captain has never flown with the new type of GPS, but the non-type rated FO has flown a bunch with that particular unit.

Ok.

If the FO has a CFI certificate, and he teaches the captain how to use the GPS unit in flight, is he violating 61.195(b)(2)?

Is teaching a pilot how to use a radio considered flight instruction? I personally think not. Therefore, it is my contention that a violation of said regulation has NOT occurred.

In 61.195.(b)(2), it straight up says you must not give instruction in an airplane when if you don't have a type rating.

No. That is not what it says. What it DOES say is:

[bl]A flight instructor may not conduct flight training in any aircraft...[/bl]

Is the FO in violation? He looks pretty much like a duck to me...

I say no. He doesn't look like a duck to me.

The way I understand it, the FO is giving "lowercase i" instruction, so no regulations are violated.

I agree that it is lower case i, but because it isn't FLIGHT instruction. Just instruction on how to use a radio. In my opinion, they are not the same thing.

From what I understand, what makes the instruction "lowercase i" instruction is the fact the the CFI FO never signed the captains logbook.

I think I can agree with that.

 

[dmccormack]

Why? Because you don't know the answer, or otherwise?


uh... so this is your thread now?

Holy Flippin' Troll

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/alesrarus.funkydung.com/images/troll.jpg

 

[dsffdssdf]

Isn't that rather absurd?

Of course it is. Thats why I used to to prove my point.

Well, I am not sure why, if the CFI was giving lower case instruction, he wouldn't just go ahead and make it upper case Instruction and make it official. What is the down side?

There are lots of reasons. What if the CFI doesn't have an MEI? Lets say a non-MEI instructor is doing a pleasure flight with a multi-engine pilot who decided to practice some soft field landings before they take it in. The non-MEI gives the pilot some pointers. None of that time can be legally logged, so it has to be "off the record".

The million dollar question here is whether ot not the non-MEI instructor here is illegally acting as a flight instructor during that portion of the flight where he gives soft field landing tips, or if he's just acting as a friendly pilot giving landing tips? Where is the line drawn? I've always thought the line is drawn by whether or not the flight was logged as official "capitol I" instruction, but I really don't know. A lot of people seem to think otherwise.

Is teaching a pilot how to use a radio considered flight instruction? I personally think not. Therefore, it is my contention that a violation of said regulation has NOT occurred.

Where is "flight instruction" defined? You don't think teaching how to use a GPS unit is considered "flight instruction". I, on the other hand, do think it is considered flight instruction (all though honestly I'm just playing devils advocate here). Since the FAA never defines exactly what they mean by "flight instruction", we both have to come up with our own definitions.

This creates a bad situation where one person see's a duck, and another person see's no duck. That is why regulations exist, to exactly define what is and what isn't a duck. In this case, I don't think a definition exists. But please, correct me if I'm wrong...

No. That is not what it says. What it DOES say is:

[bl]A flight instructor may not conduct flight training in any aircraft...[/bl]

I agree that it is lower case i, but because it isn't FLIGHT instruction. Just instruction on how to use a radio. In my opinion, they are not the same thing.

Where is the line drawn? When does teaching tips become "flight instruction"? Is teaching diversions flight instruction? Is teaching how to talk to class D towers instruction? Is teaching how to land instruction? (these are rhetorical questions)

Don't you think it's important for such lines to exist?

Also, thank you for actually taking this topic seriously.

 

[dmccormack]

This creates a bad situation where one person see's a duck, and another person see's no duck. That is why regulations exist, to exactly define what is and what isn't a duck. In this case, I don't think a definition exists. But please, correct me if I'm wrong....

Which is precisely why there are courts -- administrative and otherwise -- the help determine the intent of law (from which regulations are derived).

The supposed "issues" are usually plain to most, but some are only ever finally settled when the issue is pressed due to a violation or death.

Welcome to life.

 

[KennyFlys]

Anything I do in the cabin of an airplane, I take seriously... whether I'm acting as CFI or just a passenger. While preparing for the CFII ride, I rode in back to observe. I have no doubt the FAA would be breathing down my neck just as much as the CFII up front and the instrument rated, certificated pilot in the left seat after an incident.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

There are lots of reasons. What if the CFI doesn't have an MEI? Lets say a non-MEI instructor is doing a pleasure flight with a multi-engine pilot who decided to practice some soft field landings before they take it in. The non-MEI gives the pilot some pointers. None of that time can be legally logged, so it has to be "off the record".

Well, first off, where does the non MEI CFI have the authority to provide pointers in soft field landings, unless of course, he has time in that particular twin? And unless someone points it out to the FAA, who is going to know?

The million dollar question here is whether ot not the non-MEI instructor here is illegally acting as a flight instructor during that portion of the flight where he gives soft field landing tips, or if he's just acting as a friendly pilot giving landing tips? Where is the line drawn?

Since the CFI does NOT have an MEI, why would the FAA even suspect that "supposed" illegal flight instruction is actually taking place?

I've always thought the line is drawn by whether or not the flight was logged as official "capitol I" instruction, but I really don't know. A lot of people seem to think otherwise.

I tend to agree. I wonder how those that think otherwise justify the opinion

Where is "flight instruction" defined?

Since it isn't, at least as far as I can tell, a common sense approach should take place. Of course that is a moving target, depending on who you ask.

You don't think teaching how to use a GPS unit is considered "flight instruction". I, on the other hand, do think it is considered flight instruction (all though honestly I'm just playing devils advocate here). Since the FAA never defines exactly what they mean by "flight instruction", we both have to come up with our own definitions.

I don't think it is flight instruction because it does not relate directly to the control of the airplane. Granted, my opinion.

This creates a bad situation where one person see's a duck, and another person see's no duck. That is why regulations exist, to exactly define what is and what isn't a duck. In this case, I don't think a definition exists. But please, correct me if I'm wrong...

I can't correct you because I can't point you to a reference. I am not totally sure one exists, but that does not mean it doesn't.

Where is the line drawn? When does teaching tips become "flight instruction"? Is teaching diversions flight instruction? Is teaching how to talk to class D towers instruction? Is teaching how to land instruction? (these are rhetorical questions)

Don't you think it's important for such lines to exist?

Maybe, maybe not. Some times I think things are on the vague side on purpose.

I have a saying that I think I coined. Not sure. But it goes like this. "The FAA can violate anybody at any time for anything." I truly believe that. Since I do believe that, I do the best I can to avoid confrontation with the FAA and don't worry about the rest.

BTW, playing devil's advocate is ok, to a point. After so long it just gets annoying.

 

[dsffdssdf]

Well, first off, where does the non MEI CFI have the authority to provide pointers in soft field landings, unless of course, he has time in that particular twin? And unless someone points it out to the FAA, who is going to know?

From what I understand (I'm not an MEI), all the MEI checkride consists of is basically redoing your multi-checkride from the right seat with a few more things thrown in. Just because you don't hold that certificate, doesn't mean you don't have the skills to recognize when a pilot is doing something wrong. If I went pleasure flying with a multi-rated pilot, and I noticed him life off before Vmc, or if I noticed him slam the throttles around without giving his engine health any mind, I'm going to want to say something.

Since the CFI does NOT have an MEI, why would the FAA even suspect that "supposed" illegal flight instruction is actually taking place?

I don't know. I want to know this too. People in this thread are saying that if you "show intent" to log, then you can be violated. How do you show intent to log? How do I keep myself from appearing to intend to log? This is important stuff, IMO. I don't want to be violated. I can think of a lo0t of situations where it can appear that I "intend to log". This is one of those things that aren't spelled out in the regs, just like the "what is or isn't flight instruction" issue.

I tend to agree. I wonder how those that think otherwise justify the opinion

Thats what I've been trying to understand myself! If you didn't log the time as official dual, then you didn't act as a CFI for the flight. OR if you see things the way I see them, you never act as a CFI in an airplane, because the CFI certificate only gives you the ability to sign documents as certified flight instrutor. During the flight, you are only acting as a commercial pilot (or no pilot at all in the case of an instructor instructing without a medical).

Which brings us back to the OP. It's impossible to violate someone for 61.3(d), because the act of making the flight "official" happens after the flight. I guess if the knew you did the flight without the card in your pocket, then (which isnt hard to prove) that you logged the time....

I don't think it is flight instruction because it does not relate directly to the control of the airplane. Granted, my opinion.

Thats fair enough. But wouldn't you rather know for sure what the FAA is going to potentially bust you for? Wouldn't you hate it if you got a 61.195 violation for telling your pilot buddy he should lean his mixtures differently in his Baron, or something similar?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Just because you don't hold that certificate, doesn't mean you don't have the skills to recognize when a pilot is doing something wrong. If I went pleasure flying with a multi-rated pilot, and I noticed him life off before Vmc, or if I noticed him slam the throttles around without giving his engine health any mind, I'm going to want to say something.

Ok, but without the MEI, how can you be held liable?

OR if you see things the way I see them, you never act as a CFI in an airplane, because the CFI certificate only gives you the ability to sign documents as certified flight instrutor. During the flight, you are only acting as a commercial pilot (or no pilot at all in the case of an instructor instructing without a medical).

You can see it that way if you want. I would wager that if you polled the CFI's here, you would be a minority of one. I personally don't agree with that view.

Which brings us back to the OP. It's impossible to violate someone for 61.3(d), because the act of making the flight "official" happens after the flight. I guess if the knew you did the flight without the card in your pocket, then (which isnt hard to prove) that you logged the time....

Again, that is your interpretation. I would wager if you polled the CFI's here...

Thats fair enough. But wouldn't you rather know for sure what the FAA is going to potentially bust you for? Wouldn't you hate it if you got a 61.195 violation for telling your pilot buddy he should lean his mixtures differently in his Baron, or something similar?

Like I said before, the FAA can violate anyone at anytime for anything. I choose to ignore it and do the best I know how.

And with that, I have nothing more to say. I am not going to change your mind and no one is capable of changing yours, so it is time to let it drop.

 

[gprellwitz]

Is teaching a pilot how to use a radio considered flight instruction? I personally think not. Therefore, it is my contention that a violation of said regulation has NOT occurred.

Hmmm. Teaching avionics, systems, etc. is certainly loggable. Granting that in the airplane isn't the best place to teach these things, could I as a GROUND instructor teach them in the airplane and log them as ground instruction (not dual given)? My role in the airplane at that point would only be as a safety pilot watching out for traffic. I don't think I'd feel comfortable doing it, but now that I think about it, I don't see a reason it would be disallowed. Unless we hold that "Ground" and "Flight" refer to where the instruction takes place as opposed to what is taught, in which case we need to go back and say that teaching the radios while in flight is, in fact, flight instruction.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Hmmm. Teaching avionics, systems, etc. is certainly loggable.

In what context? Ground or flight? Granted, it is loggable instruction. But the question really is whether or not it is instruction if it isn't logged.

Granting that in the airplane isn't the best place to teach these things, could I as a GROUND instructor teach them in the airplane and log them as ground instruction (not dual given)?

Well, the honest truth is, I don't know. Does a ground instructor have authority to teach anything other than what it takes to have a well grounded understanding of the material required for the written knowledge tests? I can't answer that for sure.

My role in the airplane at that point would only be as a safety pilot watching out for traffic.

Ok, but in that case, you aren't providing flight instruction, are you???

I don't think I'd feel comfortable doing it, but now that I think about it, I don't see a reason it would be disallowed.

Well, again, in what context? Ground or flight?

Unless we hold that "Ground" and "Flight" refer to where the instruction takes place as opposed to what is taught, in which case we need to go back and say that teaching the radios while in flight is, in fact, flight instruction.

Really? Do you think that me teaching someone how to operate a radio constitutes flight instruction? How about in the context of a non MEI teaching a twin pilot how to operate the radio? That was the context in which I answered the question.

And again, is it instruction in the eyes of the FAA if it isn't logged? Can a non MEI be held in any way accountable for anything for showing his multi engine companion how to operate a radio? I honestly think not.

I recently made a suggestion to someone on a "better" way to do a mag check. He was doing it one click left, watch for a drop, one click back to both. Two clicks to the left check for a drop, two clicks back. I suggested that he do it the opposite way. Two clicks left two clicks back. One click left, one click back. The reasoning is that one is less likely to take off on one mag that way. Was that flight instruction? Can I be held liable if something untoward would happen? If so, I would suggest that any time anyone opened their mouth about the operation of an airplane, it would be considered to be giving flight instruction and it should be avoided.

I consider the above to be absurd and I don't go out of my way to avoid stuff like that for fear of the almighty FAA.

 

[KennyFlys]

If there is a way for a CFI to be held accountable, the FAA will find a way to make it happen. In this, I have the utmost of confidence.

 

[poadeleted20]

Which brings us back to the OP. It's impossible to violate someone for 61.3(d), because the act of making the flight "official" happens after the flight.

Think what you will, but the FAA disagrees with you, and it's their interpretation which matters.

 

[dsffdssdf]

Think what you will, but the FAA disagrees with you, and it's their interpretation which matters.

Do you have a reference?

 

[poadeleted20]

Do you have a reference?

How about two cases of violations of that regulation upheld by the NTSB?
Administrator v. Schlagenhauf
Administrator v. Morse

 

[dsffdssdf]

How about two cases of violations of that regulation upheld by the NTSB?
Administrator v. Schlagenhauf
Administrator v. Morse

First off, the 61.3(d) of the early 1990s is different than the 61.3(d) of today. Secondly, when I said 61.3(d) in the OP (and just about everywhere else in this thread) I really meant 61.3(d)(1), the part where it says you must have the certificate on you when you act as instructor in a plane.

In the first case, a pilots gets caught giving instruction a few months after his CFI certificate expires. The way they got him was by the fact that he signed the student's logbook. If he hadn't signed the darn thing, no action would have occurred. He tried to argue:

Oversimplified, respondent appears to contend on appeal,
with respect to the alleged violation of section 61.3(d)(1), that
not all flight instruction (FI) by non-instructors is prohibited,
just FI that is, in the words of the regulation, "required to
qualify for a solo flight, solo cross-country flight, or for the
issue of a pilot or flight instructor's certificate or rating"
(emphasis added). He therefore argues, in effect, that because
he did not endorse for solo flight or for any other purpose the
certificates of the students referenced in the complaint, the FI
he gave to them does not fall within the "required to qualify"
category.

but thats all moot, since he was dumb enough to actually sign the logbook. The FAA goes on to claim that if there is a signature, there is an endorsement, which is only to be done by people who have a current flight instructor certificate. Hence the violation. The FAA never really says anything in regards to his claim that "not all flight instruction (FI) by non-instructors is prohibited, just FI that is, in the words of the regulation, 'required to...", which says to me that he is correct on that point.

In the second case, it's hard to understand whats going on, but from what I understand:

1) a pilot skips his FAA hearing
2) in that hearing, he was going to get his certificate revoked
3) He continues to endorse logbooks and invoke privliges of his pilot certificate
4) later on he learns that his certificate has been revoked
5) the FAA determines that he should have known that his certificates were going to be revoked, and since he willingly skipped his initial hearing, he invoked privileges of a suspended/revoked certificate.

Neither case really proves my initial point wrong. You can't act as a flight instructor in an airplane.

 

[poadeleted20]

You can't act as a flight instructor in an airplane.

I'd quote Dr. Gregory House, but that would violate the PoA's RoC. Simply put, you're wrong. I've shown you the regs, and the case law, and you refuse to believe either, even when I've shown you two violations of 61.3(d) which were sustained. But to put a final stake in the heart of your "impossible" statement, imagine this scenario...

C-172 lands at Eastown Muni Airport. Out hop two people -- one from the left side wearing nondescript clothes, and another from the right side wearing an ABC Flight School logo shirt (who has, unbeknownst to anyone else, left his Flight Instructor Certificate home). The airplane has "ABC Flight School/Westville Regional Airport" on the tail. An FAA Inspector walks up to the left seater to do a ramp check, and the person pulls out his Student Pilot Certificate. The Inspector asks, "Who's the other guy?" The student says, "My instructor." The Inspector then asks the ABCFS shirt guy for his pilot, medical, and flight instructor tickets.

Please tell me what the ABCFS shirt guy can say that doesn't lead to a sustainable 61.3(d)(1) violation for him for giving flight training without having his flight instructor certificate immediately available -- other than a much more serious violation for an illegal charter flight in violation of Parts 119 and 135.

 

[midlifeflyer]

If there is a way for a CFI to be held accountable, the FAA will find a way to make it happen. In this, I have the utmost of confidence.

The you really ought to read the case where the NTSB decided that a CFI was giving instruction, was PIC, and then held him =not= accountable for a landing accident in the airplane. I don't have it handy (I'm away), but Ron may.

 

[dsffdssdf]

I'd quote Dr. Gregory House, but that would violate the PoA's RoC. Simply put, you're wrong. I've shown you the regs, and the case law, and you refuse to believe either, even when I've shown you two violations of 61.3(d) which were sustained. But to put a final stake in the heart of your "impossible" statement, imagine this scenario...

C-172 lands at Eastown Muni Airport. Out hop two people -- one from the left side wearing nondescript clothes, and another from the right side wearing an ABC Flight School logo shirt (who has, unbeknownst to anyone else, left his Flight Instructor Certificate home). The airplane has "ABC Flight School/Westville Regional Airport" on the tail. An FAA Inspector walks up to the left seater to do a ramp check, and the person pulls out his Student Pilot Certificate. The Inspector asks, "Who's the other guy?" The student says, "My instructor." The Inspector then asks the ABCFS shirt guy for his pilot, medical, and flight instructor tickets.

Please tell me what the ABCFS shirt guy can say that doesn't lead to a sustainable 61.3(d)(1) violation for him for giving flight training without having his flight instructor certificate immediately available -- other than a much more serious violation for an illegal charter flight in violation of Parts 119 and 135.

61.3(d)(1) never mentions "flight instruction". All it says is "when exercising the privileges of that flight instructor certificate". It has already been established that the act of giving instruction is not in and of itself a act that requires a CFI certificate.

And as far as the 135 charter issue, 119.1(e)(3) clearly states that training flights (not necessairly CFI training flights) don't require a 135 certificate.

Also, as a side not, why do you always have to take such a condescending tone when you post? I've noticed this not only in this thread, but others as well.You seem to have this primadonna attitude where if anyone disagrees with you, you give a "I'm taking my ball and going home" response, rather than any attempt to engage in discussion. It's a little off-putting.

 

[KennyFlys]

61.3(d)(1) never mentions "flight instruction". All it says is "when exercising the privileges of that flight instructor certificate". It has already been established that the act of giving instruction is not in and of itself a act that requires a CFI certificate.

It has? It seems to me if I'm in the plane with someone and I'm found to be in the right seat, I'm pretty likely to be assumed to be not only the instructor but currently acting in that role. My preferring to fly from the right seat, even when alone, has nothing to do with it. The only remaining issue is whether I hold the appropriate certificate when acting in that capacity.

And as far as the 135 charter issue, 119.1(e)(3) clearly states that training flights (not necessairly CFI training flights) don't require a 135 certificate.

If the student is just that, a student, flying on their student certificate in the left seat, they may not have another passenger. If they are flying with a certificated pilot in the right seat, that pilot might want to have their CFI ticket in their possession. If they are flying in the right seat with only their commercial ticket in hand, it may be presumed that pilot is providing an unlawful charter function.

Also, as a side not, why do you always have to take such a condescending tone when you post? I've noticed this not only in this thread, but others as well.You seem to have this primadonna attitude where if anyone disagrees with you, you give a "I'm taking my ball and going home" response, rather than any attempt to engage in discussion. It's a little off-putting.

Perhaps it has been explained so many different ways the person is at their wits end with another way to help you. I've felt that way a few times in reading your posts.

 

[dsffdssdf]

It has? It seems to me if I'm in the plane with someone and I'm found to be in the right seat, I'm pretty likely to be assumed to be not only the instructor but currently acting in that role. My preferring to fly from the right seat, even when alone, has nothing to do with it. The only remaining issue is whether I hold the appropriate certificate when acting in that capacity.

You don't need a certificate to sit in the right seat and "act in [any] capacity", except for acting in the capacity of PIC or SIC, which requires, of course, a medical and a pilot certificate. If someone has an FAA legal opinion or a regulation that proves me wrong, I'm all ears.

Anyways, where are you getting the idea that sitting in the left or right seat has any bearing on... well anything? I'll eat my hat if the regs, or a FAA legal opinion ever as much as mention the side that a pilot sits at.

If the student is just that, a student, flying on their student certificate in the left seat, they may not have another passenger. If they are flying with a certificated pilot in the right seat, that pilot might want to have their CFI ticket in their possession. If they are flying in the right seat with only their commercial ticket in hand, it may be presumed that pilot is providing an unlawful charter function.

So If a non-CFI sits in the right seat, and his wife (or any other non-pilot) sits on the left seat, the FAA will presume the pilot is providing an unlawful charter? Do you have a legal reference for this?