CFI refused to log a flight

Rigged4Flight said:
And open yourself up to the possibility of a lawsuit. :nono:
Click to expand...

If you are truly right, one is not scared to be sued for giving the right information, its a review, you can't sue everybody for giving reviews people do it all day online its the age we are in, if you can't handle it don't be in business, or go live in a 3rd world country with no web..
 
Since it was not me it's not my place to publicize anything, its hearsay. Plus my information is limited as well.
 
Rigged4Flight said:
And open yourself up to the possibility of a lawsuit. :nono:
Click to expand...

Suit will probably never go anywhere if it is a true statement of an experience with the company. Angie's List is certainly not flooded with law suits. Their have been a couple, but I do not think they went anywhere.
 
Just a thought which emerged after reading this thread: What if the individual appeared at the FBO and stated he wanted some time in a twin but did not want to take a multi course with them. It would be possible, (but not ethical), for a CFI with private multi privileges but not holding a multi on his commercial nor holding a MEI to take the guy out. That might explain why he would not sign off.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
Just a thought which emerged after reading this thread: What if the individual appeared at the FBO and stated he wanted some time in a twin but did not want to take a multi course with them. It would be possible, (but not ethical), for a CFI with private multi privileges but not holding a multi on his commercial nor holding a MEI to take the guy out.
Click to expand...
Possible, perhaps, but not legal to charge the individual even a penny for the flight.

The only way that individual could get "some time in a twin" would be to receive training from an authorized instructor, i.e., one with ME ratings on both his/her Flight Instructor and Commercial Pilot certificates. Ref: 61.195(b). It could be possible to make it a "sightseeing ride" if the FBO's pilot had a Commercial Pilot certificate with ME rating and the FBO held a 91.147 Letter of Authorization, but then the individual would not be allowed to manipulate the airplane's controls, and therefore could not legally log anything (standard in such an LoA, I believe). Finally, if that "CFI" did not hold ME privileges at the Commercial Pilot level, there could be no legal charge for the flight. Ref: 61.113(a)
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Possible, perhaps, but not legal to charge the individual even a penny for the flight.

The only way that individual could get "some time in a twin" would be to receive training from an authorized instructor, i.e., one with ME ratings on both his/her Flight Instructor and Commercial Pilot certificates. It could be possible to make it a "sightseeing ride" if the FBO's pilot had a Commercial Pilot certificate with ME rating and the FBO held a 91.147 Letter of Authorization, but then the individual would not be allowed to occupy the left seat or manipulate the airplane's controls, and could not legally log anything. Finally, if that "CFI" did not hold ME privileges at the Commercial Pilot level, there could be no legal charge for the flight.
Click to expand...

Correct. But the 'Instructor" not holding a MEI is the only reason I can imagine for refusal to sign off. Something stinks here.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
Just a thought which emerged after reading this thread: What if the individual appeared at the FBO and stated he wanted some time in a twin but did not want to take a multi course with them. It would be possible, (but not ethical), for a CFI with private multi privileges but not holding a multi on his commercial nor holding a MEI to take the guy out. That might explain why he would not sign off.
Click to expand...

Other hypothetical (isn't that fun).
Pilot held a :
- commercial multi-engine
- commercial single-engine
- CFI single engine
- second class medical
- no CFI-multi-engine
...and this was a legit demo flight for sales purposes, with the potential buyer occupying the left seat.



The only thing that counts is whether it was agreed prior to the flight that this was an instructional flight. Elements that would support that this was instruction would be :
- a bill that reflects ground instruction prior to the first multi-engine lesson.
- a bill for 'instruction'
Also supporting the claim that this was an instructional flight would be the logbook endorsement where the CFI verified the candidates US citizenship prior to commencing instruction towards a rating.

Just because an instructor was on board of a plane does not mean that flight instruction has taken place. I do see the CFIs point that he doesn't want to have his name in someones logbook unless he actually taught him something.
 
weilke said:
Other hypothetical (isn't that fun).
Pilot held a :
- commercial multi-engine
- commercial single-engine
- CFI single engine
- second class medical
- no CFI-multi-engine
...and this was a legit demo flight for sales purposes, with the potential buyer occupying the left seat.
Click to expand...
Easy enough to find out if the airplane was for sale, but the OP said it was about an ME training course. And folks generally aren't charged for a sales demo flight in a light plane.
 
gismo said:
Not if you're speaking to a federal LEO agent.
Click to expand...

From the Federal Rules of Evidence:

Hearsay. “Hearsay” means a statement that: (1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and
(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.
Click to expand...
 
Ron Levy said:
Easy enough to find out if the airplane was for sale, but the OP said it was about an ME training course. And folks generally aren't charged for a sales demo flight in a light plane.
Click to expand...

I would hate to be the seller.
I know my flight school still charges for a sales demo of the Carbon Cub. I have not flown one yet, but you can bet I am going to spend some money in it, even if I can never solo it.
 
MachFly said:
It was a unique case, some random student wouldn't normally be flying with them. It's a long story.
Click to expand...
See all the worms coming out of that "logging time" can?

Since there is no required amount of dual instruction time for the ME rating, you don't actually need the instructor's signature. Log it, print the guy's name, if you wish, or not, and just don't use the time in any certification qualification.

Just another suggestion on skinnin the cat. :wink2:
 
I think this might have more than just flight time involved in it. It could also very well be related to 9/11. I was yakking with one of the owners at GS flight school at KSEE and he was telling me about the day the government agents swept through all of his records regarding flight students. They were checking to make sure all foreign students were properly identified as such, that they had TSA background checks and so fourth.

This flight may not have met the requirements of training foreign students. It is up to the school to make positive identification of all students nationality, U.S. or not, or bad government things can happen to them.

Since the school in question knew this was a one time flight, they may not have wanted to bother with all the paperwork involved with training any student, especially multi engine.

-John
 
nosehair said:
Since there is no required amount of dual instruction time for the ME rating, you don't actually need the instructor's signature. Log it, print the guy's name, if you wish, or not, and just don't use the time in any certification qualification.
Click to expand...
That's the problem -- you can't legally log it because without you holding an ME rating or an authorized instructor giving you training, it doesn't meet the requirements to be logged. Yes, in theory, you can stick anything you want in your logbook if you feel like it, including time in seat 19A in a 737, but all that does is pollute your logbook and give later reviewers the impression that your log is full of bogus entries. If you want to keep a separate journal of aviation experiences that don't meet the requirements in 61.51 to be entered in your pilot logbook, go ahead, but putting things like that in the logbook you intend to present to the FAA, examiners, FBO's, employers, etc, is counterproductive.
 
John Baker said:
I think this might have more than just flight time involved in it. It could also very well be related to 9/11. I was yakking with one of the owners at GS flight school at KSEE and he was telling me about the day the government agents swept through all of his records regarding flight students. They were checking to make sure all foreign students were properly identified as such, that they had TSA background checks and so fourth.

This flight may not have met the requirements of training foreign students. It is up to the school to make positive identification of all students nationality, U.S. or not, or bad government things can happen to them.

Since the school in question knew this was a one time flight, they may not have wanted to bother with all the paperwork involved with training any student, especially multi engine.

-John
Click to expand...

The cryptic 'It was a unique case, some random student wouldn't normally be flying with them. It's a long story' suggests that this was not a regular flight-school and not a regular training situation.

Before starting training towards a rating, the CFI has to document that the post-911 security theater has been complied with (either by documenting US citizenship, a TSA 'permission to train' or the fact that no such permission is required). Not having gone through those steps would be one of the reasons why the CFI did not consider the flight to be 'flight training'.
 
John Baker said:
I think this might have more than just flight time involved in it. It could also very well be related to 9/11. I was yakking with one of the owners at GS flight school at KSEE and he was telling me about the day the government agents swept through all of his records regarding flight students. They were checking to make sure all foreign students were properly identified as such, that they had TSA background checks and so fourth.

This flight may not have met the requirements of training foreign students. It is up to the school to make positive identification of all students nationality, U.S. or not, or bad government things can happen to them.

Since the school in question knew this was a one time flight, they may not have wanted to bother with all the paperwork involved with training any student, especially multi engine.
Click to expand...
One-time marketing flights are exempt from the TSA paperwork. See http://www.aopa.org/tsa_rule/alienft.html for details.
 
Ron Levy said:
That's the problem -- you can't legally log it because without you holding an ME rating or an authorized instructor giving you training, it doesn't meet the requirements to be logged. Yes, in theory, you can stick anything you want in your logbook if you feel like it, including time in seat 19A in a 737, but all that does is pollute your logbook and give later reviewers the impression that your log is full of bogus entries. If you want to keep a separate journal of aviation experiences that don't meet the requirements in 61.51 to be entered in your pilot logbook, go ahead, but putting things like that in the logbook you intend to present to the FAA, examiners, FBO's, employers, etc, is counterproductive.
Click to expand...
Normally, what you say is true, but in this case, the flight actually occurred with a qualified MEI giving actual instruction. The fact that it's not endorsed (signed) by the CFI means it is not usable as a requirement, which can be ignored in this case.(I think)
But I didn't mean to imply to just put whatever you want in your logbook, either.
 
nosehair said:
Normally, what you say is true, but in this case, the flight actually occurred with a qualified MEI giving actual instruction. The fact that it's not endorsed (signed) by the CFI means it is not usable as a requirement, which can be ignored in this case.(I think)
Click to expand...
Past cases tell us if the FAA finds out, they will not ignore it, and the CFI who gave training without signing the log will receive a suspension. As an instructor, you have no choice in the matter -- the regulation is imperative. For any training flight, the instructor must sign the trainee's logbook -- no ifs, ands or buts.
 
So I guess just slapping him silly wouldn't be an option?
 
I guess I am a little ignorant here. What exactly does it mean when a CFI(I) signs your log book for a flight? What I mean is does the signature just reflect you actually took the flight, or does it mean you accomplished the lesson the flight was set up to do as documented in your log book. For example, lets say you go on a flight and for whatever freeze and the entire second half of the cross country dual is flown by the CFI(I) and notyou, what does the signature mean? I realize my example is a stretch.

Doug
 
He must sign that he gave the instruction. Even instruction that was unproductive needs to be logged. If the instructor decides that he stopped giving instruction and ended up just flying the plane with an incapacitated student, he still has to sign the log book. If he wants to claim that only .5 hours of instruction was given during 2 hours of flying, if that reflects reality, then it is ok.
 
flyingron said:
He must sign that he gave the instruction. Even instruction that was unproductive needs to be logged. If the instructor decides that he stopped giving instruction and ended up just flying the plane with an incapacitated student, he still has to sign the log book. If he wants to claim that only .5 hours of instruction was given during 2 hours of flying, if that reflects reality, then it is ok.
Click to expand...
Thanks.
 
Steve Foley said:
From the Federal Rules of Evidence:
Click to expand...

You left out the paragraphs that are the exceptions that exclude certain out of court statements from the definition of hearsay.

Also, for what it's worth, there are a whole litany of exceptions to the general rule excluding hearsay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top