checkout aint dual?

kgruber said:
Say you were a young CFI and worked at an FBO that just happened to have an Aero Commander Shrike. Suppose they had a 5 hr check out requirement, and Bob Hoover walked in to rent the airplane.

After the flight would you log Bob's logbook as "instruction?"
Click to expand...
You bet I would. Consider the bragging rights!
 
Personally, I prefer to avoid "dual" in case my buddies at the TSA later decide that it was "training in furtherance of a rating" for which their permission was required beforehand. If it's not logged as instruction, the issue never exists. Doesn't mean I can't learn something.
 
I'd bet money the CFI just made a mistake writing the entry in your logbook. Give him a call.

All checkouts I do involve a logbook entry stating what was done, are endorsed by me, and have time under the Dual Received column. I've never met an instructor that does it differently.
 
ihv7qn8.jpg
 
midlifeflyer said:
I'm going to make the wild and crazy assumption that by

James is referring to events that are considered to be training that takes place in an aircraft in flight.

OTOH, do you have a regulation or interpretation with a definition of the word "training" saying those events are not to support your statement? I'm only aware of one thing a CFI commonly does as CFI that has been specifically interpreted to be not training for logging purposes.
Click to expand...
All I have is the FAA definition I quoted above:
Flight training means that training, other than ground training, received from an authorized instructor in flight in an aircraft.
Click to expand...
...plus the following definition of "training time", also from 14 CFR 61.1:
Training time means training received--
(i) In flight from an authorized instructor;
(ii) On the ground from an authorized instructor; or
(iii) In a flight simulator or flight training device from an authorized instructor.
Click to expand...
...but there is no definition of "training" I can find in Part 61.

Some folks make pretty clear that they think a "checkout" is merely the observation of their skills and proficiency by another party, and don't consider it to be training. We also know that some "checkouts" are conducted by non-instructors. Obviously, if the checker is not an authorized instructor, it cannot be training. So, does the fact that the checker holds a CFI ticket (i.e., qualifies as an authorized instructor) automatically make it training? :dunno: I think not.

At the end of the day, when a checkout is conducted by someone who qualifies as an authorized instructor, I think the decision as to whether or not that "checkout" is "training" it is not automatic, but rather lies with the checkee and CFI-holding checker's agreement that it is or is not training. It should then be documented in the checkee's logbook accordingly. I also think that this decision is independent of whether or not the checker is getting paid for his/her time (something the FAA/NTSB have never to my knowledge held was an issue in deciding whether a CFI was giving flight training or not).
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
OTOH all of the checkouts I've received (and there have been a lot) have been logged and endorsed by the instructor as dual. Truthfully, I have never been checked out where I did not learn something from the instructor, even in aircraft that I've flown more hours than the instructor or even those I've taught in.

Advantages? Especially for the young CFI, time building logging it as PIC for himself (there's a theory floating around that the CFI can't log it as PIC unless he also logs it as dual for the student).

For the student? I guess the same things that makes the OP in this case wants the time to be logged as dual. Meeting real or perceived requirements for something (it doesn't have to be an FAA certificate or rating).
Click to expand...

Interesting. I just had an IPC with a friend in the right seat without pay for his time . He put down the time as his PIC time, while mine was logged only as dual. This seemed to be unusual by my recollection. It was not technically needed given his many thousands of hours, and I certainly did not need it as PIC time specifically as well. He had a need/desire to actually log PIC time in my PA28-181 to go along with his multiple PIC hours in his C425. After thinking about it after, I speculated that his doing do so could have been necessary as the flight was actually filed IFR while I was in the second 6 month period after my last IPC and not technically able to file, or that it enabled him to establish currency in my plane( as his was almost all turbine time of late), should he do a pinch hitter for my wife. It was not important enough for me to ask as I got my endorsement and the price was right.:yes:
 
Sac Arrow said:
I've never logged a checkout as dual, and I don't think any CFI giving me one has ever endorsed it as such.
Click to expand...
I have, many times, on both sides of that (and that includes both "training" under the current rules and "dual" under the old rules). I've also had checkouts that were not logged as training. So, I'll stick with my post immediately above -- it's not automatic either way, but rather something on which the two pilots involved must agree based on their own sense of whether or not any training was accomplished, and irrespective of whether the checker is getting paid.
 
MajorTurbulence said:
Interesting. I just had an IPC with a friend in the right seat without pay for his time . He put down the time as his PIC time, while mine was logged only as dual.
Click to expand...
Well, nothing says you must log it as PIC time, but there's plenty from the Chief Counsel saying you can legally log it as PIC time. Since it's your signature at the bottom of the page which attests to the accuracy of all entries, and the CFI's signature only attests to the training given, there's no reason you can't just put that time in the PIC column on that line yourself after the fact.

This seemed to be unusual by my recollection. It was not technically needed given his many thousands of hours, and I certainly did not need it as PIC time specifically as well. He had a need/desire to actually log PIC time in my PA28-181 to go along with his multiple PIC hours in his C425. After thinking about it after, I speculated that his doing do so could have been necessary as the flight was actually filed IFR while I was in the second 6 month period after my last IPC and not technically able to file, or that it enabled him to establish currency in my plane( as his was almost all turbine time of late), should he do a pinch hitter for my wife. It was not important enough for me to ask as I got my endorsement and the price was right.:yes:
Click to expand...
That would explain why he would have to be the PIC on that flight, but it's not relevant to whether either of you log it as PIC time. Per 14 CFR 61.51(e)(1)(i), since you were the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which you were rated, you can log it as PIC time even though you were both not the PIC and not legally current per 61.57 to be the PIC. In fact, just as when someone is obtaining instrument training for the instrument rating under IFR, you could have logged it as PIC time even if you didn't have an instrument rating.

BTW, the fact that he also got to log it as PIC time under the "authorized instructor giving training" clause in 61.51(e) (so two people were legally logging PIC time simultaneously) is irrelevant. The only thing that really matters in that regard is that both of you understood that there was only one actual PIC (him), and that as the actual PIC he was the sole and final authority over the operation of that aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Exactly. The fact that I also have a CFI ticket would be irrelevant. And that's not a "rogue air-taxi operation" if I'm not supplying the airplane. Example: Several times after completing an IR practical test, my trainee has felt too wiped out to fly home, and asked me to take that leg. No training, but I'm flying his/her plane from the right seat, so I log it but it doesn't go in the aircraft owner's log as training or anything else even though I'm still getting paid to do it.
Click to expand...

Oh boy.

Ok, last night I was flying for work, I was paid as an ATP on a 135, I also hold a gold seal CFI, GI, medic and a few other things, no one cares or pays for that.

Now if you're flying folks around and they are paying for your CPL/ATP ticket, that ain't instruction wether or not you're a CFI, you better hope you're not holding out / playing part 135 / or conducting a scenic without a LOA.

If I'm paying someone to wear their CFI hat, they will put it in as dual and sign, otherwise it ain't instruction, heck what would be your defense from me taking my recipt or bank statement to the FSDO and say you charged me for a scenic flight, charter flight, etc.

If you're checking someone out, brushing up, etc log it dual and with the damn thing.
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
Now if you're flying folks around and they are paying for your CPL/ATP ticket, that ain't instruction wether or not you're a CFI, and you better hope you're not holding out / playing part 135 / or conducting a scenic without a LOA.
Click to expand...
As I said -- his/her plane; I just provided pilot services. No different than any corporate pilot out there.

If I'm paying someone to wear their CFI hat, they will put it in as dual and sign, otherwise it ain't instruction, heck what would be your defense from me taking my recipt or bank statement to the FSDO and say you charged me for a scenic flight, charter flight, etc.
Click to expand...
Good luck making that argument based solely on your bank statement or a receipt which doesn't say "flight instructor services" and nothing more.

If you're checking someone out, brushing up, etc log it dual and with the damn thing.
Click to expand...
Again, there is no regulation prohibiting that, just as there is none which says it must be done that way.
 
Last edited:
From what i remember when i got checked out in a 172 it seems like my CFI gave me PIC for it, but i cant remember, maybe it depends on what your CFI does.
 
Ryanb said:
From what i remember when i got checked out in a 172 it seems like my CFI gave me PIC for it, but i cant remember, maybe it depends on what your CFI does.
Click to expand...
Not really. It's not a matter of what the instructor "gives you", it's a matter of whether or not you qualify to log it as PIC time per 14 CFR 61.51(e). If the instructor doesn't put it on the line, nothing says you can't put it on the line later if you legally qualify to log it as such.
 
Ron Levy said:
.

Good luck making that argument based solely on your bank statement or a receipt which doesn't say "flight instructor services" and nothing more.

.
Click to expand...

Ain't my problem bud, if I go tell the FSDO that Capt Ron took me for a charter flight to another airport for a full stop and back, I don't have to prove anything.

Now when the Feds ask you if you're doing charter flights against the regs, you say what? When they look in my log, nothing there... Id say you're going to be the one trying to make arguments.
 
Last edited:
MajorTurbulence said:
Interesting. I just had an IPC with a friend in the right seat without pay for his time . He put down the time as his PIC time, while mine was logged only as dual. This seemed to be unusual by my recollection.
Click to expand...
Entirely possible your friend continues under the long-held misunderstanding that only one of you may log PIC at a time. Or simply forgot to put it in your PIC column.

OTOH I'm sure some could argue that an IPC is not dual since, unlike a FR, an IPC is not described as "training."
 
Ron Levy said:
Well, nothing says you must log it as PIC time, but there's plenty from the Chief Counsel saying you can legally log it as PIC time. Since it's your signature at the bottom of the page which attests to the accuracy of all entries, and the CFI's signature only attests to the training given, there's no reason you can't just put that time in the PIC column on that line yourself after the fact.
Click to expand...
What signature on the bottom of the page? Got a reg requiring that? My last signed logbook page was almost 10 years ago. A CFI I was going to fly with asked me to send him the last three pages of my logbook and to sign them so I did; happy to comply with any reasonable request. Of course, we didn't log dual on that flight since I didn't bring my logbook with me.

The only "sign the logbook" reg I'm aware of is the one requiring the instructor's signature when training is logged.

(At this point I don't even have a "page" to sign)

(And I'm not disagreeing at all that the pilot has the authority to add time loggable as PIC to the PIC column)
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
Ain't my problem bud, if I go tell the FSDO that Capt Ron took me for a barter flight to another airport for a full stop and back, I don't have to prove anything.

Now when the Feds ask you if you're doing charter flights against the regs, you say what? When they look in my log, nothing there... Id say you're going to be the one trying to make arguments.
Click to expand...
Not very likely. But if Ron does have to go through the expense of defending a Partt 119 violation because you decided it wold be fun to intentionally lie to an investigation arm of the government, it should be fun to watch.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Not very likely. But if Ron does have to go through the expense of defending a Partt 119 violation because you decided it wold be fun to intentionally lie to an investigation arm of the government, it should be fun to watch.
Click to expand...


Point being, if you're being paid to wear the CFI hat, log it dual and sign.
 
James331 said:
Point being, if you're being paid to wear the CFI hat, log it dual and sign.
Click to expand...
I agree. The question which you fail to address is whether or not one is "being paid to wear the CFI hat" (i.e., whether one is actually acting as an instructor) when one is administering a "checkout". As repeatedly noted above, it is by no means certain either way without further facts whether the person administering a "checkout" is doing that, even if that person holds a CFI certificate.
 
Ron Levy said:
I agree. The question which you fail to address is whether or not one is "being paid to wear the CFI hat" (i.e., whether one is actually acting as an instructor) when one is administering a "checkout". As repeatedly noted above, it is by no means certain either way without further facts whether the person administering a "checkout" is doing that, even if that person holds a CFI certificate.
Click to expand...

You are wearing the CFI hat.


Well ask yourself if the flight where you are paid would be legal otherwise.

If its a checkout, chances are its not the owners plane, you fly as a CPL, well it could be considered a scenic (you have a LOA and anti drug program?), land at another airport now your in 135 terriority.

As a CFI its all gravey, also if you're being paid to preform a checkout you're not doing a good job if you don't teach the guy SOMETHING, Id call that instruction.

If you're giving instruction, log it, dual or dual/pic, then sign it.

You're going to live or die by your documentation now days.

Pick the safest and most logical path and document, document, document.
 
RotorAndWing said:
peter-griffin-who-the-hell-cares_zps323995e3.jpg
Click to expand...

Ron has demonstrated that HE cares more than the rest of us combined, and that he can find the exception to every generality, which he then uses to try to disprove the generalities (though they still general hold).
 
JeffDG said:
Personally, I prefer to avoid "dual" in case my buddies at the TSA later decide that it was "training in furtherance of a rating" for which their permission was required beforehand.
Click to expand...

Ok, this comment caught my attention. To what does this refer?
 
James331 said:
Ain't my problem bud, if I go tell the FSDO that Capt Ron took me for a charter flight to another airport for a full stop and back, I don't have to prove anything.

Now when the Feds ask you if you're doing charter flights against the regs, you say what? When they look in my log, nothing there... Id say you're going to be the one trying to make arguments.
Click to expand...

Let's see. You've told John Collins he was wrong (wrongly) on a matter in which he is a widely acknowledged expert. Now you are arguing CFI issues with another widely acknowledged expert. And you're pretty much wrong here as well.

I expect that next you'll be telling Wally how approaches should be designed, or giving Jesse advice on information technology.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 
On no I offended the forum gods lmao

So where was I wrong on this thread, post it.


RotorAndWing said:
This coming from a wet-behind-the-ears low time inexperienced pilot. :rolleyes:

:rofl:
Click to expand...
Yep, 250hr wonder here lol

So back to the topic, you're saying more documentation is a bad thing as a ex ASI?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top