Different ways of Logging pic time a instructor?

Anonymouspireps

Anonymouspireps

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Apr 16, 2020
Messages
6
Display Name
Display name:
Anonymouspireps
Hey fellow pilots! Here’s an interesting scenario based question, it’s my first post so go easy on me lol.
Let’s say that I’m a multi engine flight instructor who owns a piper Seminole!
And got a buddy of mine who is a commercial multi engine rated pilot who needs to build his hours for the airlines.
And let’s say that I’m flying my piper Seminole xc from San Diego to Tampa Florida for fun!
My plan is to provide instruction to my buddy to help him be a better pilot along the way to Tampa florida.

My buddy is a low time pilot!(even though he is already a commercial multi pilot)
On what I know,
My buddy can log total time, pic, xc, me time and dual received
While me being the instructor can log total time, pic, xc, multi time and also dual given
Am i wrong somewhere above or am I right?
Many thanks in advance
 
Is your buddy going to be the sole manipulator of the controls for the entire trip? Maybe you will log the legs differently?

edit: hm maybe that doesn’t apply for an MEI situation... I will let the resident experts weigh in.
 
Brad Z said:
Before asking the question, did you review 61.51?
Click to expand...
Yup I already did! My conclusion is written on the bottom of the question, but just wanted everyone else’s opinion just in case!
 
The answer is "yes", BUT there is a very important caveat.

If he's logging dual received, and you are therefore logging dual given, there really needs to be some bona fide instruction going on. What's the test for this? Well, there is none, unless you get called in front of the FAA to explain it - which actually has happened before, as I recall it was pretty much this exact scenario. I believe the FAA did not look kindly on the two pilots were were basically just both logging time with no real instruction either necessary or being given. Hopefully someone else can provide the details.

There is, of course, lots of actual instruction that goes on with already-qualified pilots. Refresher training, new avionics, instrument currency, emergency procedures, mountain flying, etc. You certainly should be able to put together some kind of a useful syllabus. But if it's just the two of you flying to get lunch on a trip where he would have had no problem doing it without you there, and there is no real training being conducted, then I'd advise caution.
 
RussR said:
I believe the FAA did not look kindly on the two pilots were were basically just both logging time with no real instruction either necessary or being given. Hopefully someone else can provide the details.
Click to expand...
I hadn’t heard of that before...I’d be very interested in the details.
 
RussR said:
The answer is "yes", BUT there is a very important caveat.

If he's logging dual received, and you are therefore logging dual given, there really needs to be some bona fide instruction going on. What's the test for this? Well, there is none, unless you get called in front of the FAA to explain it - which actually has happened before, as I recall it was pretty much this exact scenario. I believe the FAA did not look kindly on the two pilots were were basically just both logging time with no real instruction either necessary or being given. Hopefully someone else can provide the details.

There is, of course, lots of actual instruction that goes on with already-qualified pilots. Refresher training, new avionics, instrument currency, emergency procedures, mountain flying, etc. You certainly should be able to put together some kind of a useful syllabus. But if it's just the two of you flying to get lunch on a trip where he would have had no problem doing it without you there, and there is no real training being conducted, then I'd advise caution.
Click to expand...
The case was really extreme. Two instructors traded giving each other instruction so they could both log pic and build multi time. "the two logbooks were mirror-images of each other for over 200 flights."

https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/OnODocuments/Aviation/4008.PDF
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
The case was really extreme. Two instructors traded giving each other instruction so they could both log pic and build multi time. "the two logbooks were mirror-images of each other for over 200 flights."

https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/OnODocuments/Aviation/4008.PDF
Click to expand...

I read the whole report! What a horror story! Thank you sir for this info! You just Might have saved my certificates! I didn’t know the faa was this balls deep strict about pic time! At the end of the day they broke the law and they had to suffer the consequences!
 
Anonymouspireps said:
I read the whole report! What a horror story! Thank you sir for this info! You just Might have saved my certificates! I didn’t know the faa was this balls deep strict about pic time! At the end of the day they broke the law and they had to suffer the consequences!
Click to expand...
They are not all that strict about PIC time. But they are extremely strict about FAR 61.59.

If what you plan for your flight really is giving your friend instruction, I wouldn't worry. None of us are perfect and we can all benefit from evaluation, tips, another set of eyes.
 
Anonymouspireps said:
I read the whole report! What a horror story! Thank you sir for this info! You just Might have saved my certificates! I didn’t know the faa was this balls deep strict about pic time! At the end of the day they broke the law and they had to suffer the consequences!
Click to expand...

Honestly, this thread should not have saved your certificates if were planning on appropriately logging flight time. In the case Mark cited, both dudes logged identical flight time, without logging flight instruction given or received. When questioned about it, they tried to go back and fill in safety pilot details and instruction given.

Assuming that you are giving instruction to your buddy, you will log it as instruction given and document the instruction in your training records. If he qualifies to log PIC time by virtue of being sole manipulator of the controls in an aircraft that he is rate in category and class, he can log PIC, even if he isn't acting as PIC.

There's no burden to create a syllabus, although it's not a bad idea for practicality sake. But the case Mark cited wasn't a case of instruction not being substantiated by a syllabus, it simply wasn't logged at all, in either pilot's log book.

Had each pilot taken turns logging instruction given, and instruction received, and included the comment that there was training on "VFR XC operations " with the flight time, instructors signature, cert #, and expiration per 61.51(h)(2)(ii), all would have been fine. But instead they were lazy logging flight time, got caught, then got caught trying to correct their error and got hit with falsification...resulting in the death penalty for their pilot certificates.
 
The accident occured in 1992. I wonder what happened to start all of this. Side note: AOPA legal is well worth the minimal cost.
 
Brad Z said:
Honestly, this thread should not have saved your certificates if were planning on appropriately logging flight time. In the case Mark cited, both dudes logged identical flight time, without logging flight instruction given or received. When questioned about it, they tried to go back and fill in safety pilot details and instruction given.

Assuming that you are giving instruction to your buddy, you will log it as instruction given and document the instruction in your training records. If he qualifies to log PIC time by virtue of being sole manipulator of the controls in an aircraft that he is rate in category and class, he can log PIC, even if he isn't acting as PIC.

There's no burden to create a syllabus, although it's not a bad idea for practicality sake. But the case Mark cited wasn't a case of instruction not being substantiated by a syllabus, it simply wasn't logged at all, in either pilot's log book.

Had each pilot taken turns logging instruction given, and instruction received, and included the comment that there was training on "VFR XC operations " with the flight time, instructors signature, cert #, and expiration per 61.51(h)(2)(ii), all would have been fine. But instead they were lazy logging flight time, got caught, then got caught trying to correct their error and got hit with falsification...resulting in the death penalty for their pilot certificates.
Click to expand...
One can pull all sorts of lessons from that case. And I agree that it should not be taken as a warning against giving legitimate instruction, even in less common situations like while taking a trip with a friend.

But I don't agree that two pilots doing over 200 flights together over the course of either 7 or 17 months (there's an inconsistency on that in the decision), claiming that they involved trading student/instructor roles on a 50/50 basis, would have been "just fine" even if contemporaneously logged as such. The tone of the opinion suggests it would have been treated as a sham.
 
flyinhood said:
The accident occured in 1992. I wonder what happened to start all of this. Side note: AOPA legal is well worth the minimal cost.
Click to expand...
A simple and standard post-accident logbook review. You might be surprised how often an ASI finds a separate violation in the course of an investigation. And if you are picturing some ASI with evil intent burning the midnight oil combing through a logbook just to find stuff, no. It is more like an IFR altitude deviation where the ASI asks for copies of the last few pages to show currency and...oops!
 
Brad Z said:
Had each pilot taken turns logging instruction given, and instruction received, and included the comment that there was training on "VFR XC operations " with the flight time, instructors signature, cert #, and expiration per 61.51(h)(2)(ii), all would have been fine.
Click to expand...

midlifeflyer said:
But I don't agree that two pilots doing over 200 flights together over the course of either 7 or 17 months (there's an inconsistency on that in the decision), claiming that they involved trading student/instructor roles on a 50/50 basis, would have been "just fine" even if contemporaneously logged as such. The tone of the opinion suggests it would have been treated as a sham.
Click to expand...

I agree with Mark. 200 entries of "VFR XC Operations" would likely have looked just as fake and suspicious. "So, what did you cover on each flight?" "Um, how to go direct-to on the GPS..." "Really, 200 times?" (Yes, I know this case was from the early 90's.)

While what the FAA and NTSB hung them on was falsification because they both logged the same amount of PIC with NO mention of "training", I suggest that even if they had put "dual received" and "dual given", it would not have changed the ultimate outcome, just the wording of the decision.
 
midlifeflyer said:
But I don't agree that two pilots doing over 200 flights together over the course of either 7 or 17 months (there's an inconsistency on that in the decision), claiming that they involved trading student/instructor roles on a 50/50 basis, would have been "just fine" even if contemporaneously logged as such. The tone of the opinion suggests it would have been treated as a sham.
Click to expand...

Based on the following, I don't think the FAA necessarily had an issue with logging the flights as instruction given/received, but that it was attempted to be done after the fact:

"Respondents argue that they intended to complete the flight entries and sign the logbook to indicate when instruction was given, but that they were behind in their paperwork. Administrator's position that respondents never intended to correct the logbooks and only did so in an effort to justify having identical PIC times after they got caught. Thus, he asserts, they intentionally made false entries in their logbooks."

I think if they had completed their logbooks originally the case would have been very different, as the FAA would have had to prove that instruction was not taking place. They did that in this case, such as using the April 10, 1992 flight as an example, proving that one of the pilots could not receive dual instruction when their head was under the panel fixing a switch.

My issue with that part was that they seemed a little confused by the logging PIC versus acting as PIC thing. While they correctly noted that 61.51 may allow both pilots to log PIC time when instruction is given, they don't seem to clarify that logging PIC is not the same as acting PIC authority.
 
RussR said:
I agree with Mark. 200 entries of "VFR XC Operations" would likely have looked just as fake and suspicious. "So, what did you cover on each flight?" "Um, how to go direct-to on the GPS..." "Really, 200 times?"

While what the FAA and NTSB hung them on was falsification because they both logged the same amount of PIC with NO mention of "training", I suggest that even if they had put "dual received" and "dual given", it would not have changed the ultimate outcome, just the wording of the decision.
Click to expand...
I agree to a certain extent. Had they logged it properly, the FAA would have eventually found an inconsistency such as the April 10, 1992 flight to hang them on. But I think if the log entries were tight from the beginning the FAA would have had much less of an excuse to go on a logbook fishing expedition. It was when they were "updated" that the FAA seemed fit to question further the validity of the flight training.

The concept of sharing flight time through hundreds of hours of safety piloting or flight training is common. There's no limit on how much of it you can do, it's just that it has to be done, and properly logged.
 
Brad Z said:
They did that in this case, such as using the April 10, 1992 flight as an example, proving that one of the pilots could not receive dual instruction when their head was under the panel fixing a switch.
Click to expand...

That part of the decision seemed really silly to me, as if they were really stretching to find something. They essentially said "If the trainee takes their hands off the controls for any reason, hah HAH! It's no longer dual instruction!" So, basically, if as the CFI I'm demonstrating something to a trainee, or they need me to take the controls so they can put on the hood, or grab a water bottle, or whatever, they can't log that time as dual instruction (or PIC). So I'm supposed to add up the amount of time they take their hands off the controls, and adjust the amount of time in their logbook accordingly? That's obviously absurd. 42 seconds for unusual attitudes, 30 seconds while you got a drink, 12 seconds while you adjusted your seat - better knock off 0.1 of dual received and PIC just to be safe... Who on earth does that?

I would, of course, love to know the details of what they were trying to troubleshoot while in the air!

Brad Z said:
The concept of sharing flight time through hundreds of hours of safety piloting or flight training is common. There's no limit on how much of it you can do, it's just that it has to be done, and properly logged.
Click to expand...

Sure, the concept is there. But at least in your safety pilot example the justification is right there in the logbook. But for dual instruction when both pilots are otherwise perfectly capable of making the flight, I would suggest that there is (or should be) a somewhat higher standard. My suggestion above of a syllabus, while not the only solution, would clearly meet that burden of proof. And would show at least an attempt to actually improve skills through instruction. Heck, any two CFIs flying together for an extended period of time, swapping CFI duties with the intent of logging time, should be able to easily put together a "road map" of where they want to go and what they want to accomplish on each flight. That would be really easy and would remove most doubt about the flights if it ever came up later. It wouldn't even have to be very detailed - virtually anything would be better than nothing.

The same applies to the OP's question if only one of the pilots is a CFI, and the other is already multi-rated. If you at least have a notional plan, and are doing at least some kind of instruction on every flight, it would be very difficult to find fault with it like the case above. I have done exactly this type of thing (flying with a friend) and I always make sure he or she learns something useful.
 
RussR said:
That part of the decision seemed really silly to me, as if they were really stretching to find something. They essentially said "If the trainee takes their hands off the controls for any reason, hah HAH! It's no longer dual instruction!" So, basically, if as the CFI I'm demonstrating something to a trainee, or they need me to take the controls so they can put on the hood, or grab a water bottle, or whatever, they can't log that time as dual instruction (or PIC). So I'm supposed to add up the amount of time they take their hands off the controls, and adjust the amount of time in their logbook accordingly? That's obviously absurd. 42 seconds for unusual attitudes, 30 seconds while you got a drink, 12 seconds while you adjusted your seat - better knock off 0.1 of dual received and PIC just to be safe... Who on earth does that?

I would, of course, love to know the details of what they were trying to troubleshoot while in the air!



Sure, the concept is there. But at least in your safety pilot example the justification is right there in the logbook. But for dual instruction when both pilots are otherwise perfectly capable of making the flight, I would suggest that there is (or should be) a somewhat higher standard. My suggestion above of a syllabus, while not the only solution, would clearly meet that burden of proof. And would show at least an attempt to actually improve skills through instruction. Heck, any two CFIs flying together for an extended period of time, swapping CFI duties with the intent of logging time, should be able to easily put together a "road map" of where they want to go and what they want to accomplish on each flight. That would be really easy and would remove most doubt about the flights if it ever came up later. It wouldn't even have to be very detailed - virtually anything would be better than nothing.

The same applies to the OP's question if only one of the pilots is a CFI, and the other is already multi-rated. If you at least have a notional plan, and are doing at least some kind of instruction on every flight, it would be very difficult to find fault with it like the case above. I have done exactly this type of thing (flying with a friend) and I always make sure he or she learns something useful.
Click to expand...

Same here. My point was just that flight instruction being useful, directed, or structured is not a legal prerequisite to it being valid. So at a minimum, it just has to have happened and logged appropriately. But yes, having a notional plan, along with evidence of that plan, would certainly work in your favor if there was a question about the validity of your logbooks, and reduce the likelihood of an inspector fishing for inconsistencies.

in the case cited above, there was discussion of supposed notebooks that the respondents maintained that contained more details about the flights and the instruction that took place. Had the respondents provided those notes, they may have avoided a falsification charge. I suspect ultimately the notebooks either 1) didn't exist, or 2) didn't contain what the respondents alleged and therefore weren't provided as evidence.
 
Brad Z said:
Based on the following, I don't think the FAA necessarily had an issue with logging the flights as instruction given/received, but that it was attempted to be done after the fact:

"Respondents argue that they intended to complete the flight entries and sign the logbook to indicate when instruction was given, but that they were behind in their paperwork. Administrator's position that respondents never intended to correct the logbooks and only did so in an effort to justify having identical PIC times after they got caught. Thus, he asserts, they intentionally made false entries in their logbooks."

I think if they had completed their logbooks originally the case would have been very different, as the FAA would have had to prove that instruction was not taking place. They did that in this case, such as using the April 10, 1992 flight as an example, proving that one of the pilots could not receive dual instruction when their head was under the panel fixing a switch.

My issue with that part was that they seemed a little confused by the logging PIC versus acting as PIC thing. While they correctly noted that 61.51 may allow both pilots to log PIC time when instruction is given, they don't seem to clarify that logging PIC is not the same as acting PIC authority.
Click to expand...
We are going to disagree on this but as I said there are a number of lessons which can be taken from the case. They are not mutually exclusive.

I think our difference of opinion is that, seeing logging 200 cross-instructional flights over the same time period in a co-owned airplane which are proper in form, , you think the FAA would have said, "OK" and gone away. I think the ASI would have smelled a rat and looked deeper. I get that even from the quote you cited, although these two morons made it easy.

BTW I don't think exchanging safety pilot duties on every flight is analogous. Instructors providing instruction have levels of responsibility both in degree and in kind than a private pilot whose primary duty as a crewmember is see-and-avoid.
 
Who logs the time if the autopilot is on for 2.0 hours and no one is touch manipulating the controls?
 
TommyG said:
Who logs the time if the autopilot is on for 2.0 hours and no one is touch manipulating the controls?
Click to expand...
How does someone get current in a two-pilot airplane when the Pilot Monitoring is manipulating some of the flight controls? (Flaps, lift dump, etc....I’ve been told by the FAA that com and nav radios are considered flight controls...:rolleyes:
 
Brad Z said:
Assuming that you are giving instruction to your buddy, you will log it as instruction given and document the instruction in your training records.
Click to expand...
This is the key. Instructors must be given flight instruction in order to log PIC as an instructor. When a CFI gives instruction, they must log the instruction in accordance with part 61. Since 200 shared hours in seven months via alternating dual given/received is rather unusual, it would be a good idea to ensure that it is well documented in the event that it is ever challenged.

When I was teaching, one tool that I used for both lesson planning and documenting the flight was a half-sheet sized form which was then delivered into a four-square. At the top of each square I would put the data, aircraft number, student name, airports, and flight time. In the rest of the square I'd write down the maneuvers I was planning to teach on the lesson. During the flight I'd refer to this for the maneuvers. I could add additional topics/maneuvers covered as well as cross out ones that we didn't get to. When doing patter work I'd keep a landings tally in the corner so I wouldn't lose count. I would use the form for filling out the student's logbook after each flight then, later, for filling out my own logbook. The four-squares were printed only on one side of the half-sheet so I had the back for drawing visual aids when necessary while teaching. I saved all of these forms in case there was ever a question about what I had taught a student in the future. I still have then dating back as far as ~1987.

In my opinion, what these two were trying to do could have been done completely legally. If they both took the instruction seriously, and documented it thoroughly, they would not only have been able to successfully defend their logbooks but they would have been better pilots as the result of the constant instruction and critique.

TommyG said:
Who logs the time if the autopilot is on for 2.0 hours and no one is touch manipulating the controls?
Click to expand...
Whomever is manipulating the autopilot's controls.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top