HP/Complex Endorsement Interpretation

Good deal... Now the next time a CFI tells a student that he can't log the complex or HP time while getting trained for the endorsement, the student can:

Tell the CFI "Open your mouth and close your eyes, and you will get a big surprise!"
Crumple this Counsel opinion into a ball approximately 1 inch in diameter.
Stuff ball into CFI's throat.

Can you tell this is one of my pet peeves? ;)
 
there was seriously a question about this? can people not read?
 
tonycondon said:
there was seriously a question about this? can people not read?
Click to expand...
Yes there are PLENTY of CFI that think that you cannot log PIC while getting training in HP or complex without the endorsement. This was strike one for the CFI I ended up firing over my commercial training. The 2nd strike was when he tried to change what the regs said for XC flights for the commercial. The 3rd strike was when I showed him the regs and he responded he did not care what the regs showed, he was taught at his CFI academy that I had to fly ALL of the comm XCs as VFR and that I could not log any complex time until I was signed off by him.


THIS THREAD SHOULD BE A STICKY ONE!!!
 
isn't being able to read, write, and understand the english language a requirement for any pilot certificate?
 
smigaldi said:
One would think, but alas, reality is somewhat different than intent.
Click to expand...
Interesting how language is "clear" when you already know the answer, but this answer is =not= mandated by the simple sentence in 61.51.

The sentance reads: "only that flight time..." that meets certain requirements. If you look at the FAR 1.1 definition of "flight time" you'll see that it does not necessarily include a "passenger" (not PIC or required crewmeber) who is not receiving instruction.

But this is the way the FAA has interpreted 61.51 for years, so I'm still surprised that someone found it necessary to ask.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The sentance reads: "only that flight time..." that meets certain requirements. If you look at the FAR 1.1 definition of "flight time" you'll see that it does not necessarily include a "passenger" (not PIC or required crewmeber) who is not receiving instruction.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure exactly what you're saying there...other than logging "solo" time, whether there are passengers or not bears no relevance to logging.

In general, though, why is it so darn important to log PIC when you're not qualified to act as PIC? Most organizations (other than insurance companies) recognize disparities between logbooks and skill levels pretty quickly, and this this seems to me to be a good way to build that disparity.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I'm not sure exactly what you're saying there...other than logging "solo" time, whether there are passengers or not bears no relevance to logging.

In general, though, why is it so darn important to log PIC when you're not qualified to act as PIC? Most organizations (other than insurance companies) recognize disparities between logbooks and skill levels pretty quickly, and this this seems to me to be a good way to build that disparity.
Click to expand...

IR Cross country requirements, 50 hours PIC...
Commercial requirements...
ATP requirements...

And sorry it's not that hard to operate an extra lever (or plan descents a bit better) and switch that should disqualify someone from logging PIC.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I'm not sure exactly what you're saying there...other than logging "solo" time, whether there are passengers or not bears no relevance to logging.
Click to expand...
Of course it doesn't. I'm exactly saying, saying, look at the definition of "flight time" in FAR 1.1 and plug it into the 61.51 description of what you need to log PIC as sole manipulator.
 
EdFred said:
And sorry it's not that hard to operate an extra lever (or plan descents a bit better) and switch that should disqualify someone from logging PIC.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about disqualifying someone from logging PIC...I'm talking about disqualifying someone from a flying job because they can't fly to the level their logbook implies.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I'm not talking about disqualifying someone from logging PIC...I'm talking about disqualifying someone from a flying job because they can't fly to the level their logbook implies.
Click to expand...

Hell, that could happen regardless of endorsements.
 
EdFred said:
Hell, that could happen regardless of endorsements.
Click to expand...
could, and does. but there seems to be a correlation between the way pilots feel about logging rights and the way they feel about proficiency and judgment.

...and I'll revise my previous statement. It isn't that I haven't MET any, it's that I haven't FLOWN with any.
 
You should have flown with me when I took a flight review a couple of days after the last one lapsed.
 
Ron Levy said:
You should have flown with me when I took a flight review a couple of days after the last one lapsed.
Click to expand...

Amazing how our skills immediately deteriorate at the striking of midnight. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top